Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Dec 1947

Vol. 34 No. 19

Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Bill, 1947—Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Hayes

I move amendment No. 1:—

Before Section 2 to insert a new section as follows:—

2.—This Act shall continue in force until the 31st day of December, 1948, and shall then expire unless the Oireachtas otherwise determines.

I am putting down this amendment because this is an extremely long and very complicated Bill. The old system under which this House was elected was in itself sufficiently complicated. It is now still further complicated and lengthened and certain new arrangements are made. There is, for example, a new arrangement by which persons nominated by the nominating bodies will be voted upon before they can be submitted to the electorate of the Dáil and Seanad and members of the county councils. There is a proviso for giving five votes to each elector, and there is a certain doubt whether that proviso is in accordance with the Constitution.

We are upon the eve of a general election, as is generally agreed, and it is, in the nature of things, impossible for us to go through this Bill and give it proper consideration. Even if we were to meet after Christmas and devote three full days to the Committee Stage, there would still be a considerable number of points which interested Senators would desire to raise. On the other hand, it is stated, with indeed every appearance of truth, that it is necessary to have this elaborate machinery. I am not in agreement with the scheme fundamentally.

It is alleged that this Bill must become law before Christmas in order to allow adequate arrangements for the Seanad election, which will take place within 90 days after the dissolution of the Dáil. In the light of these circumstances it is not possible for us to give this Bill the attention it deserves. The other House may very well be excused for not discussing in detail a Bill for the election of the Seanad, but we ought to discuss it adequately.

If we cannot do that, it seems to me the best compromise we can possibly make is to say that this Act shall continue in force until 31st December, 1948, and shall then expire, unless the Oireachtas otherwise decides; in other words, that we should give this Bill to the Minister, allow it to be operated for one election, and provide that at the end of 12 months it shall expire. The implication of that clearly is that the first business of the Oireachtas when it assembles after the general election would be the discussion of this Bill in the light of how it had worked at the preceding election.

That proposal appears to me to be quite reasonable. We could go through this Bill and get certain points made clear, but we could refrain from the kind of amendment certain people would like. The Minister would get his Bill, the new election would take place under this complicated scheme, and, in the light of the experience gained, the Bill would have to be reconsidered—and it might be reconsidered as the first business for the new Seanad. Indeed, it might be initiated by the Seanad, a thing that both Governments have been shy of doing—that is, initiating Bills in the Seanad.

Without any regard to the merits of the Bill, upon which I made myself clear on the Second Stage, but, taking the Bill with its 67 pages of very complicated provisions, my proposal is that it should be put into operation but should not become permanent legislation, and that there should be an obligation on the new Parliament to reconsider this matter in the course of 1948. I, therefore, move this amendment, which would have the effect of expediting the passage of the Bill, while at the same time giving us the saving clause that after one experience of its working it would be again put up for discussion and amendment.

Mr. Douglas

I am strongly in favour of this amendment. My reasons are very similar to those expressed by Senator Hayes, though in some respects I would put them a bit differently.

The reason for this Bill is generally the almost unanimous dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the present system of election. It is the interest of all sections of the House that when a change is made it should be as satisfactory as possible. To make it satisfactory you want to have the collective experience of as many people as possible who have had experience of elections.

It would be better, if the circumstances were different, that this House should take this Bill seriously, spend two or three days in Committee, and after a fortnight or so reconsider on Report the various points raised and discussed.

There are quite a number of matters that I would like to raise in Committee, but I would not know until I see how the discussion goes whether I would think it advisable or not to put down amendments for the Report Stage. It would be better if this House could do it, because we know the circumstances. We have some 40 or so members who have had experience of elections. We have no certainty that the next House will have any members who have had experience of the old system of election, but there is a reasonable possibility that some of the members now here will get back and that the next House will be able to give this measure good discussion. This is not a Party measure. It is not a matter on which there are likely to be Party differences and I would suggest that there might be agreement to accept this amendment, allow the Bill to go through all stages this week, having simply a discussion in Committee to see if any obvious errors are detected, and have it brought forward again as a new measure in March or April, preferably, as Senator Hayes has suggested, introduced in this House first and then going to the Dáil.

It is generally found that in the spring this House has very little business and unless the circumstances are very different from what they have been in the past, it would be quite easy to have a full discussion. I do not see that any possible harm could come of that. We would get the benefit of a discussion which could take place now, possibly with the loss of some of the members, and there would be, in addition, the experience which has been gained through one election. I think that is a commonsense way of dealing with this.

The other alternative seems to me to take the Committee Stage now, adjourn the Report Stage for two or three weeks, until this matter has been discussed. I do not know what effect that would have on the proposals for the general election, but I presume it would mean either that it would be postponed or that this Bill would not be passed in time for the next general election. A compromise would be to say, frankly, we have not the time and it is not possible in the circumstances to give it all that discussion; that we will pass it into law subject, possibly, to some minor amendments that may be agreed upon by consent and have it rediscussed at leisure before another general election.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. MacEntee)

I would ask Senator Hayes and Senator Douglas not to press this amendment. I would ask them not to press it, first of all, on the ground that it is not necessary. If it is desired that the operation of this Bill, after the next Seanad general election, should be reviewed with a view to amending it, there is nothing to prevent fresh consideration being given to the law and an amending Bill initiated, as has been suggested, in the Seanad, by those Senators who feel that the law has not operated satisfactorily. However, in regard to that, I would suggest that the test at the next general election should not be taken as a conclusive one, because some very important provisions of the present measure will not be in full operation. I refer to those which relate to the preparation of the new register for nominating bodies and, of course, for nomination committees, which will be based upon this new register. I would also suggest that, out of consideration, perhaps, for members of the other House who will have to face the electorate within a very short period, perhaps three, four or five weeks, unless it is imperative to bring them back to consider an indispensable amendment from the Seanad during the week preceding Christmas or the week preceding the New Year, the Seanad ought not to do so. I know that members of the other House and members of the Government have on occasions made demands upon the Seanad which Senators might regard, in some cases, as being scarcely reasonable, but I am putting it to members of the Seanad, whose election campaign will certainly be less strenuous than that which the members of the Dáil will have to face, that, even if only out of consideration for the latter, they should not press this amendment in view of the fact that, as I have said, the amendment is not necessary in order to secure a review of the manner in which the new method of election will have operated.

A suggestion has been made in the course of Senator Douglas's speech that if this amendment were not accepted—I hope I do not misunderstand him—a possible alternative might be either to compel the election to be carried out on the basis of the existing law or else to force the Dáil to forgo what is I think the general desire of all members of the Dáil that at the earliest possible date the present anomalous and uncertain situation should be cleared up and the verdict of the people secured as to who and what Party will have authority to act for them in the national affairs henceforward.

I would suggest that it would be very unwise for the Seanad to court a general election to this body on the basis of the old legislation. From the point of view of the public, I think, very little would be gained. It is the general belief that the present method, having been tried at four general elections, has, from a public point of view, been considered very unsatisfactory. It am not one of those who fully subscribe to that view, but, nevertheless, it is the general public impression which prevails, and I think the members of the Seanad in particular should take full cognisance of that, and should be careful not to appear to flout public opinion in regard to it. For that reason, again, as I have said, as an experiment, let us go through with the election upon the basis of the present Bill and let us give the new procedure a full trial. That, as I have said, must mean this, that we should have an election based upon a new register of nominating bodies. That is a point of view which may be contested, but, if it is contested, another opportunity will arise after the general election of persuading the House that the operation of the Act has shown that further amendments in the procedure are urgently necessary and it will be open to any member or any body of members in the Seanad who may wish to review or amend this present Bill to initiate legislation in this House to that end. There is no estoppel upon that and members have full liberty to exercise their own discretion and their own judgment in that regard. For that reason, as I have said so many times, I think this amendment is unnecessary even to secure the purpose which Senator Hayes and Senator Douglas have in mind.

Frankly, as I have indicated, I do not believe that we are saying the last word as to the method by which the Seanad must be elected but we are feeling our way—put it that way and put it no further than that—towards a better system. We can do that only by a process of trial and error but at least let us not, by imposing a rigid restriction upon the period during which an Act of this sort is to be operative, create a situation in which we might have almost chaotic confusion in this country. If by any chance the Dáil were to be dissolved suddenly, within a week or a fortnight before the time limit fixed in this amendment has run, and if the Oireachtas had not replaced the existing legislation by other legislation, I do not know what sort of position we would find ourselves in. I think it would not be prudent at any rate even to run, if you like, the slight risk that that might happen. This is a matter where we cannot afford to take risks of any sort. We must have always on the Statute Book legislative provisions which will enable us, in due form and in accordance with the law and the Constitution, to elect both Houses of the Oireachtas. If we accept this amendment, it may happen—it is not likely that it will happen—but it may happen that we should not be in a position to fulfil that essential requirement and, for that reason, I suggest we should not accept this amendment.

Mr. Baxter

I do not understand the Minister's attitude. I think the amendment is quite reasonable. I venture to suggest to the Minister that he need not be too worried at all as to what his successor in office may say about this measure in 12 months' time. His successor may find himself in the position that he will be concerned to see the whole scheme reconsidered before the expiration of 12 months.

This is the fourth effort to try to provide machinery for the election of a Second Chamber. I think we are getting no nearer the light on that. Indeed, I think the position is getting more complicated, and I suggest that there will not be half-a-dozen candidates going forward for election under this scheme who will have the remotest idea of how they are going to be elected. There is going to be utter confusion. The proposition that this matter should be open to review in 12 months' time would make it imperative on the people who will get elected to this House to examine the whole situation. Surely the obligation on us at the moment is to pass good laws. The suggestion, or the threat, that something is going to happen in regard to the other House if this Bill is not hurried through, is, surely, no justification for our passing a measure with which we are not in agreement. We cannot honestly say at the moment that we believe this is a good scheme, because we are not in a position to examine it. The Minister knows quite well that it would be a physical impossibility for the members of this House, even if they were to give every minute of every day to an examination of the proposals before them, to pass judgment on them and to be able to say, frankly, that they had done their best and were satisfied with them. Not one of us is in a position to say that. We are being asked to commit ourselves to something in the dark.

I cannot understand why the Minister should be so concerned about having a review of this measure, of making it obligatory on the Government to look over this scheme, at the end of 12 months. The Minister has a new Local Government Bill which is going to be a part of this whole scheme. My own view is that these measures will be repealed by the next Parliament and that everything will be thrown completely into the melting pot. Certainly I am convinced that, when the people of the country come to realise what are the implications of the Local Government Bill, it definitely will be repealed. That may compel a reconsideration of this measure at once. Senators now find themselves in the position that they are being asked to accept this measure without getting time to give it adequate consideration on Second Reading, in Committee or on Report Stage. That is asking the house to do the impossible.

The Minister says that we might find ourselves peculiarly placed if we were to have another election under the old measure, but the people who wanted to get into this House by bribery or corruption, if there were such people, will find a way under this Bill, too. Maybe they will be bribing some of the members of the nominating committees who will have votes for the panels. The people who have money to spend need not spend as much on individuals. They can spread it around more. I think the Minister will find that already there are people who are ready to experiment under this Bill, and probably they will be just as effective under it as they were under the last one. I really do not think there is any need for the Minister to be worried as to what the people will say because the other scheme was not satisfactory. This is not going to be satisfactory either. Nobody is getting time to produce a satisfactory measure—neither the Minister nor the people responsible for putting the measure through. In all the circumstances, I think that the Minister, in justice to himself and as a member of the Opposition if he succeeds in getting re-elected, ought to provide this opportunity of having a piece of his own handiwork reconsidered in 12 months' time. This measure should not be put on the Statute Book without an opportunity being given to the people to have it re-examined in 12 months' time. I think it would be unfair to everyone to have it rushed through this House at the present time.

Mr. O'Dea

Senator Baxter says that he cannot understand the attitude of the Minister. I am in the position that I cannot understand Senator Baxter, nor can I understand the amendment. This is an electoral Bill. Did anybody ever see in any Parliament an electoral Bill passed with a clause in it such as that suggested by the amendment, that it would continue in force only for 12 months? An electoral Bill is a measure that goes to the very root of the Constitution of the country.

Mr. Hayes

Hear, hear!

Mr. O'Dea

And yet it is suggested that this Bill should be brought forward at the end of the year like the Increase of Rent Act, and that we should have inserted in it a clause providing that it shall remain in force only for a specified period of time. I think that proposition is preposterous. Senator Baxter's arguments were, in my opinion, extraordinary. He suggested that it is not the voters who now will be bribed but the members of the nominating bodies if you please. I do not know of any member of a nominating body who could be hoodwinked by anybody with an offer of a bribe. I know that I would not like to see a man offer a bribe to the members of the medical profession, to the members of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society, to the members of the Technical Congress or to such people. Why, it is an insult to the country to suggest that people in such positions would be capable of considering, or of having offered to them, such a thing as a bribe. Anybody who makes such a suggestion has a very low idea indeed of the honour of the people of the country.

As the Minister has said, if this Bill does not work properly there is nothing to prevent anybody bringing forward an amending measure to have it repealed, and a new measure substituted for it. Every Bill is capable of being repealed. Therefore, to insert a clause such as the amendment suggests is just unnecessary verbiage.

Mr. Hayes

Can the Senator tell us how many Bills have been repealed by that particular process—of the Seanad moving for their repeal?

Mr. O'Dea

It is very hard to know how many Bills have been repealed. That, I suggest, does not affect the question at all.

Mr. Hayes

Would the Senator like to get an answer to that question?

Mr. O'Dea

Every Act can be repealed. All that is necessary is to bring in an amending Bill and put it through both Houses of the Oireachtas. The original Act is repealed as soon as the new one gets the President's signature. Why, above all in an electoral Bill, should such a clause be inserted, in a Bill providing for election to one House of the Oireachtas? Is this Bill not like the 1923 Act, and others, which provide for the election of members to the Dáil? Is it to be contended that such measures are to remain in existence for a specified period of time, such, for example, as those with which we deal annually under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act?

Mr. Douglas

Only until it has been rediscussed.

Mr. O'Dea

There is nothing to prevent a rediscussion of it at any time after it is passed. On the first day the two Houses meet after the election they might consider a new Bill, or they might set up a new committee, if they are not satisfied with the findings of the Joint Committee which have been put into effect in this measure. It is a pure waste of time to discuss the matter at all.

Mr. Hayes

I have often heard the Minister for Local Government when he was evasive, outrageous and insulting, but I never heard him more evasive, outrageous, or insulting than he was to-day. He evaded the whole issue in this case. This is a Bill which, according to the Minister, is very complicated, is not completed, and which we cannot amend. That is his case. We cannot amend this Bill at all —and I hope Senator O'Dea understood that—or any other Bill which is now before us. We can amend none of these Bills because we cannot bring the Dáil back to discuss amendments. In other words, we are presented with this great mass of legislation and asked to pass every single line without amendment. That is an outrageous proposal. The worst possible kind of insult is an insult to one's intelligence and the Minister is insulting the intelligence of the House by this proposal. The Minister himself had more than 40 amendments in the Dáil.

Mr. MacEntee

A lot of them verbal.

Mr. Hayes

The Minister had more than 40 amendments in the Dáil. Is that not right? I have no doubt that the Minister's amendments would be verbal, but he had more than 40 amendments. So far as we are concerned, however, we cannot pass a single amendment. That is the Minister's case. The Minister's case is that we must pass the Bill this evening or to-morrow—we cannot put it over until January. In other words, he wants this complicated scheme passed without consideration by this House. I suggest that the House stultifies itself if it agrees to that proposition.

Senator O'Dea shocks me by the way in which he has fallen for this completely evasive, insulting and fallacious argument of the Minister. There is to be no amendment to this Bill and there is nothing to prevent its being reconsidered. Of course, there is nothing to prevent its being reconsidered, but Senator O'Dea must surely recognise the difference between a private member bringing in a Bill to amend an electoral Act and the Government bringing in such a Bill. They are quite different things. In theory, you can do it, but, in practice, it is a matter of very great difficulty indeed. If, as Senator O'Dea said, and rightly said, this electoral Bill goes to the very root of our democratic system, surely he cannot agree with the Minister that we must put it through all stages without amendment this week. Surely he cannot believe that this Bill goes to the root of our democratic system, and, at the same time, accept the Minister's view that we must put it through all stages now without amendment. That is the Minister's proposal and what I should like to know is whether that is the attitude of the majority.

Senator O'Dea tells us that this is an electoral Bill, and that, because it it an electoral Bill, it ought not to have in it a proviso terminating its life after one year; but it is an electoral Bill which is to be passed in very remarkable and very unique conditions. It is a Bill brought in at the end of a Parliament and presented to us by a Minister who tells us that it is complicated and that we cannot, in common decency to the other House, amend it. Surely the answer to that is: "Very good; we will give you your Bill. We know that it is defective and you yourself know that it is defective, but, having given you the Bill, we will provide that the Bill and its scheme must be reconsidered in the new Parliament."

Surely that is a most reasonable proposition. It will give the Minister what he wants and prevent members of the Dáil who are now engaged in electoral activities throughout the country from having to come back, because, remember this: the Minister's case is that we must not pass any amendment to any Bill, because the Dáil must not be brought back. He objects to the amendment on the ground that it would bring the Dáil back, but if the Minister were to accept the amendment, the Dáil would not object to it, and all that the Dáil would need to pass it would be a quorum of members resident in Dublin. I could guarantee, if he agrees to this amendment, to give the Minister ten members in the Dáil, that is, half a quorum, and I am sure the Minister could provide another ten members himself at any time to deal with this amendment.

There is no necessity to have members coming from the country to discuss the amendment if the Minister accepts it, because obviously, if he accepts it, it will be a non-controversial matter. If the Minister were to recommend it to the Dáil, he would not have the slightest difficulty in getting a meeting without causing any inconvenience to members of the Dáil for its acceptance. The meeting need not take more than ten minutes. The Minister must think we are all very innocent if he thinks we do not know how these things are done.

The Minister made another point against the amendment. The amendment proposes that the Act should have validity only until the end of 1948 and the Minister painted a dreadful picture of what would happen if the Dáil were to be suddenly dissolved. The Dáil is never suddenly dissolved. There are always a few days before a dissolution and there is nothing to prevent the Act being continued in force by passing a very simple one-clause Bill through both Houses. It could be passed through both Houses before the dissolution in a day or two days, considering that these 67 pages are to be passed through all stages to-night by this quiescent House which apparently is going to do the Minister's bidding without exercising its own intelligence at all, if we are to believe Senator O'Dea. Surely, if that is the case, a one-clause Bill to continue the existing scheme in operation could be passed by both Houses in a couple of days. According to what we are doing now, a one-clause Bill should be passed before it is introduced at all. It need not take any time—it should be a minus quantity.

I never before heard any case like the Minister's case this evening. He objects to the amendment on the ground that it would mean bringing the Dáil back; he objects to any amendment of this Bill or to any amendment of any of all the Bills on the Order Paper to-day; he objects to a meeting of the Seanad after Christmas—why should we meet after Christmas if we cannot amend any Bill—and he wants us to pass all this complicated scheme which, in the nature of things, cannot possibly be perfect and must be capable of amendment, and to leave it the law of the land in perpetuity, to leave it the permanent law, and he refuses to accept a proposal which would simply mean that, after the general election, the Government in office after the next election, with the machinery the Government has at its disposal and the new Parliament would have to consider this. This seems to me to be an eminently reasonable proposal and I should like very much to hear what members of the House have to say about the Minister's thesis that we must pass all these Bills and that, in common decency, we can amend none of them.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know whether it is necessary to reply to the speech which Senator Hayes has just made, because it seemed to me to be highly repetitive, and, as is usual with many of the Senator's speeches, highly inaccurate.

Mr. Hayes

Inadequate?

Mr. MacEntee

Highly inaccurate.

Mr. Hayes

The Minister as an apostle of accuracy!

Mr. MacEntee

I would have thought that a former Ceann Comhairle would realise that it is very bad Parliamentary manners to interrupt continuously.

Mr. Hayes

I was only getting clear what the Minister was saying. I cannot understand him.

Mr. Baxter

It is not too easy at times, and sometimes he is sorry for what he says.

Mr. MacEntee

I am sorry the Senator is dull of apprehension. I was saying that, not for the first time, the Senator has been inaccurate, because I did say this Bill is long but did not suggest it was complicated. I did not use the word "complicated" in connection with this Bill at all, and I did not use it because it would have been quite inaccurate to describe it as complicated. The explanatory memorandum issued with this Bill shows how simple it is. The Bill is bulky, but it is bulky because it was thought it would be more convenient to have all the statutory provisions governing the election of the Seanad in one measure. The main purpose of the Bill is to give effect—I know that Senator Baxter will jeer at this, at the suggestion that anything could be done by any body of Parliamentarians, unless he was an active participant—to the recommendation which was made by the joint committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas which was set up to consider the present method of electing the Seanad and which made these recommendations. The committee began to sit in February, 1946, and reported in May, 1947. All of that was Parliamentary time. The House is not being asked to pass this measure in one day.

Mr. Baxter

It is, of course. When did we get the Bill?

Mr. MacEntee

The House was asked to pass this Bill after having in its hands the report of this joint committee which reported in May, 1947, and even Senator Baxter might surely have had time to familiarise himself with those recommendations and make up his mind in advance whether they were good or bad recommendations. I am sure he would, as usual, make up his mind without having heard the views of anybody, but that is bound to be the case, since the Senator is one whom no argument can change and no experience teach.

Mr. Baxter

And no money can bribe, as you well know.

Mr. MacEntee

I never offered the Senator a penny piece to influence him. Is he suggesting that I did?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister must be allowed to continue.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the remark is most uncalled for. The Senator has suggested in his interruption that I at some stage or other attempted to bribe him with money.

Mr. Baxter

Does the Minister want me to explain?

Mr. MacEntee

If the Senator means that once I was asked to approach him in order to ask him to form a coalition to prevent the Public Safety Bill from being enacted, it is quite true that I did.

Mr. Hayes

Coalitions can be good at some time.

Mr. MacEntee

Coalitions can be justified by dire circumstances, to prevent great injustice being done.

Mr. Sweetman

To prevent a thing being done which the Minister for Justice now has adopted himself.

Mr. MacEntee

Senator Baxter on that occasion did not see the light and is wandering in the outer darkness ever since, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister might now deal with the amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

I was saying that this explanatory memorandum shows how simple the Bill is. It proposes things which are simple, because it proposes to give effect to recommendations which in themselves are essentially simple and not at all complicated. The Bill proposes that a new register of nominating bodies be established on a somewhat broader basis than at present and it sets out that basis very fully, in language anyone can read and understand in the Bill. It proposes that, in lieu of the appeal committee as at present constituted, to consider appeals in connection with the annual revision of the register, an appeal board should be set up consisting of the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of each House of the Oireachtas, together with a judge of the Supreme Court. Could there be, for the purpose of considering objections or of reviewing decisions, relating to membership of the Oireachtas, a fitter board of appeal than that? Does not the commonsense of every member of the House tell us that it is a reasonable recommendation and one which should be accepted? The next recommendation——

Mr. M. Hayes

On a point of order, I take it we are not discussing the merits or reasonableness of this Bill, but discussing whether, the Bill being what it is, it ought to be restricted to 12 months of life. Otherwise, we are going into a Second Reading discussion which might last for ever.

Mr. MacEntee

The speech with which Senator Hayes supported his amendment was one which would have been more properly made, I submit, on the Second Stage. He described this Bill as long and complicated. However, I am admitting that it is a long one, but I am not admitting that it is complicated; and I am adressing myself to the task of proving that it is a very simple measure, with no complications whatever.

Mr. Sweetman

You are a brave man.

Mr. Douglas

Can we do that on the Committee Stage?

Mr. MacEntee

I am doing it in order to controvert the argument used in respect of this amendment—an amendment which, I am afraid, is designed to defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. If I am in order, I will proceed; if not, I will content myself with referring the members of the Seanad to the explantory memorandum which was circulated with the Bill, in which the extreme simplicity of the proposals is fully exhibited.

Regarding the other argument which the Senator adduced, that a considerable number of amendments were put down on the Committee Stage in the other House, it is true that there was a great number of amendments, but most of them were verbal amendments. For instance, in making its decision, the committee had suggested that there should be "nominating committees." We had already nominating bodies.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister need not deal with that. We will deal with the amendment now.

Mr. MacEntee

I am on the point of the number of amendments. I am merely pointing out that, in order that there should be a clear distinction between the nominating bodies— perhaps more properly described as proposing bodies—and the nominating committees, we decided to call the nominating committees "nomination committees"; and a considerable number of verbal amendments went down in the other House in order to give effect to that decision. Similarly, in order to meet the situation which was caused by reason of the fact that a general election was impending and that it would be, perhaps, unfair to impose upon a new officer, who had no previous experience of conducting a Seanad election, the obligation of giving effect to the provisions of the Bill, it was decided that the experienced officer who had conducted previous Seanad elections would be the fitter person to act as returning officer for the first Seanad election. Accordingly, transitory provisions had to be embodied to provide for that.

Again, we had the situation that the new register of nominating bodies would not be prepared in time to permit it to be utilised for the purpose of the impending general election and we had to include transitory provisions to provide that the bodies on the existing register would be deemed to be nominating bodies for the purposes of this Act. Again, we had to adjust and fit in with the existing body of the law the proposals of the joint committee for having nominating bodies and the proposals of the joint committee setting out a new procedure for selecting vocational candidates for the Seanad. In doing that, we decided that, on the whole, instead of following the usual Parliamentary practice of deleting words here and there and inserting new words in their stead, it would be better to repeal the relevant sections in toto and submit an entirely new section.

That gave the appearance of drastic amendments on the Committee Stage, but in fact there is only one amendment of any substance, and of that I gave notice on the Second Stage. The one amendment of substance was the new proposals for regulating and controlling the method of postal voting so as to make it at once indubitably consistent with the Constitution and at the same time secure from interference. I am sorry to say, notwithstanding all the attention which we devoted to that problem, we have not yet been able to satisfy Senator Baxter, although now I am glad to say that he is satisfied to this extent——

Mr. Baxter

How do you know?

Mr. Hayes

Is not this desperately irrelevant?

Mr. Baxter

He can say what he likes about Senator Baxter.

Mr. MacEntee

That there is no longer any possibility that ballot papers will be interfered with.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are not dealing with that amendment. The Minister should come to the amendment before the House.

Mr. MacEntee

I am in your hands, Sir.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Surely the Minister is entitled to answer points raised by other speakers.

Mr. Hayes

Surely he should speak on this amendment and nothing else. The Minister is making a Second Reading speech. Does the Minister not know what date it is?

Mr. MacEntee

I think that Senator Baxter has great reason to be thankful to Senator Hayes.

Mr. Baxter

What did you say?

Mr. Hayes

All right, all right, do not mind him.

Mr. MacEntee

It was argued by Senator Baxter that there may be people already contemplating the corruption of the nominating bodies. If Senators wish me to be merciful to Senator Baxter and treat his remarks with the silence which they justify I am prepared to do that.

Mr. Hayes

We do not want the Minister to be tiresomely irrelevant.

Mr. MacEntee

Senator Hayes has been so strictly relevant——

Mr. Hayes

Absolutely.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is for the Chair to decide that.

Mr. MacEntee

——that I am endeavouring to follow his good example. I have addressed myself to the argument he used. He said that the Bill was long and complicated. I admit that it is long, but I deny that it is complicated. He said that I was evasive, but when I am trying to address myself to the arguments of Senator Hayes, on the one hand, and Senator Baxter on the other, up jumps Senator Hayes on a point of order. I am not entitled to intervene on a point of order and I have not intervened. I have listened with patience to what Senator Hayes has said, but apparently Senator Hayes's idea of proper procedure compels everyone else to be silent while his tongue is loose.

I only wish to say this: I would ask the Seanad not to accept this amendment on the grounds that it is quite unnecessary. I am going to go a little bit further: it does not perhaps matter very much whether we bring the Dáil back or not. Senator Hayes has indicated that he controls 20 members of Dáil Éireann whom he can assemble at any time.

Mr. Hayes

Twenty members?

Mr. MacEntee

Ten members, then, to do his bidding.

Mr. Hayes

For Heaven's sake, cannot the Minister talk some kind of sense?

Mr. Baxter

How could he?

Mr. Hayes

I never said that. I said that we could get a quorum to pass this amendment of people resident in Dublin.

Mr. MacEntee

I am always giving up in despair——

Mr. Sweetman

That would be the best thing that could happen.

Mr. MacEntee

I cannot understand Senator Hayes's attitude. I understood him to throw out a kind of challenge to me saying that he was prepared to gather ten just men in Dublin, members of Dáil Éireann, who would assemble at his behest in Leinster House to consider an amendment from the Senate. I am not prepared to say that I could do that. I do not know what the members would say if I were to ask them to come together in that rather summary fashion. I am going to suggest to the Seanad that this amendment is quite unnecessary to achieve the purpose which the Seanad has in view. I do not know whether the Senator is pessimistic about his chances of re-election to this House or not. I do not know that, but surely if he is optimistic that he is going to be returned, he himself can do one or two things. He can put down a motion asking for a new joint committee to be set up to reconsider the methods of electing the Seanad, or he can introduce a Bill in this House to amend whatever legislation may be then in force governing the election of the Seanad. This can be done by any member of the new House and I suggest that it would be more fittingly done by a member who has undergone the ordeal of election under the new Bill. Surely if it is to be decided that the proposals of this Bill, if it becomes law, should be further amended, the fitting body to do that would be the new Seanad, but we should not insert anything in this Bill which would willy-nilly compel them to reconsider the method of election whether they desire to do so or not.

This amendment reminds me of provisions very frequently found in wills in this country many years ago, where the dead hand endeavoured to fetter the conscience and discretion of posterity. There used to be a provision that so-and-so would inherit property unless he married a person of another faith. We are trying to compel another Seanad and another Dáil, another Oireachtas, to amend this Bill whether they feel that it is necessary to amend it or not. I suggest that this is an abuse—if one wishes to put it that way —of the powers of the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas can do it if it wishes but I do not think in the present circumstances it would be wise for the Oireachtas to do that.

Mr. Douglas

I would like to make my own position quite clear. I am not going to follow the Minister as I have not the language equal to dealing with it. There are three courses open to us, firstly to make this a temporary measure, and to pass it through all stages at once without adequate discussion; secondly to treat it as a permanent measure, an extremely important electoral Bill as was pointed out by Senator O'Dea, and to take proper time, to take the Committee Stage to-day and to-morrow, to adjourn the House and then take the Report Stage; to treat this as a serious Bill affecting the future of the Seanad. Our third choice is to say that this is a serious Bill which should be carefully examined, but to say "we will do nothing whatever about it" and pass it. The Minister and Senator O'Dea held that the first course was a tremendous mistake. The proper course would be to ignore politics, to take the business seriously, to put our minds to it and to ignore the Minister's suggestion that it should go through at once.

I would have been prepared to agree to the other course. I should, however, like to make my position clear in that respect. I was not a member of the committee. When I received the committee's report I read it carefully and I decided that certain of the recommendations were very doubtful and that, at any rate, they should be fully discussed. I was open to conviction on all the matters concerned. I discussed them with some of my friends and found that they were not very convincing. I decided there was nothing to do until we knew whether the Government would accept the report and agree to implement it. It does not really matter now whether the Bill is simple or complicated because we will discover that when we go through the Committee Stage. I shall have a lot of questions on the various sections when we discuss the Bill on the Committee Stage. The Minister may try to convince me that the answers to my points are perfectly simple. On the other hand he may find that they are not so simple. He may be able to give me an answer at once and, for that again, he may not. I have now come to the conclusion that, in view of the Minister's attitude and particularly in view of the attitude of Senator O'Dea, it would be better to withdraw this amendment and to proceed in a leisurely fashion and to do the work properly. I think it is wrong for us to pass this measure in a day or two this week. We shall be laughed at by the public to whom we are in a certain measure responsible if we do so. Personally I would have been reluctantly prepared to agree to the making of one or two of these measures of a temporary character so that a proper discussion could take place before they became permanent. I recognise that there is a certain amount of validity in the argument that this is really meant to be permanent and that it should be treated as permanent legislation. If so it would be nothing less than a farce, in the case of a Bill which is intended to be permanent and which, the Minister points out, is to be tried at least for a few elections, to pass through all the stages to-day. I submit that that would make this House a laughing stock. If it is passed by the House in a majority I have nothing to say but to register my protest.

Mr. Duffy

I have been listening to the speeches made by members on both sides of the House and I am unable to satisfy myself as to who wants the Bill enacted. Senator Hayes apparently is the only one desirous of getting this Bill disposed of immediately. However, he wants to adopt a life limitation of 12 months in that connection. In other words, he wants it to be made an annual Act.

Senator Douglas, apparently, thinks it is a Bill that should be examined with great deliberation and that a long time should be spent on its examination. There is plenty of time. We have this afternoon, to-morrow and Friday. We have a lot of time, if that is all we want, to examine the Bill. Let us examine this Bill section by section, paragraph by paragraph and take our time in doing so. There is no use in talking about giving the matter consideration unless we are willing to consider it. I think nobody is rushing us and I would suggest that that is the remedy for Senator Douglas.

On the other hand, the Minister seems most anxious that we should not dispose of the Bill at all. If he is in a hurry with it he should not make speeches which carry him back to the glorious coalition of 1927. It would be better for him to keep to 1947 and to the third week in December, 1947.

Mr. Hayes

Hear, hear!

Mr. Duffy

That is the way to get the Bill. I should say that I do not approve of the amendment and that if a vote is taken I propose to vote against it. This is not an annual Act. This is not like some of these clauses in the Labourers Act of 1883 or some of these Local Government Acts which are kept in the legislation as temporary measures until some day a lot of these temporary provisions will be gathered into a conglomerate statute. This is not a Bill of that nature. There is no sense whatever in saying that this is a Bill which will have effect until the 31st December, 1948, because about the 20th December, 1948, we will get the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill, to the Schedule of which this Act will be attached, and that will go on for 40 years. Senator Hayes will achieve nothing and this House will achieve nothing by placing on the Bill a life limitation of 12 months.

I do not think the House should be asked to divide on that but if there is a division I do not think that very many members can conscientiously support a matter of that kind. I suggest that Senator Hayes put the amendment down not for the purpose of having it carried but for the purpose of giving him elbow room for argument. I am not finding any fault with him in this respect. He is quite entitled to do that if he thinks it is the best method of getting discussion on the points he has to make. The Minister suggests we cannot bring the Dáil back——

Mr. MacEntee

On the contrary, if the Senator will pardon me, I have not suggested that. I said the House has the power to bring the Dáil back. My suggestion was that it would not be considerate in present circumstances to exercise that power.

Mr. Duffy

It may be argued that we might not be justified in making an amendment which would involve recalling the Dáil——

Mr. MacEntee

An amendment of this type which, as the Senator himself has so ably shown, is unnecessary.

Mr. Duffy

I agree if that is the view. I submit that if the view prevails that none of these 12 or 14 amendments on the Order Paper can be accepted then we are wasting our time. I suggest, however, that whatever the Minister may have meant to say that his colleagues firmly believe the Bill is already law, or nearly so. I have read a circular issued by one of his colleagues inviting voters to vote for him for the next election. I did not intend to refer to it only that the Senator concerned is now in the House. It may be of some interest if we were to tell the House the nature of the circular. It is dated 13th December, 1947, and is addressed to each county councillor in the Senator's county. It reads as follows:—

"A Chara,

As you are no doubt aware, immediately after the coming general election there will be an election for the Seanad. This election will, I understand, be held under the new system of election which in effect means that every member of a county council will have the right to vote.

Under the new scheme each member will be entitled to vote on all five panels. In other words, each voter will be entitled to vote No. 1 for each of five candidates, provided that they are all on different panels and so on down to the end of the list of candidates.

I expect again to be a candidate for the Agricultural Panel and hereby solicit your support for your No. 1 vote or earliest possible preference.

Thanking you in anticipation,

Mise, le meas,

(Signed) BILL QUIRKE."

Now, I take it that the Minister has indicated to the members of his Party or, shall I say, to his friends in this House that the Bill is as good as passed.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the Senator must have recruited Senator Duffy to be part of his election team.

Mr. Quirke

I would like to thank Senator Duffy for the publicity and the canvass he is making on my behalf.

Mr. Duffy

I am very glad that I have been of service to the Senator. I would not have read the letter had Senator Quirke not entered the House. I raise the matter merely to indicate to the House that the Minister, whether he has said it in so many words or not, regards the Bill as having passed into law as it stands at present. My attitude towards the Bill has been made perfectly clear. I do not think it is going to do for the Seanad what the Minister said it would do or even probably what he hopes it will do. I admit it is a tremendous improvement on the practice in the past.

I think the House should give the Minister credit for his realisation of the fact that the legislation passed by his Government at an earlier stage was unwise legislation and is in need of amendment. I am anxious to have a change. I suggest to the House that we would be equally wise in defeating this amendment moved by Senator Hayes and in examining this Bill, clause by clause, to see whether there is in fact anything in it now that needs either alteration or amendment. I think we should do that as expeditiously as possible so that the Minister may get his Bill through before the end of the year.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

When I saw this amendment I took it to mean that Senator Hayes was dissatisfied with the Bill as it stands. I thought that he believed that it was not by any means a perfect measure and that it had some obvious defects. The difficulty of recasting the Bill would be very great and Senator Hayes probably thought that by ensuring that the Bill is of a temporary nature some sort of compromise would be effected. Personally, I find myself in somewhat the same position. To my mind, there are certain defects in the Bill which call for amendment or remedy. I hope to be in a position to correct some of the defects. A good deal of latitude has been allowed to members of the House in explaining their own difficulties. Perhaps I may be permitted to show in what way I think the Bill is defective. I shall give you an example from my own personal knowledge and from my experience derived in my effort to get elected to the Cultural and Educational Panel. We have 48 vocational education committees. Now, I may be misinterpreting the Bill and, if so, I trust the Minister will correct me. These committees, in the first instance, will be allowed to nominate——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That matter will arise later, on a section.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I merely want to explain why I object to this Bill. I shall not delay the House. Having got through the first stage, and run a pretty severe gauntlet, we find there are five people nominated by that particular body and five nominated by each of the other nominating bodies. These will in turn sit in judgment upon the two nominated by the vocational education committees throughout the country and these committees may then be deprived of their right entirely through the action of bodies to whom they have no responsibility or anything else. It seems to me to be ridiculously complicated. It is both undemocratic and objectionable.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator will have an opportunity of repeating all that on the section and he might as well reserve his speech until we come to deal with the section.

Mr. Hayes

This amendment was put down for the purpose of ensuring that there would be agreement that this particular scheme would be discussed in the new Parliament and there would be agreement in this House, as a kind of message to the new Parliament, to that effect. Quite clearly there is no agreement. The amendment, therefore, serves no good purpose and we may as well get on to the actual discussion of the Bill and to whatever attempt we can make to amend it. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Quirke

As my name has been brought into this debate, I do not agree to the amendment being withdrawn.

Mr. Hayes

I did not bring in the Senator's name to the amendment at all.

Mr. Quirke

I did not say the Senator brought it in. I said my name was brought into the discussion on the Bill.

Question—"That leave be given to withdraw the amendment"—put and declared carried.

Division called for.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We have failed to get tellers in favour of the question. I think the best procedure to adopt, therefore, is to ask if there are any two Senators assenting to nomination as tellers on the Tá side, so that the House may proceed to a division.

No Senator rose.

Mr. Hearne

In other words, the Tá's have not the courage of their convictions.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Therefore, there cannot be a division as the House has not provided me with the machinery. The motion for withdrawal is accordingly carried. The amendment will be withdrawn accordingly.

Mr. Hearne

You can take me as formally objecting to that decision. I intend raising the matter in a place where it can be properly dealt with.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Might I read the relative Standing Order:—

"When the doors have been locked and the Division Lobbies cleared the Cathaoirleach shall again put the question and declare afresh the result, in his opinion, of the putting of the question. If such fresh declaration be challenged, he shall order the Seanad to divide and shall nominate two tellers for each side...."

Mr. Hearne

He "shall nominate two tellers." I do not propose to go into the merits of the decision at the present time. This is not the place to discuss a decision of that nature; but certainly I shall raise the matter and have it properly dealt with where it can be dealt with. I wish to be taken as emphatically dissenting from it.

Mr. Hayes

For the moment, there is no division.

SECTION 2.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 7, line 12, after the word "Éireann" where that word secondly occurs, to insert the words "other than a member of Seanad Éireann nominated under Section 3 of Article 18 of the Constitution".

This section covers the definitions for the purposes of the Bill. It will be observed that on page 7 a special meaning for the purposes of the Bill is given to the expression "member of the Oireachtas", which, on this definition, means a member of Dáil Éireann or a member of Seanad Éireann. The purpose of the definition here is to determine, in so far as the Seanad is concerned, who is entitled to make nominations or to join in making nominations for the new Seanad. It also determines, so far as Seanad Éireann is concerned, the persons entitled to vote in an election for a new Seanad. The purpose of the amendment is to delimit that definition so that the persons appointed members of the Seanad under Section 3 of Article 18 of the Constitution will not be entitled to make nominations or to join in making nominations or to vote in an election for a subsequent Seanad.

The persons concerned in this amendment are the 11 persons who were nominated by the head of the Government to be members of Seanad Éireann. If we desire to preserve the democracy of the institution, it is obvious that we should exclude from the right to make nominations and the right to vote those members who did not enter the Seanad through any elective channel, whether from nominating bodies or from the other side of the Seanad panels. So far as I am concerned, there is no personal reflection on any individual in making this proposal. Senator Sir John Keane, who, I just now remember, is affected by the proposal, says he hopes not. I can assure him that I did not even look up the list to find out who would be affected.

Mr. Hearne

I would not like to bet that you did not know them.

Mr. Duffy

If the Senator does not believe me, I cannot help that. It is a matter of absolute indifference to me. There is no member of this House who, I think, is more worthy of a vote and of making nominations than Senator Sir John Keane. If I were a candidate and he had a vote, I have reason to think I would get it. That, however, does not rob my argument of its merit. The argument is that there is in the House a group of members selected by the head of the Government to be members of the Seanad. They are entitled to all the privileges of membership. I suggest, however, that it is weighting the elective machine considerably in favour of the Government of the day if the 11 persons nominated by the head of the Government can register 55 first preference votes in a Seanad election. That is the principle upon which this amendment is based.

I would ask the House to have regard to the facts and to leave out of account individuals, estimable individuals like Senator Sir John Keane for instance. Think, for instance, of the effect of a group of votes of this magnitude in some future election. That vote may be decisive. Members of the House sitting opposite probably have it pre-eminently in their minds that a certain Government will be making these nominations after the next election. Suppose it happens that there is a change of Government after the next election. I am just wondering what Senator Hearne and Senator Hawkins will be saying in six or 12 months' time from such election because here is what it means. The head of the Government will have the right to nominate 11 persons but, no matter what else happens, the 11 people who are in the House now and who were nominees of the head of the present Government will have the right to register 55 first preference votes at the next election. It may please Senator Hearne to say: "Well we can account for a fair share of these 55 votes." That is true, but if there is a change of Government within the next two or three months, and another election takes place in a year or two, the balance will be cast against Senator Hearne and he may then see the error of passing over lightly the claim of the 11 persons nominated by the head of the Government to poll 55 votes in a Seanad election.

I am putting this view to the House without any regard to Party considerations, without any regard to the individuals concerned, without any regard to what any person may feel about the proposal. I am putting it to the House as a matter which requires serious consideration. Some people have, in fact, objected to the proposal that any retiring member would have the right to make a nomination or to have a vote. That argument has been put frequently from many quarters. I have heard it made repeatedly within the last 12 months. It has been argued, for instance, that in no kind of club is an outgoing member entitled to nominate himself or to vote for himself. I am not familiar with the rules of clubs and I do not know whether that is true, but it is suggested that it is derogatory to the State that outgoing members of this Assembly should be entitled to join in nominating themselves and voting for themselves. After all, if there is some person in this House pre-eminently popular amongst all members of the House, the 60 members of the House could almost inevitably secure his election against the world. I wonder is that good? My own feeling is that it is not, but I am not taking that wide field. I am just confining myself to the very narrow aspect, the part occupied by the 11 persons who, as I have said at the outset, enter the House, not through election, not through any process of representative organisation, whether it be election by the Houses of the Oireachtas or through the machinery of the nominating bodies. I have no personal feeling in the matter but I would urge on the House to consider whether it is not desirable that an amendment of this character should not be made.

Mr. Hawkins

Seing that Senator Duffy has paid me the honour of introducing my name into this debate and into the argument he has put forward, I think I must make my little contribution towards defeating his amendment. We must accept it that each and every member elected or selected to this House has an equal right and an equal standing and that each and every member selected by the Taoiseach has been selected because of some service which he or she rendered to the Irish nation in the past. I hope, no matter what Party is in power or no matter what person occupies the position of Taoiseach, he or she—because it may come to that—will bear these considerations in mind when he or she is making appointments to the Seanad.

Senator Duffy suggests that only those people who have been elected directly by the electorate should have a vote or a voice in the election of members of the Seanad. Does Senator Duffy suggest for one moment, that a member of this House who has been elected in the past by his own vote— and there are such members in this House—should have some particular privilege over and above those people who are selected by the Taoiseach because of some past service they have rendered to the nation? Does the Senator suggest that people who were chosen simply because they were members of a particular county council, to exercise a vote on the part of the county council, should have a right to a vote in this House over and above the people who were put here because, as I have already stated, of some service they have rendered to the nation?

Senator Duffy has fallen into what he often falls into—a muddle of figures. He tells us that if these 11 members selected by the Taoiseach are to have the same rights as members who were elected in the ordinary way, that is if they have votes in the election of the new Seanad, they would outweigh all the rest of the electorate.

Mr. Duffy

Oh, my goodness, no.

Mr. Hawkins

I did not interrupt Senator Duffy when he was speaking.

Mr. Duffy

Surely the Senator is not entitled to misrepresent me?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Duffy, on a point of explanation.

Mr. Hawkins

I shall allow him to wrap himself up as much as he likes in figures.

Mr. Duffy

I do not want to interrupt the Senator, I merely want to put him right. I never made any such fantastic statement as he has attributed to me.

Mr. Hawkins

He has made so many fantastic statements that I would hardly be capable of picking out the most fantastic. To say that if these members selected by the Taoiseach have the right to take part in the election of the new Seanad, they will out-vote and overbalance all the other members of the Seanad——

Mr. Duffy

Would the Senator permit me to correct him? Let me tell him what I did say. I said that these 11 people would exercise 55 first preference votes. Make what you like out of that in balances.

Mr. Hawkins

We will examine this. There are 11 persons and an electorate of something like 980. Each of those has five votes and the 11 persons have 55 votes between them out of a total vote of almost 5,000. If Senator Duffy can convince me that the 55 votes can out-balance the votes of the elected representatives, I shall be satisfied.

Mr. Duffy

The expression I used was that the 55 votes might be decisive.

Mr. Hawkins

I will agree with the Senator that they may be as decisive as in the case of those members whom he and his Party supported in the past and elected to this House on their own votes.

Mr. Duffy

We were not alone in that, thanks be to God.

Mr. Hearne

I disagree with the amendment and I think much of the argument put up by Senator Duffy could be used against allowing a coopted member of a county council to have a vote. My main objection to his line of argument—and I agree with what Senator Hawkins said—is that here we have one type of Senator, the Senator who is nominated. As a member of the Seanad he is entitled to all the privileges and all the duties that that membership entails. I disagree very violently with one Senator who has been nominated here, Senator Sir John Keane, but I would be the very last to deprive him of any of the rights he enjoys here or the duties to which he attends so admirably. I believe it would be most invidious to make distinctions. In theory the votes might be decisive, but in actual practice I wonder how decisive those votes would be; whether these people are given votes or not, whether they will have 11 number ones or whether there will be 11 number ones less in the electorate, I believe the result of the election under this system would not be materially affected.

Miss Pearse

It may be considered unbecoming for me, being one of the selected members, to speak in this debate, but, with all respect to Senator Duffy, I do not think that my intervention is as unbecoming as is his amendment. As Senator Hawkins and Senator Hearne said, we are either members of the Seanad or we are not. We have the right to vote here in divisions and we enjoy all the privileges of the Seanad. Why should there be any difference?

Senator Duffy also hinted—and this is really the worst part of the whole thing—that the selections of the Taoiseach are political. They are not. There is, for instance, a vast difference between the politics of Senator Sir John Keane and the politics of Senator Matt Stafford. The political views of these two men are widely different. They have a different outlook altogether, one might almost say a different nationality. I think the amendment is most ill-advised, introducing as it does a very ugly spirit into the Seanad. For my part I consider that it is a greater honour for me to be selected by our Taoiseach than it would be if I were elected by the votes of every man and woman in the 32 Counties.

Mr. O'Dea

I should like to refer to Article 14 of the Constitution, which says:—

"Seanad Éireann shall be composed of 60 members of whom 11 shall be nominated members and 49 shall be elected members."

If we accept this amendment we will do something that is absolutely contrary to that Article of the Constitution, because we will be saying that some members of the Oireachtas who, according to the Constitution, are members, are not members at all. The definition says:—

"Member of the Oireachtas means a member of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann."

Surely, you cannot have a qualification put into that which contradicts the Constitution? I submit that this amendment is entirely unconstitutional.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the Senator, in deference to the arguments that have been used against this amendment, will see the unwisdom of pressing it. There would be grave doubts. I am not a lawyer but, looking at it as a layman, I cannot see how you will divide the Seanad into two parts. The Seanad is a corporate entity and all the members of that entity must share the privileges and duties that attach to this House. It would be wrong for the Seanad to accept this amendment and I think the Senator, on reconsideration, will not press it.

My general attitude is that I am here as the agent of the joint committee; that is my position in relation to this Bill and I cannot advise the House, even if I thought the amendment were a good amendment—which I do not—to accept anything which would be so contradictory to the general spirit of the committee's report as this would.

Mr. Duffy

Every member of the House who has spoken is opposed to the amendment. I think that is decisive, but I would like to point this out. The Minister was a member of the committee that examined this problem and I think he will agree that what we are now discussing was not considered at all by the committee—there was no view one way or the other. I have merely drawn attention to what I think is one of the weaknesses of the scheme. Others will probably emerge when we see the Act operating. I am satisfied that I have done my duty, but the House, apparently, is not willing to accept my amendment and therefore I shall withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 2, 3 and 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Duffy

May I raise one point on Section 5? I am not sure whether there is much of a point in what I will refer to, but I should like to have it cleared up. This is the section which enables the Minister to make regulations. There is no provision in the Bill to have these regulations tabled. We have made it the practice for a long time that wherever that omission is detected we draw attention to it and usually Ministers agree that the regulations should be tabled and both Houses should have an opportunity of annulling them if they thought fit.

Mr. MacEntee

This section is taken from the old Act and it is not proposed to make any amendments in the existing law other than those which the committee recommend should be made. Accordingly, the section as it appears is taken holus-bolus from the existing Seanad Electoral Act, and I do not think it is necessary to amend it. There has not been any objection to the regulations made under that Act or to the forms and, so far as I am concerned, the regulations which will be made under this Bill will conform as closely as possible to the existing regulations.

If there is any feeling on the matter, I suggest that it is a subject the new House might consider, whether these regulations should be tabled or not. I would have no objection to tabling them, but I do not think any amendment is essential and I would ask the Senator not to consider making any amendment of this Bill at this stage. I have no objection, and I am sure no successor of mine will have any objection, to accepting a provision requiring the regulations to be tabled.

Mr. Duffy

Between ourselves, I think the whole thing about tabling regulations was overlooked by the committee. It was not in the Act. I have looked through the Bill and I have come to the conclusion that the kind of regulations which remain under Section 5, in the main, are not the kind of regulations which ought to be annulled. I do not think there is a lot in it, although an occasion might arise where the House would be entitled to examine certain kinds of regulations. The Minister's statement that he is quite willing to table regulations, has no importance whatever unless both Houses have power to annul the regulations when tabled. I will not press it any further. I do not think it is worth while to press it under this section because the regulations, in the main, will be machinery regulations with which nobody will interfere.

Question agreed to.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Sections 6 and 7 put and agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 10, line 30, after the word "subscriptions" to insert the words "fees, or other equivalent payments by its members".

This amendment is related to paragraph (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 8. That paragraph provides that the Seanad returning officer may refuse to register any body, with certain exceptions, of course, that is to say, any nominating body, unless its average annual revenue from subscriptions during a stated period amounts to a certain sum. The only difficulty I find is with regard to the use of the expression "subscriptions". The term is not defined in the Bill and normally, in common use, the word means a voluntary payment, a payment to a charity, a payment to any organisation which is not prescribed or fixed by rules. It seems to me that the use of that expression will present difficulty in respect to a number of organisations. The first that springs to my mind is the National Teachers' Organisation. Its income is not derived from subscriptions; it is derived from fixed contributions or fees. The same applies to other organisations, for instance, the Trade Union Congress. Its income is derived from fees prescribed in its rules and payable by the affiliated organisations—30, 40 or 50 affiliated organisations. It occurs to me that the phrase is inadequate and, in fact, may be misleading. I am endeavouring to insert additional words so that the purport of the paragraph would then be expressed something like this:

"The Seanad returning officer may refuse to register any body—with the stated exceptions—unless its organisation and direction are governed by articles of association, rules or other regulations which provide certain things and its average annual revenue from subscriptions, fees, or other equivalent payments by its members amount to a certain figure."

I am not tied to this amendment at all. I submit it is as a matter of importance in drafting this Bill. If the Minister is satisfied that the expression "subscriptions" has a defined meaning, that it is an expression that will admit to the register bodies of the type I have mentioned, I am satisfied on that assurance to withdraw the amendment, but I think the matter deserves to be raised and considered.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think that it is necessary to amend the section in order to deal with the problem which Senator Duffy has in mind. The word "subscriptions" is not defined in the Bill and therefore, I take it, would have a very general application, and that anything which might be of the same nature or the same character as subscriptions, for instance, say the affiliation fee of an ordinary body would be regarded, and properly regarded, by the Seanad returning officer as a subscription. It would, perhaps, be better, I quite readily admit, if we had embodied the words, which Senator Duffy proposes to insert, in the original draft. I have looked into this from the point of view of the Senator's amendment and I am assured that the term "subscription" is not a restricting term. It is not, as I say, defined in the Bill, but it can be given a very comprehensive interpretation and would include anything which was of the same nature or character as a subscription.

Undoubtedly, what the joint committee had in mind was the sort of subscription which a person pays as an annual membership fee. I merely put it on record now that the Seanad returning officer will have regard to what I am saying—the matter may not arise at all—but if, subsequent to the passage of this Bill, the occasion arises, this is one of the points which, I think, we could properly deal with.

Mr. Douglas

I had intended to raise this matter in a slightly different form. I do not know exactly what the Minister is trying to achieve. Is not the object to provide that the body is of some substance? It seems to me that it should be quite sufficient if its annual revenue reaches a particular figure. I do not see why you want fee or the word "subscription", or any particular description, in a case such as that. Take the case where a trade body or a number of trades—we have a number of trade associations of various kinds—get together for the purpose of doing some work. There may be a nominal annual subscription. It may not be the same in each year. That will depend on the work that it is proposed to undertake. Sometimes it may be work of a semi-research character. On the other hand, it may be work which will involve quite heavy expenditure. There are a number of such bodies which, I believe, would be perfectly suitable bodies for the purpose of making nominations. The amount subscribed by them may, as I have said, vary. In one year it may be five guineas and in another year the figure may run from 100 to 150 guineas, according to the work they propose to undertake. I think it would be quite sufficient to leave out the word "subscription" and say "its average annual revenue".

I do not think there is any definition in the Bill of what "a charitable body" is. I am not quite clear myself as to what a charitable body is as distinct from another kind of association. Let us suppose that all the people in trade A get together and that the voluntary subscription varies from one guinea to five guineas, can that body be described as a charitable body? I take it that it is not intended to be, but if not, what is intended to be a charitable body and why? There may be excellent reasons for the distinction that we find in the sub-section as between "£1,000 and not less than £250" in the case of a charitable body. In the past Senators will remember that there was a certain amount of keen competition to get on the register of nominating bodies. In view of that, these points are going to be extremely important in the future. I think, for instance, that the meaning of the word "subscription" will have to be decided. What the Minister says about the word "subscription" will have no legal effect. If there is going to be a dispute as to whether certain bodies will get on the register or not, the point that I am raising is an important one, and there should be some means of deciding it.

The same thing applies to the expression "charitable body". I draw attention to the words which appear a line or two above the one with which the amendment deals and which refer to "the audit and certification of accounts by a public auditor or other qualified person." What is the meaning of the words "or other qualified person"? I frequently audit the accounts of charitable bodies that I am connected with, and whether I am a qualified person or not is, of course, a matter of opinion. I do not know what the expression means as it is used in this section. It seems to me that it would be quite all right if it were a sort of general rule, but if a legal decision is going to be based on the use of such words, without any definition as to whether a body is qualified or not, then I think the use of such expressions is far too vague.

Mr. Duffy

I think that we ought to distinguish between the procedure which contemplates interpretation by the courts of an expression in a statute and interpretation by a Departmental official. I think that is important. We have had that distinction raised in other cases, let us say the Unemployment Insurance Acts, the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts and statutes of that kind. In the earlier days of these Acts relating to social insurance, the determination of such issues lay with the courts. One does appreciate the fact that a court is not influenced by anything that may be said by a Minister, or said by anyone else either in this or in the other House. I am not a lawyer, but I think it is a recognised practice amongst lawyers not to refer to debates in Parliament in the interpretation of statutes. I think that is axiomatic, but it is not quite so where the decision has to be made by a Departmental officer. I think it is quite proper to argue with an officer what the House believed they were doing when they passed a certain Bill into law.

Mr. Douglas

Before an appeal board?

Mr. Duffy

I accept that. I put down the amendment with that in view. There is that point to be cleared up, but if we can have the assurance that the expression "subscriptions" is all-embracing and does not exclude the payment of affiliation fees, for instance, I personally am satisfied and would not wish to press the amendment further.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the Senator is justified in feeling that it is not necessary to press the amendment further because, normally, the first decision in this matter would rest with an officer of this House, who will be the Seanad returning officer, the Clerk of Seanad Éireann. He is the first person who will be called upon to interpret the provisions of this section and I think we can rely on him to interpret them, having in mind the purpose of the section, which is to ensure that the composition or constitution of this House will not be vitiated by having on the register bodies which are not worthy to be there—bodies which have been started for a temporary purpose, bodies which are not genuinely representative of the interests which they claim to be concerned with, and bodies which have been established by a group of persons for the ad hoc purpose of having their names proposed for nomination by a nominating committee to one or other of the nominating bodies sub-panels.

So far as the general interpretation of this section is concerned, we may be certain that the Seanad returning officer will endeavour to interpret the provisions of this section in a reasonable and—it is rather difficult to find the word—at the same time, strict way. Accordingly, I assume that he will give a fairly broad interpretation to the term "subscription" as it is used in this connotation. It is quite clear that it is a general term intended to cover a great many forms in which revenue can be derived by a body claiming to represent a particular industrial, cultural or commercial interest. That is the first point I should like to make.

The next point arises in reply to Senator Douglas. This is not a matter which will ultimately and finally be decided by lawyers. If the decision of the Seanad returning officer is not acceptable to all the interests concerned, if people object to it either because they think he has been too lax in his ruling or too rigid in his interpretation of the section, there is an appeal to an appeal board, and the finding of that appeal board on a question of admission to the register is to be final and conclusive. The appeal board consists of men of experience in public life, men who are aware of what the Oireachtas was trying to do when it framed the provisions of the section. It is to consist of a chairman who is to be a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court nominated by the Chief Justice, the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of Dáil Éireann and the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of Seanad Éireann. I suppose the judge will be there to arbitrate should any conflict of opinion arise as between the four official members, so to speak, the four ex officio members of the tribunal, and we may be fairly certain that they will interpret the provisions of the section in approximately the way in which the joint committee anticipated they would be interpreted when they made this recommendation.

So far as the precise legal definition of the term "charitable body" is concerned, I do not think there is any difficulty in that regard because it is a term which has already been defined in common law. There must be very numerous decisions hinging around the proper interpretation of that term, so that, so far as the legal aspect is concerned, I do not think there will be any difficulty in getting guidance from existing decisions of the courts, not in relation to any particular matter which may arise here, because this cannot go to the courts, but in relation to matters which have arisen in the courts where the question of the proper interpretation of the term "charitable body" has been an issue.

Mr. Douglas

Would the Minister give the reason why there should be a distinction?

Mr. MacEntee

I am afraid the Senator will have to study the report of the committee in that regard, though I can see why there might be that distinction. A charitable body is only entitled to be registered in respect of the Administrative Panel. The question will not arise in relation to the Cultural and Educational Panel, the Industrial and Commercial Panel, the Agricultural Panel or the Labour Panel. It arises only in connection with one panel, the Administrative Panel. In Section 3, the expression, "Administrative Panel" is prescribed to mean "the panel required by the said sub-section (1) to contain the names of persons having knowledge and practical experience of the following interests and services, namely, public administration and social services, including voluntary social activities." It is only in relation to registration on that panel that this question will arise. What is being provided for here is to ensure that, if we are going to give any body of men the highly exclusive right of nominating or proposing persons for nomination at an election of the Seanad, we will be satisfied that the bodies are substantial bodies which render real voluntary social service.

Senator Douglas asked me why we insist that a nominating body should have a substantial income. The reason is to prevent people——

Mr. Douglas

I did not ask that. At least, I did not mean to ask it.

Mr. MacEntee

The Senator asked why we did not say that over the average of five years the nominating bodies, the trade organisations and others who might be nominating bodies, should have an annual average income of £250 or some such substantial sum.

Mr. Douglas

All I meant to convey was that it was sufficient to say "revenue" without the word "subscriptions." I was not objecting to the amount.

Mr. MacEntee

There is a little more to it than that. Perhaps the use of the word "subscriptions" here may be misleading. What I think the committee really intended was that the income of the nominating body should be made up of genuine subscriptions or membership fees paid by a substantial body of persons. We did not want to have a situation arising in which a rich man might set up a trade organisation, defray all its expenses as an act of grace and not an act of duty—and even as an act of duty—and by reason of his having formed this ad hoc body, might get himself and his friends proposed for nomination by the nominating committee. It was to avoid that that the committee decided that we should have some sort of provision which would exclude what would be regarded by everybody as an undesirable practice.

Mr. Douglas

I have listened carefully to the Minister and I honestly think that, if there is to be any amendment at all, there should be amendment there as regards subscriptions. I am not suggesting that Senator Duffy should press it at this stage, but if it is found that some amendments must be made, this should be considered. I do not think the word "subscription" makes it as plain as the Minister thinks, and I do not think there is anything in his last point at all. As this is worded, the revenue from subscriptions of £250 could be £240 from one person and £1 from each of ten persons and, under the section as it stands, he is completely under a delusion if he thinks the words would prevent what he has outlined. I am not worried about it, as I do not think it is a serious danger. The words do not say that each subscription must be of the same amount—and could not say so. If the Minister thinks they do, he is quite wrong.

Mr. Hearne

The sub-section says that "the Seanad returning officer may refuse" to register a body unless these conditions are complied with. It is not mandatory on him. In the case of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, there may be some doubt as to whether the fees would be deemed to be subscriptions, but even if they were not so deemed, the Seanad returning officer would still have power to admit them. Senator Douglas quoted some bodies who might be very worthy nominating bodies. If they comply first of all with the conditions embodied in Section 3, then even if their subscriptions do not come to the figures mentioned here the Seanad returning officer will still have power to admit them, as it is not essential that this requirement be complied with.

There was a good deal of discussion in the joint committee about this and the figures were amended many times. The wording that the Seanad returning officer "may refuse" to register was agreed on in the end, to admit of the case none of us could think of at the moment but which might actually arise, when these conditions would not be complied with, and then the returning officer would still have discretion to admit them, if he held they should be a nominating body.

Mr. Douglas

I am very glad to hear Senator Hearne's explanation, as I did not read it in that way and I do not think in practice it would work out in that way. The Seanad returning officer will in future be an official of this House and it seems to me that, as between the various applicants, he will have to devise a set of rules which he will apply scrupulously and fairly. The appeal committee will have to do the same. It would be quite impossible for the returning officer to admit A.B., who has only £100, saying: "I think you are suitable," and say to another: "I am refusing you because I do not think I can admit you under this Bill." Technically, Senator Hearne is correct that he has the discretion, but I do not think he could exercise his sole discretion. The fact that there is an appeal board rather suggests that the appeal will have to be heard on pretty fair lines as between all the different bodies and in a very short time the board will have, not rules but standards which it will try to apply impartially. If it has not, the whole system will break down.

If it is not possible to have a pretty fair practice, understood by all, as to the kind of body which can get on this register, this plan will not be successful. It must be remembered that the position was quite different in the past, where the total was limited and where, as between two bodies, the officer could say he preferred one but would let both in if he could. It will be unlimited here and there will have to be some sort of standard. I take it from reading the report and the section that the section was put in because, the number being unlimited, there had to be set out some kind of lines on which the returning officer would be able to refuse. I think we must assume that these are to be standards which he will expect from everybody and if he did not do that there would be trouble.

Mr. Duffy

The amendment deals with this one word "subscriptions" and this discussion on the income of voluntary societies is entirely beside the issue. All I want to get decided at this point is whether we can have a firm assurance from the Minister that the expression "subscriptions" used in this section is adequate to cover the kind of income which is derived by certain types of organisations from their numbers or from bodies affiliated with them. The Trade Union Congress, for instance, has been a nominating body in the past and there seems to be no reason why it would not be so in the future, unless this expression "subscriptions" might be held to exclude the Trade Union Congress on the grounds that they did not have an income of £250 a year from "subscriptions" and that their total income was derived from affiliation fees paid to them on a capitation basis by the affiliated bodies.

In the case of the Trade Union Congress, this section can be set at nought, as their income will be £2,000 or £3,000 a year for affiliation fees. It is quite easy for them, if they want to qualify for the purpose of this section, to tell one organisation liable to pay a fee of £250 not to pay that fee but to send a subscription of £250 instead, to bring them within the Bill. Therefore, I am not pleading their case, as this limitation means nothing to them. It may, however, have a meaning somewhere else and I am trying to get that cleared up.

I would like to remind Senator Hearne that the committee was very definite that these figures should go in for a definite purpose. The definite purpose was (1) that organisations which claimed to be entitled to be nominating bodies should have something of stability; they should be some kind of organisation with continuity. They should have an income, they should have an office and they should have their accounts examined by an auditor. All that was intended for the purpose of making it clear to the Seanad returning officer that he was not to admit bodies specially created overnight for the purpose of being nominating bodies.

The same is true of charitable organisations. The committee discussed this thing for a long time and one of our colleagues was very anxious as to how the money side was to be settled on the grounds that the organisation in which he was interested, a powerful organisation which dominated and cowed the Minister——

Mr. Hearne

"Cowed" is good.

Mr. Hawkins

Let the Senator proceed.

Mr. Duffy

——An organisation of great influence had a very small income, although the Minister jocosely suggested that one of its members could lose £250 in a poker game between Dublin and Mullingar.

Mr. Hawkins

Why Mullingar?

Mr. Duffy

Let us say Mallow, then. I recall this incident——

Mr. Hawkins

Why Mullingar?

Mr. Duffy

The Senator wants to write a catechism on this Bill, but I want to point out the significance of these references to certain sums of money. In building up the records of this House we ought not say that we would tell the Seanad returning officer that he may ignore the reference to £250 or £1,000. If you look at the report you will find that it was clearly intended that these should be minimum sums and that they were there for a purpose. A body that claimed to be a charitable organisation could not make a claim until it had an income of £1,000. In the same way, with trade bodies, whether workers' organisations, manufacturers' organisations or anything else, it was clearly intended that they should be bodies with certain rules, bodies with an office, with office equipment and an income from contributions. I think the word "subscriptions" has slipped in here in relation to the voluntary bodies rather than the trade bodies. All the time, we had in mind the expression "contributions". Again I want to say that if the Minister shows the House that the word "subscriptions" in this section is not a limiting one and will cover payment such as fees or contributions paid by, let us say, members of the teachers' organisation, I am satisfied that the amendment serves its purpose.

Mr. Counihan

Senator Duffy is quite right. The Minister and any member of the joint committee will recollect that this question was very much debated. I raised the question on behalf of my own organisation. I said that there were 12 organisations affiliated to the national executive. The national executive as such had no income of its own, but still the national executive had a considerable amount of money at its disposal. Every member of the committee, including the Minister, assured me that such an organisation would not be objected to, or even if it were, an appeal would make it right. There could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be an objection and the same would apply to Senator Duffy's trade union congress. I am satisfied, as far as the organisation which I represent is concerned, that it should be passed as qualified to nominate candidates.

Mr. Sweetman

That is most important.

Mr. MacEntee

I think that undue consideration has been given to this particular paragraph (d) of sub-section (2), which is merely a sort of guide set up for the returning officer in case he might happen to be in doubt, while no attention has been devoted to the more positive provisions in sub-section (2) of the section. Sub-section (2) provides that a body shall not be eligible to be registered on the register in respect of any particular panel unless——

Mr. Douglas

The Minister can raise a whole lot of points when we come to the section. At present we are only discussing the amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

Senators raised points on the amendment which involved a discussion of the section.

Mr. Douglas

I thought it might save time.

An Cathaoirleach

It might be better if we left these points to the discussion on the section.

Mr. Duffy

May I make one slight correction? I want to apologise if I misled anybody in regard to the decision of the committee. I have the report here and the actual word set out is "subscriptions." We have misled the draftsman as well as misleading ourselves.

Mr. Hearne

Would Senator Duffy agree that supposing the Trade Union Congress had not a bob in subscriptions in any year, that it was the intention of the committee that that body should be a nominating body?

Mr. Duffy

That is correct.

Mr. MacEntee

Or the Congress of Irish Trade Unions. But I do not want to interfere in family quarrels.

Mr. Hearne

That was the only point I made. It is not essential to have an income, be it a shilling, a pound or £10,000, in order to have a body admitted as a nominating body. Even if there was validity in the argument that the word "subscriptions" did not cover the fees that might be paid by members, it would not be essential, as that body could still be admitted as a nominating body. Practice will show that appeals to the appeal board will be against the decision of the Seanad returning officer in exercising the discretion given to him under this section.

Mr. Duffy

I am not prepared to accept Deputy Hearne's interpretation of the report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 10, lines 43 and 44, to delete the words "or of persons who are in the employment of local authorities".

This raises another issue which was not covered by the committee. It relates to the type of organisation that is, by statute, prevented from being a nominating body. This section with which we are now dealing lays down principles to guide the Seanad returning officer when he has applications before him from nominating bodies for admission to the register which he will compile under this Bill. Senator Hearne a few minutes ago spoke of the discretion which the Seanad returning officer is entitled to use in forming a decision on an application from a prospective nominating body. In this instance he is deprived of that discretion. He is definitely warned that he may not register as a nominating body any body of persons who are in the employment of local authorities. There is a number of such bodies. I know of three or four and I assume that there are others.

For instance, there is a body in Dublin known as the Irish Municipal Employees' Trade Union. It is a local body or almost exclusively a local body, if it is not entirely so. Its membership consists almost entirely, but not exclusively, of employees of the Dublin Corporation, the Dublin County Council and the other local authorities in Dublin city and county. It has also members outside Dublin. For instance, it has members, I think, in Limerick and in some other centres. The members of that organisation are persons in the employment of local authorities. Consequently, their organisation is definitely excluded from the list of bodies that may become, for Seanad election purposes, nominating bodies. We have another organisation such as the Local Government Employees' Organisation which, I think, covers the whole of the Twenty-Six Counties and embraces probably 90 per cent. of the clerical and technical staffs employed by local authorities, by corporations, by urban councils, by county councils and the like. Then we have a body such as the Vocational Officers' Organisation which, I think, has circularised members of this House in relation to its position. I am not concerned entirely and, in fact, not concerned mainly, with the Vocational Officers' Organisation. I am concerned with the principle expressed in this Bill that a body of persons employed by the local authorities in this country, having formed themselves into an organisation exclusively confined to their own employment, should be precluded from being nominated. I think that is wrong. I wonder even if it is constitutional to exclude from the right to become a nominating body a particular section of our citizens. Here is an anomaly. The Irish Municipal Employees' Trade Union is affiliated to the Irish Trade Union Congress and, as such, participates in the activities of that body in relation to Seanad elections.

In other words, it has influence on the decisions of the Trade Union Congress concerning the activities of that organisation as a nominating body. A body like the local government officials may not be, and I think in fact is not, affiliated to any national body. They, therefore, are deprived of any right to participate as an organised body in the work of creating a Seanad. I do not think there is any justification for that. I do not think the employees of a local authority, whether they are clerical, technical or manual, should be excluded specifically from the provisions of this Bill merely because, and only because, they are the employees of a local authority. If a body of employees such as, let us say, Córas Iompair Éireann desire to form an organisation they may do so and they may make application to the Seanad returning officer to become a nominating body. The Seanad returning officer will be free to form a judgment on their application. He may admit or refuse to admit them according to the circumstances of the particular case presented to him. At any rate, they are free to make the application and the Seanad returning officer is free to consider it. In the case of the employees of the Dublin Corporation that freedom is taken away under this Bill. I do not know on what principle this decision has been taken except that in drafting this Bill the Minister followed the provisions of the Act of 1927. The same provision exists in that Act. The employees of local authorities are precluded from forming themselves into a body capable of being a nominating body for Seanad purposes. The Minister may say: "Well, ten years ago both Houses approved of that principle." That is probably true. I have not looked up the debates. I do not know if there was any protest. It may have been unanimous. That, I hope, will not be interpreted as precluding me from making a case now that they should be admitted. I want the House to consider that case on its merits and not in relation to any decision which was taken positively or by misadvertence ten years ago.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I would like to support the amendment proposed by Senator Duffy. In doing so I wish to call attention to the fact that there are two branches of teachers, primary teachers and secondary teachers, and each is on the list of nominating bodies. The vocational teachers feel that there is unfair differentiation. There does not appear to be any logical reason for such differentiation. Largely because of that I support this amendment. I would, in fairness to the Minister, mention that the body which is frequently confused with the teachers' body—the Vocational and Educational Organisation—is a nominating body. At first sight it might seem that that body meets the cases of the teachers.

It has to be borne in mind that no teacher is a member of that body. The ordinary rank and file of the teaching body are not members of it at all. Chief executive officers are the only people who are admitted to that body. To some extent the teachers have a grievance because they maintain that their particular interests are not catered for. The primary teachers' salaries are paid from some source. Their salaries do not fall like manna from Heaven. Clearly the State pays them. That particular body is admitted to the register of nominating bodies, yet this other body, the salaries of which are partly paid by the State and partly by the local authorities, is excluded. Secondary teachers are in more or less the same position. The salaries of these teachers are largely borne by the State. It is difficult to justify this somewhat invidious discrimination.

I think each member of this House has been furnished with a copy of a circular issued by the Vocational Officers' Organisation concerned in this matter. The case for admission is very ably explained in the circular. The following quotation is given:—

"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 political 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 their work in the public interest, irrespective of what particular Party or Government is in office."

Anyone who knows the position knows that teachers differ among themselves in regard to politics. No two of them belong to the same Party. Almost every Party has some representation amongst the teachers. Labour is represented, Fianna Fáil is represented, Fine Gael is represented, and so on. I am sure that the new embryonic Party is also represented. There is no justification, therefore, for the suggestion that teachers as a whole must necessarily belong to any one political Party. I have to deal with six teachers on my own staff and I know that I would find it impossible to say what their political affiliations are; but I do know that every Party is represented—every Party without exception—in that body. The political argument, therefore, cuts no ice at all. I would suggest that the Minister should delete the words suggested by Senator Duffy. If that is done the field will be an open one and this particular body can be admitted to the register of nominating bodies. There is no justification for its exclusion.

Mr. Hearne

The only comment I would like to make is to remind this House that this Bill merely implements the recommendations of the committee. The point raised by Senator Duffy opens up a very, very wide field as to whether employees of local authorities should take a more active interest in affairs of State than they do at present. In view of the importance of the point raised and its all-embracing character I would submit that we should remember that we here are merely dealing with this Bill as one which implements the recommendations of the committee. This point was not considered by the committee and it is too important a point to be discussed here and to be decided here and now on a Committee Stage like this.

While I have a good deal of sympathy with what Senator Duffy has said, I can see that there are grave implications involved. Supposing the amendment were adopted, there is an organisation known as the county managers' organisation; I have very grave doubts as to whether that organisation would comply with all the conditions. They are employees of local authorities; I have very grave doubts as to whether they would be a proper body to be a nominating body. There is a county surveyors' organisation; again, I have very grave doubts as to whether they would be a proper body to be a nominating body. I think this is a matter upon which there would be a large volume of differences of opinion. So important is the point and so wide is it in its implications that it has not been considered by the committee. We here are merely implementing the recommendations of the committee. I would remind the House that some of us spent the best part of 18 months at these committee meetings. If there is any point in Senator Duffy's amendment, then he slipped up badly in not having the matter discussed at the committee.

Mr. Duffy

I left it to the Senator as the chairman of a local authority.

Mr. Baxter

I think that Senator Hearne's speech is the most remarkable one that has been made on this Bill so far. Are we discussing a possible permanent or a temporary measure? We are discussing a Bill that will be as permanent as any other piece of legislation that has gone through the Oireachtas. Senator O'Dea pointed that out earlier in the debate. Senator Hearne now introduces the extraordinary note at this stage of the discussion that, because this has not come from the committee as a recommendation, it must not be seriously considered by this House.

Mr. Hearne

I said that we should be very careful. I did not say it should not be considered.

Mr. Baxter

Let us be very careful. If the sort of care that we are exercising means that we are passing a faulty piece of legislation, which is going to react inequitably against certain classes of the community, then we are not exercising a proper degree of care. I have no very positive view one way or the other with regard to the question of groups of local employees who decide to organise themselves vocationally being included within the scope of the Bill and being regarded as suitable for registration as a nominating body. I quite see Senator O'Reilly's point with regard to the Vocational Teachers' Organisation. They have protested against their exclusion. The Taoiseach says it is no use pretending they are not politicians. Of course, they are politicians. Some of them are very vigorous politicians attached to the Minister's own Party.

Mr. Hearne

It would all depend on what you define as a politician.

Mr. Duffy

Otherwise bigoted.

Mr. Baxter

I did not say they were bigoted at all. I said they were exercising their rights.

Mr. Hearne

I do not know whether I am getting deaf or whether the acoustics in this place are faulty.

Mr. Baxter

Senator O'Reilly has made his point. I do not see why, if certain groups are admitted, certain others should be excluded. What is Senator Hearne's reason for urging consideration of this point? What is his real reason? If we were passing some measure that was only going to operate upon one isolated occasion and then terminate, there might be some reason for not considering this matter now. But this is permanent legislation. In one of the early sections of this Bill there is a very serious flaw which raises a fundamental question. Senator Hearne does not wish to have it examined. Could there be any greater condemnation of the policy of urging us to put this Bill through the House with all possible haste than this effort to rule out all possibility of discussing and examining the matter with a view to amendment? That is the attitude taken up here now.

Mr. Hawkins

Senator Baxter in his closing remarks suggests that we are putting this Bill through in haste. I can assure Senator Baxter from this side of the House that we are prepared to meet next week; we are prepared to meet the week after and the week following that and, if necessary, the week following that in order to give every consideration to this Bill and to have the very able and eloquent criticisms as to how it might be improved. We had here some few months ago a suggestion that a committee should be set up. We agreed to that. We agreed that we in this House would unite with the other House in setting up a committee to consider and recommend to us, what would be as near as human effort could go, an ideal Seanad. I think I would be safe in saying that that committee met on many occasions.

One very significant fact was that there were no representatives there on behalf of the Party which Senator Baxter represents at present, that they, we might say, boycotted that committee, that they did not come forward at that time when they could be so useful and could offer us their guidance as to what the composition of this Seanad might be. But the leader of that Party suggests now that, while this might be a very commendable Bill and might be a very good Bill to operate at the next Seanad election, the best thing we could do, while we might operate the Bill for 12 months, to give him and his colleagues another 12 or 15 months to consider what they might contribute towards it.

Mr. Douglas

What has this to do with the amendment?

An Cathaoirleach

I think the Senator is dealing with the amendment.

Mr. Hawkins

I propose to deal with the amendment now. Senator Duffy has tabled an amendment to this Bill. He proposes that all employees of local authorities should have a say in the formation of the new Seanad. I think that is a very bad proposal coming from Senator Duffy. Senator Duffy purports to come into this House as the leader and the spokesman of the Irish Labour Party. I am not going to dispute that. I am not going to dispute his right to speak on their behalf. I can only say that his proposal is one which I cannot understand, which he has not explained to us and which I would like him to explain more definitely.

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps I might be permitted to state the point of view which I hold as the representative of the joint committee as a whole. As I pointed out when I introduced it, this Bill embodies the recommendations of the joint committee and it does not do anything else. When the Bill was being considered in Dáil Éireann, I pointed out that we had an agreed report from the committee and that this Bill represented that agreement. I think it would be an undesirable breach of that agreement if we were to amend the Bill to include provisions which did not embody the recommendations of the committee or which did not arise immediately out of these recommendations. There are many members of Dáil Éireann who would have views upon this matter. They would probably be conflicting views. There are many members of the Seanad who would have views on this matter and, again, they would be conflicting views. It was felt in the other House that it would be improper, although naturally they would have the right to amend the Bill in any way they liked, to reject the recommendations of the committee. It was felt, having regard to the history of the committee, to the fact that the report was an agreed one, that it would in fact be little better than a breach of faith to amend the existing law governing the election of the Seanad in any vital or significant way. That, I think, was the frame of mind in which this Bill was considered in the other House. While it is undeniable that the Seanad can make any amendment it likes in this Bill, if it does, then I will say that the Seanad will be breaking faith, because, after all, this House did put its representatives on that committee——

Mr. Douglas

As plenipotentiaries?

Mr. MacEntee

Well, as representatives who could speak for the House as a whole, because they were chosen from all Parties. They got, if you like, a mandate to act and to speak on behalf of the House in the same way as members of Dáil Éireann got a mandate to speak and discuss the matter on behalf of Dáil Éireann. While it is true that they did not come there as plenipotentiaries, nevertheless there is always an honourable understanding that, when you appoint a man to consider a problem and to discuss it on your behalf, you will accept the decision to which he comes, particularly, when it is a matter of agreement between a number of conflicting views. That is the position in relation to this Bill. I suggest, therefore, to Senator Duffy not to press this amendment, because I would have to ask the Seanad to reject it and I certainly would have to ask Dáil Éireann—I have definite views about it —not to reject it on its merits, if the Senator believes it has merits, as many Senators do, but to reject it on the ground that we were estopped by reason of the fact that we were participating in the deliberations of this committee through our representatives and that, therefore, we ought to abide by the agreement to which they came.

Mr. Duffy

I entirely agree with the Minister that the committee consisted of representatives of both Houses impartially chosen by the committee of selection. There is no question about that and we ought not to quibble about it. The committee was chosen to do a particular job set out in the terms of reference. With all respect to Senator Hawkins, I think that committee did its job pretty well. There is no use in finding fault and saying that certain people did not turn up, that certain people did not take an interest in it. That is probably true. But there were always present a considerable number of people who reflected different points of view. So far as I can remember, all the decisions of the committee were unanimous. I do not remember any point being settled in the committee by a majority vote. Let us get it clear, at any rate, that there is nothing being put across us. In fairness, I think the House ought to say about the members of the committee that they did attend a number of meetings. They were not all present at all the meetings. It was not necessary for them to be present at a meeting which was held in bad weather, for instance, if they had to travel very long distances.

There was an all-round good attendance and all-round keen attention given to the matter under review. A number of members submitted amendments to drafts just as they did here. I must plead guilty to submitting a fair number of them, as Senator Hawkins would probably agree. He almost accused me of maliciously submitting amendments. I have some recollection that on one or two occasions the Minister, in fact, seconded an amendment of mine. You can imagine how far we were able to travel when we had the Minister for Local Government seconding an amendment which I moved. We have reached the stage now when we have the Bill before us and the only difficulty I am in in regard to this is that if the Minister and Senator Hawkins make the case that we have an agreement which precludes acceptance of an amendment of this kind I must join issue on that. I must join issue with the suggestion that we are obliged by our adherence to the terms of the committee's report to reject an amendment like this.

Mr. MacEntee

I thought I had made it clear to Senators that they can make any amendment they wish to the section but I am saying that it would certainly be contrary to the spirit of the discussions, and the spirit in which the report was conceived and adopted, to make any proposal to amend in a significant way the existing law otherwise than as is recommended by the committee.

Mr. Duffy

I accept the view that this is a significant amendment to the existing law. I accept the statement of Senator Hearne that the matter was not adverted to at the committee. I do not know whose fault it was. Probably some of us who feel that the existing law is not easily justified should have adverted to it but, in fact, it was not adverted to. I have a suspicion, however, that members of the committee like Senator Hearne who are closely associated with the administration of local authorities might have some responsibility in this matter——

Mr. Hearne

I agree.

Mr. Duffy

——and should have raised it. As we are in agreement I do not propose to press the amendment further.

Mr. Hearne

I have a perfectly open mind on some aspects of the amendment—for instance, on the case made for the vocational teachers. There is a good deal of weight in that but there are other organisations of local employees who, I think, would not be suitable as nominating bodies.

Mr. Duffy

I am prepared to accept that. I had three organisations in my mind—the Vocational Teachers' Organisation, the Local Government Officials' Union and the Irish Municipal Employees' Trade Union.

Mr. Hearne

The first body that came into my mind when I read the amendment was the County Managers' Association.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Foran

In view of what I heard from the Minister, I do not think there is much point in raising a matter which I have in mind. We spent a lot of time discussing the hardships inflicted on some organisation because they had not the right to nominate. I am going to call the Minister's attention to some instances where the right to nominate is duplicated. Take the case of the Cattle Traders' Association and a number of employers' organisations. These people have the right to make nominations in their own right and, through their associations or affiliations, they have the right to influence nominations to other panels. In the case of the Cattle Traders' Association, they have the right to make nominations to the Agricultural Panel and through their affiliations with the chambers of commerce, they can exercise their influence in nominations to other panels. The same thing applies to the Irish Manufacturers' Association and other bodies. The Employers' Association has the right within itself of making nominations and through their amalgamations or associations with other federations, they have the right to make nominations to other panels.

Mr. Summerfield

That is not so. That is a statement too serious to let pass unchallenged. If Senator Foran is referring to the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, the only right they have is to nominate members of their own. They have no affiliation or contact other than friendly contacts with any other organisation at all. Surely he is not making the case that a body of such importance should not have the right to nominate?

Mr. Foran

I am making the case that they are affiliated with chambers of commerce.

Mr. Summerfield

They are nothing of the kind and that statement should not be made. The federation has nothing to do with the chambers of commerce any more than the Trade Union Congress has.

Mr. Douglas

It has not.

Mr. Foran

There is no organisation of employers affiliated to chambers of commerce?

Mr. Douglas

To the best of my belief, no.

Mr. Foran

Senator Counihan admits that the Cattle Traders' Association is affiliated with chambers of commerce.

Mr. Counihan

I made no such admission. I said that members of our association may be members of a chamber of commerce.

Mr. Foran

Of course, there is no point in pressing the thing but I think there is a case there that should be looked into.

Mr. Summerfield

Even the Dublin Chamber of Commerce is not a nominating body. It only gets whatever nomination it can through the fact that it is a member of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. It is the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Ireland which has the right to nominate on behalf of all the chambers of commerce. That is a distinct body and the Federation of Irish Manufacturers is as distinct from the chamber of commerce as any trade union congress, by whatever colour we describe it.

Mr. Foran

I did not say the Dublin Chamber of Commerce had the right to nominate but these organisations have a certain influence in determining nomination to other panels. It is certainly a matter that should be looked into. If an organisation has a right of its own to make a nomination, it should be asked to declare that it would not enter into other panels or use its influence to secure nominations to other panels. That is all I want to call the Minister's attention to.

Mr. Douglas

There are one or two points in connection with this section that require consideration. I think there is possibly more in the point raised by Senator Foran than appears on the surface. I am opposed to any consideration of the scheme which provides for an unlimited number on the panel. This particular section is a very good illustration of one of the reasons why I doubt it will work. I think it is impracticable to define in any section— and I do not think it is satisfactorily defined in this section—what is to be the qualification. I think it is possible to set out a line of desirable ideas and then say that 15, 12, ten or whatever the number is which best conform to these, shall be chosen, but to make the number unlimited will lead to very considerable difficulty. Whereas Senator Summerfield's statement may be correct as regards the old Act, I do not think it is necessarily correct as regards the new Bill. I think it is quite likely that all the chambers of commerce would be qualified but it is not for me to say now whether they will get on the register. That question will arise when the proper time comes. Of course, it is quite true that I am a member of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. I am also a member of a chamber of commerce. It is equally true that certain trade unions are said to be going into trade and it is quite likely that some of their members will qualify under the labour section and also under the commercial section, and there will be a certain amount of overlapping.

Mr. Foran

It will be time enough to raise that when they enter.

Mr. Douglas

The Senator is quite right, and it will be equally time enough for him to raise it when this comes into operation. The Minister, with all his ingenuity and all his staff, could not work out a section which would provide that you could have nominating bodies which will guarantee that no one of their members belongs to another nominating body. This is one of the things you will have to put up under a scheme like this; unless you can produce another system, there will be overlapping, and Senator Foran to that extent is right.

I am bothered very much about paragraph (d). It says:—

"the Seanad returning officer may refuse to register any body (not being an excepted body) in the register unless——"

That seems to me that he cannot refuse to register them, except on the grounds that they are excepted bodies, if they have all these other qualifications. If it does not mean that, I do not know what it means. When you come to the particular qualifications, they are badly drafted. I think they are absurd. One of the provisions here is:—

"——its organisation and direction are governed by articles of association, rules or other regulations which——"

Now, the articles of association, rules or other regulations, are to do certain things. One of the things they are to do is to provide that the agenda must include the minutes of the preceding meeting. No rules ever provide that. That has been taken for granted for a long time. Articles of association do not show that the agenda must have included among its items the minutes of the preceding meeting. Articles of association, rules or other regulations do not say that that must be on the agenda and do not provide for all the other things that are there.

Again, I do not know of any body which has in its rules that there must be an audit and a certification of accounts by a public auditor or other qualified person. It is not said that the accounts must be duly audited and submitted to the annual meeting. You may take it that there probably is not a single body on the register at the moment which will have in its rules or regulations or articles of association what is set out in paragraph (d).

If this Bill were considered properly, this would be brought up again on Report after careful consideration in order to see whether it could not be simplified. I was not on the committee and I do not know whether they chose those words, but I imagine that they were anxious to provide that it would be an association with proper rules providing for an annual meeting, that there would be a proper executive and that the accounts would be audited. I doubt if the committee insisted that the accounts must be audited by a public auditor.

Mr. MacEntee

It does say that.

Mr. Douglas

I think they hardly meant it; they were concerned to see that there would be an audit. I am not attacking the Minister. I suggest that if the committee had gone through the rules and regulations and articles of association of a dozen of the nominating bodies, that would have to be worded differently.

Mr. Duffy

This matter did arise specifically in committee and I took the opportunity of pointing out there some of the difficulties that would arise in relation to organisations about which I know something. I have in mind in particular the Irish Trade Union Congress. I am not speaking here for the Irish Trade Union Congress and I want Senator Hawkins to get that out of his mind.

Mr. Hawkins

Why do you pick on Senator Hawkins?

Mr. Duffy

In view of a few misdirected remarks of the Senator a moment ago, I came to the conclusion that he was of the opinion that I came here to represent the Irish Trade Union Congress or the Labour movement. I would remind the Senator that he is a member of the Labour Panel. I am a member of the Commercial and Industrial Panel. That may be all wrong but it is true. I think we ought to be strictly fair, irrespective of the panel to which we belong or the interests with which we are associated outside. I want to be fair to a body like the Irish Trade Union Congress or the Irish National Teachers' Organisation.

When I come to read the paragraph to which Senator Douglas referred I find myself at once in a difficulty. I would like to draw attention to this, that the Seanad returning officer may refuse—I take it in certain circumstances he would be coerced to refuse —to register any body, with certain exceptions, unless its organisation and direction are governed by articles of association, rules or other regulations which, amongst other things, provide for an annual general meeting to which all the members are invited by notice. I understand that there are, or were, 12,000 members in the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, of whom about 2,500 reside outside the jurisdiction of this State. If this paragraph means what it appears to me to mean, the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, in order to qualify for inclusion in the register of nominating bodies, must invite all its members, including perhaps the members in the Six Counties. I do not press that, but excluding them, they would be required to invite 10,500 people to an annual meeting, I assume in the Phoenix Park, for the purpose of considering the agenda, the balance sheet and the other items set out here.

I do not want to put my view against the views of people more competent to judge what the section means, but I urge that this point must be cleared up to the satisfaction of the House before we put ourselves on record as passing a statute designed to create nominating bodies for the purpose of electing a Seanad with the full knowledge in our minds that a number of the bodies who, we assumed in the past, and who, we still assume, are entitled to nominate bodies will be precluded from doing so by virtue of this paragraph.

Mr. Douglas

May I also draw the Minister's attention to paragraph (c)? I omitted doing so when I spoke first on the section. I believe this presents considerable difficulty. The paragraph says: " a body which is formed or carried on wholly or substantially for profit," etcetera, is not eligible. There is quite a number of trade organisations—I think the Federation of Irish Manufacturers is one —which, while not in one sense a profit-making body, in that it does not distribute any profits, is for the purpose of income-tax a profit-making body: it pays income-tax on its profits.

Mr. MacEntee

It is not carried on wholly for profit.

Mr. Douglas

It says wholly or partly.

Mr. MacEntee

It is not carried on wholly or substantially for profit.

Mr. Douglas

I want to make a point that care is necessary. I am not pressing it any further than this, that for the purpose of income-tax it is regarded as a profit-making body. That applies to quite a number of other bodies and that is done by arrangement with the Revenue Commissioners so that subscriptions will be allowed as part of their expenses to those who pay them. That will affect quite a few nominating bodies and it is important that it should be quite clear that the expression "carried on for profit" will not have the same meaning as it would have for income-tax purposes. I am not trying to argue. I am merely raising a point that requires some consideration.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know whether members are familiar with the existing law in relation to this matter or not. This sub-section is taken almost bodily from the existing Act and there has been no difficulty ever raised about the Federation of Irish Industries or any other organisation, which for income-tax purposes might be regarded as making a profit.

Mr. Douglas

I do not think they were at the time they were put on the register.

Mr. MacEntee

They have gone on the register every year. The Dental Board is in the same position.

Mr. Douglas

I do not know whether it was ever raised.

Mr. MacEntee

The point of the matter is that even if everything that Senator Douglas says is true, even if we did compel the National Teachers' Organisation to circularise its 12,000 members, what harm? Do we realise that we are giving these nominating bodies a very special privilege? They are not entitled to make proposals for nomination to the Seanad as of natural right. It is something which we are conferring on them by law to the exclusion of a great number of other people and, surely, if they want to be nominating bodies the first thing they have to do is to comply with the provisions of the law. It is not what the nominating bodies desire. It is what precautions this House and the Oireachtas think should be embodied in legislation to prevent undesirable or insubstantial groups of persons, self-seeking persons if you like, getting the right to propose for nomination candidates for the Seanad. That is the reason we have these provisions.

My criticism of this section is quite contrary to Senator Douglas's or Senator Duffy's. I do not think it is stringent enough but that view did not prevail in the committee and, in deference to the views of a number of other members of the committee, I did not press it. I would not have allowed any body to become a nominating body that had not been properly incorporated. I should have gone a lot further than the provision of this section.

Mr. Douglas

So would I.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes. But, as I have said, we were there as a joint committee representing both Houses and all Parties. We deferred to each other's point of view and we tried to get, and did succeed in getting, agreement. That is why I would regard it as a breach of faith if any significant amendment were to be made in this Bill outside of those which were not included in the recommendations of the committee because I would have felt that I had been fairly dealt with and I know there were other members of that committee who had taken the same point of view. I know there were many members of Dáil Eireann who would have liked to put in amendments to the Bill as it was then to give effect to their point of view but they simply accepted the position that this was an agreed Bill, that it is largely experimental, as we may be certain that, perhaps, some of the Bills which will amend it will be.

We are, as I said, feeling our way. But at any rate we have to give to the returning officer here certain standards or certain directives to guide him. The principal directive is that bodies are not to be eligible to be registered unless their objects primarily relate to or are connected with the interests and services mentioned in the Constitution and that their activities are mainly concerned with such interests and services, or their members are representative of persons who have knowledge and practical experience of such interests and services. We want the body to have a representative character. We want it to be a substantial body, a body with a real existence, that does real work.

We have told the returning officer that if he is in doubt as to whether a body is representative, if he is in doubt as to whether it is substantial in character, as to whether it is in fact a body which is proper to be given the privilege of proposing for nomination, then he has these other things to which he may turn. He can look at the body and say, "this is a body that has not met for the last three years; this is a body that does not keep minutes; there is no record made of what transpires at its meetings or what decisions it comes to; this is a body with no revenue; this is a body with no offices; this is a body with no proper membership roll so that it cannot communicate with its members." He can say all these things and apply each of these tests to any organisation or any body of persons in regard to which he is doubtful as to whether it is representative or whether it is composed mainly of persons who are concerned with the interests and services which the Constitution has declared ought to be represented in this House.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No.5:—

In page 11, line 23, to delete the word "that" where it first occurs and substitute the word "such".

I shall not make any speech in regard to this amendment. It is simply a verbal amendment which I think ought to be made but I will not lose any sleep over it.

Mr. MacEntee

I will say this to the Senator: I would have thought "such" just as good a word as "that" and if I were writing that sentence I would probably use it but the draftsman thinks otherwise and when a question of legal drafting arises I am not going to try to override his judgement because he might not draft a Bill for me again.

Mr. Duffy

The draftsman's trade union should be represented here.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 9 put and agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No. 6:—

On page 11, line 54, after the word "date" to insert the words "which shall not be earlier than twenty-eight days after the day on which such notice is first published".

There is, I think, a good deal of substance in this amendment because you are dealing here with the construction of the first register of nominating bodies and the provision is that as soon as practicable after the passing of this Act, the Seanad returning officer shall publish in certain papers a notice giving public notice that the register of nominating bodies is being prepared. He is also required to give in that notice such information, including the latest date for receipt of applications for registration, as the Minister thinks proper. You will observe in Section 16, when we come to the annual revision of the register, that actually an interval is prescribed, the interval between the 15th January and the 15th February, during which similar notice must be published. It seemed to me rather illogical that when we are preparing the first register of nominating bodies, the Bill does not fix any period during which notice must be given to the public of the intention of the officer concerned to prepare the register while, in the case of the annual revision, in the case of a register already in existence, a month's notice is given. It appeared to me that we ought to be at least as particular about giving ample notice and should prescribe that notice in the case of the first register, as we are in respect of the revision of the register in subsequent years.

Mr. MacEntee

I think it may be taken that, in giving effect to the provisions of Section 10, the Minister and the Seanad returning officer will have regard to the provisions of Section 16. In fact, the Seanad returning officer is bound to send out the notices as soon as practicable and he will do that. Now, in relation to Section 10 as it stands, I do not think it is as important as it was when it was included in the Bill by reason of this fact, that all the nominating bodies on the existing register will be notified as soon as the Bill passes of their rights under the Bill. We can assume from that, that there will be a considerable amount of ferment amongst trade organisations and trade bodies generally. They will know that the register of nominating bodies is to be prepared and they will all be alert and active in looking for the official notices governing the compilation of the register, and so I think the matter is not sufficiently important to warrant any amendment of the Bill at this stage. It does not affect the procedure at the impending election because the register of nominating bodies is already in existence. It would relate to the compilation of the new register of nominating bodies to be made for next year, and in that connection all these dates will be observed.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

I would like to get the point further clarified for my own sake. Am I to take it that the present nominating bodies will go on the new register automatically without reapplication?

Mr. MacEntee

They will. The position is this: that for the purposes of the next Seanad general election—the general election which will ensue upon the dissolution of the present Dáil—the existing register of nominating bodies will be the register of nominating bodies for the purposes of this Act. Subsequently, a new register of nominating bodies will be prepared in accordance with Sections 10 and 16 and the other procedure set out in the Bill.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

I was confused about the matter due to what was said during the debate. I thought that all these nominating bodies would have to re-apply to get on the new register. Now I understand they will automatically become nominating bodies.

Mr. Hearne

Not only automatically but in accordance with Section 85 under which the register is already published. It has been in force since the 25th March, 1947, and is already available.

Mr. Duffy

Does not all this strengthen my suggestion that there should be in Section 10 the same kind of provision regarding notices that there is in Section 16?

Mr. MacEntee

That may be so, but it is not of such importance now as it would be if it were not for the provisions in Section 85.

Mr. Duffy

All that Section 85 does is to continue the present registration. Every year subsequent to 1948 these bodies will continue registration in the ordinary way. There will be revision just as there would be a revision in 1948. The statute provides that notice of that provision shall be published 28 days before it takes place. Section 10 makes no such stipulation. It makes provision with regard to due notice, but that may be held to be ten days' notice or five days' notice as against the 28 days' notice prescribed in Section 16.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 13, line 12, to delete the word "the" and substitute the word "this".

It seems to me that the Bill was drafted in a great hurry and that there was not time to read the proofs. Sub-section (5) says that "subject to the express provisions of the Act, the appeal board shall regulate its own procedure". What is meant by "the Act"? I take it that it, obviously, means "this" Act. I think that, in fairness to ourselves, we ought to insert the word "this" instead of the word "the".

Mr. MacEntee

Is it necessary to bring the Dáil back to do that?

Mr. Duffy

I think I am correct in stating that under our Standing Orders power is conferred on the officers of the House to make a verbal change of this kind.

Mr. MacEntee

Provided it does not involve re-summoning the Dáil, the word "the" in the sub-section should be "this".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 12, 13 and 14 agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Duffy

On the Section, I again draw attention to what appears to me to be an oversight. It is provided under sub-section (2) that if an appeal is duly made the appeal board shall communicate to the Seanad returning officer their decision, if any. Later, reference is made to what is going to happen when all the appeals have been decided—that is, decisions, if any, thereon have been communicated and so forth. Surely there is clearly a misunderstanding there. If there is an appeal to the appeal board there must be a decision.

Mr. MacEntee

No. Could not appeals be withdrawn as amendments in this House have been withdrawn?

Mr. Duffy

I think we will have to divide the House on this.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 16 agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No. 8:—

In page 15, lines 55 to 58, to delete the words "and any body which applied at the annual revision for registration in that register, whether the application was allowed or disallowed".

Sub-section (2) of this section seems somewhat difficult to understand. It sets out:—

"Any of the following persons may appeal to the appeal board against such of the decisions of the Seanad returning officer at an annual revision as are hereinafter specified, that is to say:—

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

(b) in the case of an allowance of an application for registration, any nominating body registered in the register of nominating bodies, and any body which applied at the annual revision for registration in that register, whether the application was allowed or disallowed,

. . . . . . "

It is difficult to understand why a body which applied for registration, a body which may have no substance, no qualifications and no bona fide claim to registration and whose application was disallowed should have the right to appeal and it seems to me that we are carrying the power of appeal too far in permitting a body of that kind to appeal against the registration of some other body. The procedure in Section 13 regarding appeals to the appeal board in connection with the preparation of the register of nominating bodies is somewhat different from what is proposed here. Section 13 (2) says:—

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

In that case you are dealing with people whose applications are pending, while, in sub-section (3) of Section 17, you are dealing with people whose applications have been granted and people whose applications have been disallowed, and it seems to me that we ought not to give the right of appeal to a body which probably has no real existence at all but which merely makes application, and, because it makes application, gets the right to appeal against the registration of some other body of substance.

Mr. Douglas

Is it correct that, if there are 45 applications and one is turned down because the subscription is only a £10 note, that one body can appeal against every one of the other 44, if they are all put on? That would be the height of absurdity.

Mr. MacEntee

It must be realised that, even in the case of an ordinary citizen looking for a Parliamentary vote, any person has a right to appeal against the vote being allowed to him. The position here is that we do not wish to put any barrier in the way of any organisation which feels it has been unjustly treated by reason of the fact that its application for registration has been turned down and the application of some other organisation for registration granted. It is to preserve the widest right of appeal to any party which may be interested and we have to remember that, just as the registration law was built up on a series of decisions, so, too, the aim here will be to build up and develop a code which will govern the admission of nominating bodies to the register. You cannot do that unless you allow objections to be taken from every reasonable point of view, because a body may feel aggrieved by reason of the fact that it has not been allowed on the register, whereas another organisation having very similar characteristics and differing, according to its own view, very little from it is allowed to be registered. Surely the body which feels aggrieved ought to be allowed to go from the returning officer against whom it feels a sense of grievance to the appeal board and have the matter finally decided there.

Mr. Douglas

There is no use doing anything about it now, but I completely disagree with the Minister. A body which intended to appeal but did not appeal, on the same principle as he has put forward, should have the right, and, in fact, any corporate body connected with the register should have the right of appeal. The Minister's argument was perfectly valid under the old system. If there were only 15 on the register, any of the bodies turned down should have the right to appeal against the others because they might get on, but in this case where there is an unlimited number and where it could make no difference——

Mr. MacEntee

It does.

Mr. Douglas

With great respect, I do not think it does. The point is that, as there is no limit to the number, an appeal by AB who has applied and been rejected against CD will not put him on or give him any better chance of getting on. It is quite right that AB should appeal against his own rejection—we do not dispute that—but that he should have the right to object to all the others is something for which I can see no case. It is a provision which is going to cause trouble.

Mr. MacEntee

Surely it may feel that its case for a reversal of the returning officer's decision will be strengthened if it brings out on appeal the characteristics or particulars relating to other bodies whose applications for registration have been allowed. It will at least enable a body whose application has been disallowed to inform the appeal board of the position of other bodies. A good deal of the criticism arises from overlooking the fact that we are doing more than giving the nominating bodies the right to propose. We are giving also the right to participate in the ultimate selection of the candidates who are going to be nominated. I think the Senator is wrong when he says it does not matter, in view of the fact that we have removed the limitation, but it must be remembered that admission to the register also includes participation in the nomination committee—the right to send five persons there to vote for the selection of a candidate. Even if a nominating body does not make proposals itself, or propose persons who have already been proposed by other nominating bodies, it has the right, notwithstanding the fact that it makes no proposals on its own initiative, to send five representatives to the nominating committee, and therefore it does make a difference.

Mr. Hayes

Surely this is an excellent example of unnecessary complications about a right which is, to a very great degree, completely illusory.

Mr. MacEntee

It is not illusory.

Mr. Hawkins

We have heard a lot about rights, but this right is also exercised in relation to the ordinary Parliamentary vote. Every citizen has the right to object to his fellow-citizen being recorded as a voter on the register of voters and it is only proper that we should continue that procedure in the Seanad elections.

Mr. Douglas

And give everybody the right. There is something to be said for that, but it is not in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 17 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 21.

Question proposed: "That Section 21 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Douglas

I take it that a person nominated as a candidate may nevertheless be one of the five and may vote himself. As to whether that is a good thing or not, I have an open mind. Under this section, a nominating body can nominate five to the special nomination committee. At the present moment they only nominate three for the purpose of by-elections. Under the transitory provisions, the register will remain the same. What would happen if a body on the register, by virtue of the transitory provisions which has nominated three, failed within the time to increase its number to five?

Mr. MacEntee

I think the position would be that the three persons would cease to be members of the committee. In fact, a notice will go out to the nominating bodies indicating that they should meet to select their five members for the committee. I do not want to commit myself to this, as it is a point that has not been raised. There is nothing to compel the five members to attend the meeting of the nominating committee. I think they would have to reappoint the members of the nominating committee and I think they would have to appoint five.

Mr. Douglas

I am only trying to clarify it. I take it that once this Bill is law the appointments that have been made are void?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Douglas

So that if, between the time this becomes law and the date fixed by Order by the Minister, one of the bodies on the register fails to nominate five, they lose all their rights so far as that committee is concerned?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Baxter

I do not agree with this section at all. It is a grotesque procedure and will prove inequitable. It is highly probable that the most representative organisation or nominating body in the group may find itself in a position that it will not have a nominee of its own on the panel at all. Under this method, the nomination committee gets together to do the voting and a certain number are to be eliminated. How is it to be done? Is there not going to be a great deal of bargaining and jockeying for position? That will happen and as a result you may get a group with a very unpleasant twist.

I know that some Senators, on the Second Reading debate, urged that if there is to be a nominating body at all it would be more satisfactory to reduce the number of nominations for a particular panel but let the nominating body be certain that it has a nominee of its own going forward on the panel. There is a good deal of humbug about a body with the right to make a nomination which could find the operation of the Bill so unsatisfactory that, however responsible and powerful it may be—responsible in the State and in the particular field of activity in which it is operating—it may not, in fact, be a nominating body at all. I would like to hear from the Minister his appreciation of how these committees will function when they get together, how they are to make their selections, and how it is to be arranged. Is the idea behind it to be that you can do a bit of engineering and manoeuvring and in a particular way you get a particular colour on your panel? If that be the fact, let that be stated.

As I see it, the idea is that this is a way which enables you to arrive at a very fair and equitable decision on the merits of the people put forward, or on the merits of a particular nominating body who will send two nominees forward; I do not agree with it. From the point of view of the confidence of the nominating bodies, it would be much more satisfactory that they should have the right to nominate but let them be responsible for making their own selection, rather than have the responsibility thrust on somebody else and the viewpoint and the decision of the particular nominating body rejected.

Mr. S. O'Donovan

I spoke on this matter the last day. It is seldom that I agree with what Senator Baxter says, but I do agree with most of what he has said now. Since this was mooted and since the committee reported, I saw difficulties in it and I still see difficulties, though from a different point of view from that of Senator Baxter. A professional body would not be a bit keen on constituting itself as a section of the first electorate. The five members from the nominating body, constituting the nominating committee, will not be a bit keen on reducing the number of names on the panel from, say, 30 to six. It is difficult to do it and necessarily there must be a certain amount of canvassing and bargaining—"You vote for me and I will vote for you."

Mr. MacEntee

That is quite unknown at the moment?

Mr. Douglas

Why perpetuate it?

Mr. S. O'Donovan

No one will be elected otherwise, as each nominating body will send forward five members to the nominating committee and if they all vote for one of their own representatives each nominee will get five votes. I have not studied the mathematics of it, but I think there would be a state of equal votes for them all and you would not get any further.

If each of a certain number got five equal first preference votes, then by a complicated system you would have to check the number of second preferences which each of the candidates got. I suppose it happens often in the ordinary elections. If you mean to have these five representatives, no matter what the nominating bodies are, you will be faced with the difficulty of selecting the people whom you want to select. On the Second Reading I suggested that the number nominated —on some panels at any rate—should be reduced to one and go on the ballot paper without this system of first degree reduction by nominating bodies. The points I want to make are: the five representatives will find it very difficult to do it conscientiously and correctly from their point of view. I think that it would be better if they had not that imposed on them at all, but instead of these bodies nominating two or more, that they could nominate four. I wish to explain my argument on that. When two or more are nominated—as may occur now—these candidates will automatically have to canvass against one another in order to get the support of the nominating bodies. If two are nominated, the five members who were constituted a nominating committee must decide how they will support both. If they only can support one, they must decide which they will support and give all five votes for the one nominee. The five members will either have to support one nominee or run the risk of not having either nominee getting over the first turn. I see immense difficulties here and I have voiced them ever since the report was published. Apparently the Minister and the House will not take that view, but there are great difficulties for those who try to carry out the requirements of the section and of the subsequent section and I think that it will cause great trouble and difficulty.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I would like to join with Senator Baxter and Senator O'Donovan in their remarks about this particular section. I think that the body which I represent is perhaps the best example of the objections that can be raised to this proposal. We have 38 vocational education committees throughout the country which are definitely very, very representative in character, being composed of members of county councils and urban councils and of different types of vocational interests—farmers, industrialists and many educated and cultured people. What is going to happen is as certain as anything can be to my mind. It is that the new nominating committee, when they get together, will simply out-vote the comparatively provincial committee representing this association, and there will certainly be a very great sense of grievance throughout the country. These bodies are asked to go to the trouble of meeting and nominating candidates but when they are sent here to Dublin they find that as the result of the activities of 25 or 30 people the persons they have nominated will not have the chance of going before the electorate at all. I suggest that having to get over the first of the three fences in this particular case is very difficult. It means that you must get a vote of 26 counties before you can be nominated at all and after going to all this trouble you have to face the nominating committee and this mysterious body may eliminate you.

What Senator O'Donovan said is quite true. If there are two people, the five representatives will be in great doubt as to which they will support and ill-feeling will be created. It is a very objectionable section, and even if it meant calling back the Dáil for one more meeting the Minister ought to do so in order to consider revising this.

I do not know whether I am within the lines or not in suggesting this. Could there not be some group arrangement of interests in the case of, for example, secondary and primary teachers who have the right to nominate its particular members? While individual interests could not get representation, representation could be given to a group. The various aspects of medicine could be grouped together and by nominating one person only instead of three, they could get a reasonable chance of all their interests being represented eventually.

I wish certainly to protest strongly against this section and I would be inclined, for the purpose of the record, to ask for a division and vote against this particular section.

Mr. Hearne

Would you be a teller?

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

Definitely. I think that is about all I want to say, but I certainly wish to protest in the strongest possible manner against this because I know what will happen in the interests which I am representing and the conflict which is likely to ensue. If I were the Minister facing an election I would not like to have to face the consequences, but that is a matter for himself and he is a skilful politician but I belive that there will be very, very serious friction.

Mr. Hawkins

As we have just a few moments before the motion on the Adjournment I should like to put this point of view to the House. Senator O'Reilly has entertained us for five or ten or 15 minutes expounding what he would like to have enshrined in the Bill, but if he took the trouble to read and study the Bill and to find out what the Bill really is, he would find that what he was trying to achieve during a five or ten minutes speech is in the Bill already. What surprised me most in the whole discussion was Senator Baxter's contribution.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.