With reference to these Standing Orders, I would like to know if this is the last opportunity that the Seanad will have of dealing with them, or whether there will be any further opportunity of doing so.
Public Business. - Report of Committee on Procedure Relative to Standing Orders.
Cathaoirleach
I think this is the only opportunity Senators will have of dealing with them, except, of course, in the case of a Standing Order referred back to the Committee. In that case the Standing Order would come before the House again.
I think the most convenient procedure for the House to adopt in dealing with these Standing Orders would be to consider each one separately, and, of course, to take any amendments that are on the Order Paper. If the House expressed general disapproval of a particular Standing Order, even though there is no specific amendment down to it, it might be well in that case, perhaps, to refer back that particular Standing Order to the Committee for consideration and report. But, I think, that Standing Orders that are definitely passed by the House to-day should not come up again for consideration.
Cathaoirleach
I take it that the House will agree with the method suggested of dealing with these Standing Orders: that unless the feeling of the House is that a particular Standing Order ought to go back to the Committee for reconsideration we will take them as being passed.
I beg to move:—
"That the Report of the Committee on Procedure Relative to Standing Orders be now considered."
As a member of the Committee, might I be allowed to say that these Standing Orders received a considerable amount of discussion amongst the members of the Committee? They do not represent probably the entire opinion of any individual member of the Committee, as there were various opinions expressed with regard to them. In many cases a compromise was arrived at, and in other cases agreement was reached after discussion.
In moving this motion it is not to be taken that I am of opinion that these Standing Orders could not be improved on, or that I personally am in agreement with everything in them, but I do say, and I think every member of the Committee will agree with me—the Committee was representative of the different points of view in this House—that very careful consideration was given to every point raised, including some points which came before the Committee as the result of representations made by Senators who were not members of the Committee. I hope very much that if there is any Standing Order which arouses a good deal of doubt in the minds of Senators it will be sent back to the Committee for reconsideration. These Standing Orders represent the second revision in our Standing Orders made since the inception of this House. I would very much hope that we have now reached a period when a set of Standing Orders can be adopted that will not need to be revised for a very long time.
I second the motion. There are certain Standing Orders in the draft submitted that have been drawn specially to conform to Standing Orders made by the Dáil. I hope members will bear that point in mind.
Perhaps this would be the right time to raise a question upon which I know the Seanad feels rather strongly. I should like to propose: that the draft Standing Orders be referred back to the Committee with instructions to draft an Order on the lines of Standing Order 51 relating to proceedings in Committee and to limit the duration of speeches. I think Senators who are familiar with the proceedings of the Seanad since its inception will agree with me that, in the old days, the work of the Seanad was not by any means inefficiently done. I do not think that the speeches made then ran to anything like the length they do now. It seems to me that a great deal of time is wasted by the dragging in of a lot of matter which probably is irrelevant, but not so irrelevant that the Cathaoirleach could interfere. I wonder if Senators ever think of the amount of money which the delivery of lengthy speeches involves the country in. Besides the waste of time——
On a point of order. The Senator is moving an amendment to the whole set of Standing Orders which does not appear on the Order Paper. We have a number of amendments on the Order Paper that I think would normally come to be dealt with before the one the Senator is now speaking to. I submit that the Senator is out of order.
Cathaoirleach
Senator Barrington is making a sort of general appeal to the Seanad on one particular matter.
I think he moved an amendment.
Cathaoirleach
Senator Barrington made a kind of Second Reading speech dealing with the whole subject, and, after all, I think it will do no harm to let him proceed.
With all respect, Senator Barrington moved an amendment that the Standing Orders be referred back to the Committee on Procedure Relative to Standing Orders. While I agree that the Senator is entitled to raise the matter he is dealing with, I submit he is not in order in doing so at this stage. He has moved to refer back all the Standing Orders to the Committee for the purpose of considering the one point that he has raised. The Senator would be in order in doing that at the appropriate place, but this is not the time to do it, nor would it be in order to refer back all the Standing Orders simply to consider the one point that the Senator has raised.
I am not moving an amendment to anything suggested by the Committee. I am moving that this whole matter be referred back to them to draft a Standing Order to carry out a principle similar to that found in Standing Order 51 relating to proceedings in committee. If the matter commends itself to the Seanad I think that ought to be done. I think it would be only painting the lily if I were to dilate further on this subject—in fact it would be an infringement of the principles that I am supporting in my motion. I do not know whether anyone will second my motion or not. I leave it to the good sense of Senators to support it if they desire to save the country the expense that is involved by the delivery of unnecessarily long speeches.
I think the matter referred to by Senator Barrington could be more appropriately discussed when we reach Standing Orders 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, all of which deal with the rules of debate.
Cathaoirleach
We have practically dealt with the motion now, and why not finish it?
There may be Senators who will agree with me that if the Chair were to adopt the motion moved by Senator Barrington it would mean sending all the Standing Orders back, and the House could not do that unless it wanted to closure discussion.
Cathaoirleach
My understanding of the Senator's motion was not to refer all the Standing Orders back, but rather that the Committee on Procedure should be asked to draft a Standing Order that would have the effect of limiting the duration of speeches. That was the idea that I gathered when the Senator moved his motion.
Precisely.
I agree that it would be more appropriate to discuss that question when we reach the draft Standing Orders dealing with the rules of debate.
Cathaoirleach
Senator Barrington handed in no amendment, but I thought it would be unfair not to give him an opportunity of expressing what he felt on the matter. I would like to know now if the motion is seconded.
I think there is a good deal in the suggestion made by Senator Barrington and if he moves it at the appropriate time when we are discussing the draft standing orders I will second it.
Am I to understand, sir, that you have not ruled that this is an inappropriate time to move the motion?
Cathaoirleach
I have not.
Therefore, if Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde seconds the motion the question is open for discussion.
I second the motion.
Cathaoirleach
I will take the motion from Senator Barrington: that it be a direction to the Committee to frame an order limiting the duration of speeches on every occasion.
I think that would be a peculiar motion.
Cathaoirleach
It may be peculiar.
If the House were to adopt such a motion it would be more or less indicating that it was its decided opinion that such an order should be made. That may or may not be so, but we have not yet reached a decision on the point. Before we could give the necessary direction to the Committee on Standing Orders I think we would have to decide whether that was the desire of the House or not. We might, for instance, ask the Committee to consider the question, but this is quite a different matter because it directs them to frame a Standing Order limiting the length of speeches. That would seem to bind us in regard to the Standing Orders later on. I suggest that the discussion on this matter might be deferred until we reach the Standing Orders that I referred to.
A motion has been proposed and seconded in connection with this matter. If that motion is put, the opinion of the House will decide the matter one way or the other.
Cathaoirleach
The question is: That it be a direction to the Committee of Procedure to frame an order limiting the duration of speeches on every stage of a Bill and on all motions.
With all respect, if my hearing is right, that is not the motion moved by Senator Barrington. His motion was to the effect that the Standing Orders be referred back to the Committee for the purpose of drafting a Standing Order on the duration of speeches. That was his motion, though that is not the motion read out from the Chair now.
The proposal is that this Committee, without any expression of opinion, is given instruction to go back, contrary to their previous decision, and to provide a specific limit to speeches on all occasions, on whatsoever subject, without any distinction as to whether the speeches are to be in Committee of the House, on a resolution, or in any other circumstances. I must confess if I were a member of that Committee and got an omnibus resolution of that kind, I would fix one day and end it. There must be some idea of what you mean by it. You cannot possibly say that you want to fix five minutes, or ten or twenty minutes, as the case may be, without regard to the suitability of the occasion, whether in Committee or otherwise. Long speeches are undesirable, and they are specially undesirable in Committee. There are a great many circumstances in which discretion must be left to the Chair. There may be something to be said for giving the Chair more discretion than it has at present. I know there is a tendency to have some speeches too long. My own personal feeling is that to curb the free expression of opinion in a legislative assembly like this by one rigid rule for all and every occasion would be to make us a laughing stock for parliaments elsewhere.
I agree with what has been said by Senator Douglas. I think it would be impossible to limit speeches on every occasion, no matter what the subject, to one specific length of time. If this matter is referred back to the Committee they certainly should be given some guidance. I could understand giving additional power to the Chairman, but to have a hard and fast and rigid rule in this matter would be simply to make us a laughing stock. One speech may require half an hour, and another may require only ten minutes. To make a limit for the speech, say, of a Minister introducing a question on education, and to confine him to a short period, or any fixed period, when dealing with a matter like that would be simply ridiculous. I hope if the Seanad refers this back they will give some guidance to the Committee and give a certain amount of latitude to them in whatever action they may take.
What harm would it do us if we were to become a laughing stock? We will become, from our prolixity, far more a subject for laughter. If a Senator cannot express himself in ten minutes or less than ten pages of the Official Reports he ought to be limited to a specified time. Senator Barrington's suggestion is only a direction to the Standing Orders Committee. Surely that Committee can refuse to act on that suggestion if they wish. It would be putting the Chair in an invidious position if the duty was put upon it of limiting speeches. There are certain speakers who do not see that terseness of style should hold the attention of the House rather than long speeches, which only distract people. I think ten or fifteen minutes' limit would give everyone adequate time to express themselves on any subject.
Senators who have spoken seem to forget that Senator Barrington's motion has yet to be accepted. I do not think it will be accepted. We ought to depend on the commonsense of this House to act upon their own judgment and either to accept or reject this motion. If they accept it, then let us do so, and let the matter be referred back to the Committee, but we ought to finish it without further delay.
I have not heard any complaint in this House with regard to the length of speeches. I think if there is one outstanding feature which has marked debates in this House it is the brevity of the speeches. There are no speeches at all in some cases. It is those who do not want any speeches who only come here to put in their time for ten minutes or so who are anxious for this limitation. What is meant by wasting the time of the House? One Senator might talk for five minutes and waste that five minutes; another Senator might speak for an hour and he may not have wasted a minute at all. If there was to be any limitation at all it might be to prevent Senators, if it could be justifiably done, from speaking several times on every subject. As regards the length of speeches, I think it is very rare that we find any speech lasting more than twenty minutes, and when speeches have lasted twenty minutes they have been quite justified. I hope the House will turn Senator Barrington's motion down.
I think the best way would be to rule out speeches altogether and simply put the motion.
Cathaoirleach
I think the House can reasonably understand the position. The motion was not put down on the Paper; still I have allowed it to be taken, and I hope the House is conversant with it. The idea is that it be a direction to the Committee on Procedure to frame a Standing Order limiting the duration of speeches on every stage of a Bill and on every motion to a period of time not specified.
Question put and declared lost.
Standing Orders Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to.
STANDING ORDER 3.
The Clerk shall summon a meeting of the Seanad for 3 p.m. on the first Wednesday occurring at the beginning of each triennial period, provided that the Seanad is then in session. So soon as a quorum is present (S.O. 16), the Chair shall be taken at such meeting by the senior elected Senator present, and when prayers have been read (S.O. 15) the Clerk shall read the names of the Senators duly returned at the preceding triennial election in the order of their election.
If the Seanad is not then in session, this Standing Order shall apply (with the necessary modifications) to the meeting of the Seanad held pursuant to the Proclamation of the Governor-General convening the Oireachtas.
I move an amendment in Standing Order 3 to delete the word "Seanad" and to insert instead the word "Oireachtas." I put this amendment down because I want to clarify the meaning of the word "session." The Constitution provides that the Oireachtas shall hold at least one session each year. We are rather mixed up, I think, as to what the meaning of the word "session" is. In the Official Reports we have it recorded that the report is for part of the session which began in September, 1927. This particular meeting of this House is part of the session which began in September, 1927. Yet it would appear that the common belief is that we are in the 1930 session. I am not sure what the intention of this particular Standing Order is when it says "provided the Seanad is then in session," and in the second part of the same Standing Order it says: "if the Seanad is not then in session this Standing Order shall apply to the meeting of the Seanad held pursuant to the proclamation of the Governor-General convening the Oireachtas." If the amendment is carried it makes no practical difference, but it would bring the Standing Order into conformity, I think, with the idea that when the Seanad is not in session Parliament is not sitting. What I am rather desirous of is that there should be in the minds of the Seanad a clear understanding as to what is meant by "session" in these Standing Orders, that the same idea is prevalent through the Dáil, and that if necessary this constitutional provision should be clarified by some means or other. We say the Oireachtas shall hold at least one session each year, and then, if the Standing Order seems to signify that the session begins and lasts continuously for a period of three, four or five years, there seems to be some mix-up, and it is rather desirable that we should make the position clear when we are now dealing with the Standing Order.
If Senator Johnson, by any amendment he could put down, could make the position and meaning of the word "session" in regard to the Oireachtas, that is, both Houses, clear, he would earn the gratitude of a great many people. It is not clear, and the powers that be, which, unfortunately, we do not entirely control, have never come together and made it clear; but in putting in the words "Seanad in session" in this particular Standing Order I think the Committee had a very definite purpose. Whatever "session" be, it is something which this House can continue, because it is something which cannot be discontinued without our consent and, therefore, refers clearly to the session of this House. I know, because I had the misfortune to be on the Constitution Drafting Committee, what was originally intended when the first draft was made. I do not really know what was in their mind when they started to carry it out, but I do, at any rate, say there was to be a definite session which was to be held at least once a year, possibly twice, which would be definitely called together, and then there would be a prorogation. The intention was to prevent the Dáil having power to suddenly prorogue Parliament and make it impossible for this House to continue its sittings if it thought fit.
As far as one can see, there seems to be a growing idea that a session is something which lasts for a number of years. In some respects it is confined to a year, if you look at the Constitution. But I suggest to Senator Johnson that, while I am not in a position to say, nor do I think anybody is able to tell us, in the Standing Order how we should use the word "session" to put the word "Oireachtas" into this particular Standing Order would not help the tiniest bit, and might, at some future date, if the word "session" is clearly defined, possibly weaken our position and right to continue. I therefore suggest it would be a mistake to insert these words. Senators will notice that where possible the word "session" has been avoided and other words were put in where we were quite clear as to the meaning, and if you compare those draft Standing Orders with the present Standing Orders you will find that the word "session" does not appear nearly as often, but it seems impossible to avoid using it in this particular case.
Could the Senator tell us exactly if the use of the word "session" in these Standing Orders implies that the session begins with the beginning of Parliament and ends with the Dissolution of Parliament? Is that the meaning of the word "session" in the Standing Orders?
I would prefer not specifically to answer that as far as the Committee is concerned, but as far as I am personally concerned I say that it should not be the meaning of it, and that it is not implied in the amendment. I suggest to the Seanad that in the wording of the Standing Orders it means the period beginning with the calling together of parliament and ending with the dissolution.
In my opinion, the Seanad is separate from the Dáil and the Seanad is in perpetual session until it is dissolved and as it is never dissolved altogether it is in perpetual session. For that reason the position is that the Dáil cannot suspend the session of the Seanad if the Seanad does not suspend itself, because the Seanad is always in session.
What does it mean—what does the Senator mean by "session" if he does not mean the whole period during which the Seanad is in session?
Will Senator Sir Walter Nugent tell us what he means by the whole period?
By the whole session I mean that if the Seanad is called on 1st May and finishes on 1st August then the "session" would mean the period between 1st May and 1st August.
If as Senator Colonel Moore has stated the Seanad is in perpetual session, and judging from the Constitution I would not venture to disagree with him, then what is the meaning of these words "Provided the Seanad is then in session?" I suggest that Standing Order 3 should be referred back to the Committee with the additional information which the Committee would derive from the discussion here—if it is worth anything.
Senator Comyn has stated that he wanted to delete the words "provided that the Seanad is then in session." If the Seanad is always in session these words are not necessary at all in the Standing Orders. Therefore, I would second the Senator in asking that this particular Standing Order be referred back.
Cathaoirleach
What is required is that we substitute the word "Oireachtas" for the word "Seanad." That is Senator Johnson's amendment.
What I understand is that if there is no amendment proposed now it is to be referred back.
Cathaoirleach
If there was substantial agreement in the Seanad that could be done, but when we have a definite amendment here to delete the word "Seanad" and to substitute the word "Oireachtas" the position is different. Senator Johnson has explained why he thought it was necessary to have that amendment. Senator Douglas, on the other hand has explained why he thinks it is not necessary or desirable.
Might I be allowed to say that both Senator Wilson and Senator Comyn used the word "if"? I am satisfied that there is a period in which the Seanad is not in session. If the Oireachtas is dissolved I do not believe that this House could be called together by the Chairman and go on until Parliament had been reassembled. The personnel of this House does not necessarily change in the meantime, and the object here is to provide that after our triennial election the Chairman shall promptly call the House together. The words "if then in session" are simply to provide that if the House is not then in session, he need not do so until the whole Oireachtas has been summoned. I believe that the definition of Senator Sir Walter Nugent in substance is what should be regarded as the session, and I believe that there should be an annual session. I believe that each year there should be some kind of proclamation or summons on the initiative of the Executive or on their instructions by which both Houses would be called together. Then the Dáil could end its own session, but could not, when it likes, dissolve the Seanad. But I would not be stating the truth if I said that that has been so read by the staff, by Ministers, and others. It has not. We are in the position that there has not been a general agreement on this matter. There may be a case in which the Cathaoirleach could not call this House together owing to their not being in session.
I do suggest that this particular Standing Order is necessary so as to provide that the Cathaoirleach shall immediately after each triennial election call us together, except in one single circumstance that he would not have authority through our not being in session. It is not necessary in this Order to defend it.
Does Senator Douglas undertake to state positively that there may be a time when the Seanad is not in session notwithstanding what Colonel Moore says?
Cathaoirleach
I think he must say that.
That is my definition—that is my definitely considered opinion.
As far as giving a definitely considered opinion, I do not wish to offer any opinion to this House, but I am at present more inclined to Senator Colonel Moore's opinion than to the opinion of Senator Douglas.
Does Senator Douglas mean that this Seanad is not in session when the Dáil is out of session?
That it is dissolved —that is my personal opinion.
He admits, then, that the Dáil could be out of session when the Seanad is in session?
Yes.
What is in the Constitution which says that the Seanad is out of session when the Dáil is dissolved?
The two Houses together are dissolved when the Oireachtas is dissolved.
When is the Oireachtas dissolved? Might I suggest again to the Cathaoirleach that this is a matter which ought to be referred back for discussion and consideration? Because it is quite likely that Senators may land themselves in a very serious difficulty through want of proper consideration of this question. There is a serious difference of opinion now between Senator Colonel Moore and Senator Douglas on this matter and I say again I am inclined more to Senator Colonel Moore's opinion than to that of Senator Douglas.
I was going to ask what on earth good could it do to refer this thing back. This has been considered by the Committee. They were extremely doubtful about the matter of construction. I suggest that the House should now decide what they are going to do and not send this thing back. I have a perfectly definite opinion that the meaning of this House being in session is this: That it is in session always except when the other House has actually dissolved and cannot sit——
Why? Where is that in the Constitution?
Cathaoirleach
Let Senator Brown proceed.
I will read here Article 24 of the Constitution:
"The Oireachtas shall hold at least one session each year. The Oireachtas shall be summoned and dissolved by the Representative of the Crown in the name of the King and subject as aforesaid Dáil Eireann shall fix the date of reassembly of the Oireachtas and the date of the conclusion of the session of each House: Provided that the sessions of Seanad Eireann shall not be concluded without its own consent."
Therefore, our session lasts until we have put an end to it by consent except that we could not sit while the other House was dissolved. Now Article 12 of the Constitution shows that there are two Houses with one Parliament. The Article reads:
"A Legislature is hereby created to be known as the Oireachtas. It shall consist of the King and two Houses, the Chamber of Deputies (otherwise called and herein generally referred to as ‘Dáil Eireann' and the Seanad (otherwise called and herein generally referred to as ‘Seanad Eireann'). The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the peace, order and good government of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) is vested in the Oireachtas."
There are two Houses in the Oireachtas. Our House is in session until it has consented to go out of session, except when the other House is dissolved.
Where did Senator Brown get the words "except when the other House is dissolved"?
Because the two Houses together are the Oireachtas, and when the Oireachtas is dissolved we have to give our definite consent to go out of session.
There are three factors. There is the King, who is not functus officio when the Dáil is dissolved. There is the Seanad, which is not functus officio when the Dáil is dissolved. I do not think sufficient consideration has been given to this question and I will say that what Senator Wilson has stated is the true solution—strike out these words altogether: “providing the Seanad is still in session.” They serve no useful purpose.
That is not the amendment.
Cathaoirleach
I have no amendment to that effect.
I understood from you that it was to be a rule that if it appeared from the discussion there was some flaw found in any of these rules or orders, it was to be referred back.
Cathaoirleach
But we have only your statement as against the opinion of the Committee. We have had it here that the word "Oireachtas" would be rather worse than "Seanad" in the particular reference in the amendment. I am allowing the Seanad to consider it in Committee, but Committee does not allow people to speak four or five times. I will have to enforce the rule from this on.
The amendment before the House, when disposed of, will leave the Standing Order in a certain position. Then the general question as to whether this particular Standing Order will go before the Committee will have to be debated. When the amendment moved by Senator Johnson is dealt with we will be entitled then to move the deletion of these words on the general question.
Cathaoirleach
We will consider that we have dealt with this.
My intention in putting down the amendment was to get a clarification of the matter in our minds. If Senator Douglas is indicating the mind of the Committee, then the Committee apparently is not quite clear as to the meaning of the word "session," and as to what the Seanad, the officials, and the Cathaoirleach should understand from these words in the Standing Orders. If it were possible I would like again to suggest that the Committee should consider the possibility of a new phrase, and leave out the word "session" altogether, and find if another phrase or if another single word could not be found to indicate its intentions. The same thing arises in No. 61.
If we could understand that the word "session" in every case means the expiry of the Parliament, that is immediately after the dissolution, from the beginning to the end of the Parliament, then it would be quite understandable. If it means a group of meetings within a specified period, or within a year, then it could be understood, but let it be understood. I am not so particular about the word "Oireachtas" going in. I simply raise the question so that there should be some clarification on it.
I see no objection if the Seanad wishes to refer the matter back to the Committee to endeavour to get a definition of the word "session." I do not believe the Committee can do it, but I see no objection to referring it back to the Committee. Something may come out of it. I may say that I am inclined to believe if Senator Comyn's contention is correct that this House can never be dissolved, these words ought to go out, but if his contention is wrong then some such words are necessary.
Amendment put and negatived.
Cathaoirleach
I shall now put the question as to whether the whole Order should be referred back to the Committee with a view to finding a definition, which they have already tried to find, of the word "session."
Or to find some other form of words.
Cathaoirleach
Yes.
Question put and declared carried.
If we have got to find another form of words it would only evade the question that is there any way.
Cathaoirleach
This Order now goes back to the Committee for reconsideration.
Standing Order No. 4 put and agreed to.
STANDING ORDER No. 5 (ELECTION OF CATHAOIRLEACH).
PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4.
(3) If two Senators be proposed; a division shall be taken between them, tellers being appointed for each candidate by the presiding Senator. Senators voting for one candidate shall pass through one division lobby and Senators voting for the other candidate through the other division lobby. The candidate who obtains the majority of votes shall be declared to have been duly elected.
(4) If more than two Senators be proposed the names shall be submitted to a preliminary vote, each Senator voting for not more than two candidates by delivering to the Clerk a voting paper signed by him on which he has written the name or names of the candidate or candidates for whom he votes.
I move:—
S.O.5. To delete paragraph (3) and to substitute therefor a new paragraph as follows:—
"(3) If not more than two Senators are proposed, a vote by ballot shall be taken, each Senator to vote by placing in the ballot box a voting paper on which he has written the name of the candidate for whom he votes."
This really raises a larger question. It is the question of the method adopted for the election of the Cathaoirleach. The proposal of the Standing Orders Committee is divided into six sub-sections and there are two methods proposed. There is an eliminating process and a final process. The eliminating process is to be by a preliminary vote, each Senator voting for not more than two candidates, by delivering to the Clerk a voting paper signed by him on which is written the name or names of the candidate or candidates for whom he votes. That means in effect, as far as the sitting of the Seanad is concerned at which the election takes place, that is to be secret voting. Then for the final process it is to be voting through the division lobbies. My view of the matter is that whatever method is adopted for the first part, the eliminating process, should be reapplied for the final process. It is with that intention I suggested the amendment, that the method should be by placing in the ballot box a voting paper, but I really am not very particular as to what is the method adopted if in both cases it is the same process. I do not think it desirable that you should have one method for the eliminating process and a second method for the final process. That is the purpose of my amendment.
Possibly being a member of the Committee I might explain some of their difficulties in this connection. In the first place, I think apparently unwittingly, Senator Johnson has proposed what is a very definite distinction in the final process because he proposes voting by ballot which is not proposed by the Committee, the words "by ballot" meaning in secret. The proposals of the Committee, in order to avoid a very large number of divisions and in order to avoid the method, which seemed by a general consensus of opinion to be very undignified, of standing up and calling out the names of Senators, are outlined in the Standing Orders submitted here which was eventually adopted after a good deal of discussion by the Committee. It is not intended that it should be by secret ballot. The names of those who vote would appear on the lists but might not necessarily be read out. They would appear in the Imeachta for the day and would not be secret. What the Senator does not want is to have a secret ballot for the final voting. That is a matter for the House. I do not favour it myself. It is the difference between secrecy and publicity and until I read the amendment I did not know what he was driving at.
I do not think, with great respect to Senator Johnson, it is possible to get some method by which you will eliminate a member and by which you will, exactly by the same method, choose on the final vote one of the two unless you adopt Senator Comyn's suggestion and choose the method of the transferable vote.
I remember when the arrangement was first made and I think that that arrangement was a proper one. We eliminated candidates one after another. We deliberately made it open voting as opposed to voting by ballot for Senators to fill vacancies, because it was thought that it would prevent secret meetings and secret arrangements of which nobody could take account and having certain things settled without knowing exactly where you were by secret sessions, cliques, and so on. I think that was a wise provision, and I should certainly be in favour of open voting in that case. I did not quite care for this particular plan when the matter was in Committee, but I did not think it was worth while disagreeing with the Committee. I am in favour of open voting in this case because it has been very successful in the past.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move:
To delete paragraph (4) and to substitute therefor a new paragraph as follows:—
"If more than two Senators be proposed the election shall be conducted on the basis of proportional representation."
I want to read to the Seanad the proposed Standing Order to which this is an amendment:—
If more than two Senators be proposed their names shall be submitted to a preliminary vote, each Senator voting for not more than two candidates by delivering to the Clerk a voting paper, signed by him, on which he has written the name or names of the candidate or candidates for whom he votes.
The next paragraph reads:—
The names of the two Senators obtaining the highest number of votes shall then be submitted to the House, and a division shall be taken between them in the manner prescribed above, and the candidate who obtains the majority of votes shall be declared to have been duly elected."
That sub-rule 4 as it stands leaves the Chair in the patronage of one or other of the big parties. The object of my amendment is to give the smaller groups a prospect of attaining to the Chair of this assembly. We are in many ways sometimes a very happy family here. Sometimes we have our little differences. On questions of principle we are clearly divided. I speak as a member of one of the two big groups. Numerically we are small at present, but very soon we shall have a majority in the House. Therefore I speak as a member of a Party which will be in a majority some day. With all the greater confidence, then, I submit the amendment because its object is to enable the Seanad, if it so desires, to put into the Chair a suitable person from one of the small groups, both in order to show the liberality of our sentiments and also in order to give some mark of recognition to long and faithful service in the House.
That is the reason I propose that in case there are, say, four Senators nominated, the election shall be on the basis of Proportional Representation. That would enable a member of perhaps the smallest group in the House, by gradual accretions of strength from the other group, ultimately to arrive at a majority and to attain to the Chair. I do not wish now to go into figures, but I assure my friends that I have thought this out. I understand that the ruling of the Chair will be that in case the principle of this amendment is accepted it would be referred back to the Committee to define the manner in which it should be carried out. I may say that, belonging to what will be the largest group, I have no personal interest in the matter, but I put it to the House.
Might I suggest to the Senator, as he hopes that his Party will be a majority in the House in the near future, it will then be no use for anybody to worry about the Chair, as there will be no Chair.
A Senator
And no House.
I think there has been a tendency to treat this with a certain amount of natural levity because of the strict wording of it. If you take it seriously it will mean that you could elect a man from the smaller groups. If you could achieve that it would be somewhat of a millennium. But that is very little of what it could achieve. I take it that what the Senator means is that he wants to substitute the system of transferable voting for the method of elimination. I do not believe that any other method would allow of a small party of six, ten or twelve of even electing a member against the majority. If a member of the minority group were elected to the Chair it would have to be by consent of the other groups. It should not be treated as a method by which all these wonderful things will come about. If we stick to the method here, and if the Senator's Party comes into power we shall expect great things from him. If that does not happen I suggest that you have not found any particular way of achieving it. At the same time, that will be another method and a perfectly proper one of electing the Chair if there is going to be a large number of candidates, which, personally, I think there will not be. I do not think there will be more than a couple. If there is a large number you could have transferable votes by which you would transfer until you got the majority. It would cause more trouble and, again, I doubt if it will achieve the result you want. On the whole, I think the method we have is the right one.
I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Question put and agreed to.