A number of points were raised on this section yesterday and I should like to hear the Minister's views. I think there are considerable difficulties in the section which are not really appreciated and which will perhaps only reveal themselves fully when the Department comes to operate the measure. It is important that those of us who see certain difficulties should have a clarification from the Minister. So far as I can see, it will be a very unsatisfactory section. The whole principle embodied in it will work very unsatisfactorily from every angle and will create a position in which some of the nominating bodies will be very unhappy when the election is over, and in which they will find that, though they are supposed to get the opportunity to have a voice representing them in the Seanad, they are in fact locked out by the construction of the Bill.
Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Bill, 1947—Committee Stage (Resumed).
I feel unusually flattered by learning that Senator Baxter is anxious that I should address the Seanad again on this section. I have spoken on the section twice at some length already, and have, I think, spoken much longer than most members of the Seanad would feel that the occasion required, because this is not a novel proposition. The proposal here is one which is already embodied in legislation governing election to this House. In the Act of 1940 there is a provision exactly similar to this, the only difference being that in the case of that Act the nomination committee was to be composed of three members delegated, sent or selected by the nominating bodies. They were to meet and to select three names to go, not before the electorate proposed in the Bill but to the Taoiseach, to enable the Taoiseach to make his personal selection from these three names of the person who was to fill a casual vacancy in the House. There is nothing novel about that. The members of the Seanad must be perfectly well aware of how that has operated in the past. It is not proposed to make any significant change, and I do not think it is necessary for me to detain the Seanad any longer by expounding for the third time the full implications of this section.
Certain of the provisions covered in the last section, this section and the following section, include provisions with which I made it clear on the Second Stage I was in disagreement. My discussing them now, to make them as good as they can be, does not imply that I am in favour of them. Section 22 (7) is completely beyond me and does not seem to make sense at all. There is something mysterious there which the Minister would regard as simple, or there has been an error. It says:—
"The second and any subsequent appointment .... shall be made at an annual meeting .... and the day appointed ... shall be not less than 400 days and not less than 330 days after the day on which the appointment is made."
Surely it means not more than 400 days?
Of course it does.
I think an amendment to the Bill is essential there, as otherwise it would not make sense. Assuming that it is an error, it will be necessary on the Report Stage to put in an amendment.
Sub-section (7) says, further, that the body shall, at the meeting at which it appoints its representatives, fix the date of the next annual meeting. What happens if it changes the date afterwards? That is not uncommon, as it is often found a year later that it is not possible to hold the annual meeting on the date chosen, and most of these bodies have a means of changing it. Would that invalidate the next nomination?
Certainly. They lose their right to have five nominees at the meeting of the nomination committee. This is the most important meeting of the year, at which they would select their members of the nominating committee.
The section does not say so. All it says is that they shall fix the date. If there are to be amendments to this Bill, it would be quite simple to provide that, in fixing the date, it shall be held within one week of the date, as a matter of practical politics.
I expect the marginal note would need to be changed then, but that can be done without an amendment.
Could the word "less" be changed now? It is obviously a clerical error.
If it is purely a clerical error, it can be changed.
I would not like to express an opinion as to whether it can be done by the Clerk of the House or must be done by the House itself. If it can be done by the staff within the rules of the two Houses, I am not raising any objection.
It is quite clear, if we read sub-section (5), that it is a clerical error, as the correct expression appears in sub-section (5), which says the date shall be—
"not more than four hundred days and not less than three hundred and thirty days".
It refers to the same thing.
Can that correction be made with the consent of the House, without any formal amendment?
I think so, with the consent of the House.
If we are to avoid the Dáil being brought back simply for that purpose, it should be done by the staff, after consultation between the Cathaoirleach and the Clerk. It may be regarded, not as a clerical error but a verbal one which should be changed. I suggest that the Cathaoirleach might find out and let us know later.
I am anxious to know what is meant in sub-section (5) by the expression "an annual meeting". I wonder whether, in the case of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, what is contemplated here is a meeting of all the members. If that is so, a body like the Irish National Teachers' Organisation could not undertake the obligation to call all its members to an annual meeting specifically for the purpose of making an appointment of members to a nomination committee.
If the Senator would refer back to Section 8, he will see that, among the criteria according to which the returning officer is to satisfy himself as to whether a body should be entered on the register of nominating bodies, is a provision that its organisation and direction are governed by articles of association, rules or other regulations which provide for an annual general meeting. It is that annual meeting to which reference is made here.
This is a point of some importance. Section 8 says it is an annual general meeting to which all members are invited. That is a criterion for the purpose of the returning officer, but once a body is on the register an annual meeting means an annual meeting within the rules of the body.
But the register is subject to revision each year and the returning officer must satisfy himself that they are entitled to be on it every year.
My recollection of that was that we were told, if not by the Minister, by someone else, that the clerk can refuse on those grounds, but that he is not obliged to, and if he is not obliged to, you will find that the annual meeting is not one to which all the members are invited and that the annual meeting is not an annual meeting at all of the particular body involved.
I am unable to follow the argument in relation to Section 8. I am raising the question in relation to the appointment of members of nominating bodies to serve on the nominating committee and it seems to me a somewhat different thing. What seems to be called for here is an annual meeting of the members of the nominating body, a meeting specially summoned in order to appoint its members on the nominating committee. If that is so, I want one point cleared up. Does it mean, in the case of the National Teachers' Organisation, for instance, that its 12,000 members must be called for the purpose of appointing five members on the nominating committee?
That depends on the rules of the organisation, surely.
Is that not the rule for an annual meeting of any organisation, that every member must be called?
It depends on the organisation. I have known many private limited companies where only some shareholders were called to the annual meeting.
I never saw any association where it was not the rule to call all the members for the annual meeting.
In any event, what does it matter what the custom is? The Oireachtas is prescribing rules and anybody who wants to enjoy the privilege of proposing members to the Seanad will have to conform to those rules. If the rules of an organisation do not happen to conform with our regulations, they will have to fall into conformity, and it does not matter whether they have 12,000 members or not; they will have to summon all those 12,000 members to the annual meeting. Many may not choose to attend, but anyone who takes sufficient interest in securing representation for their vocation or occupation in this Chamber will undoubtedly attend and have a voice in electing a representative. One of the results may be to break up the caucuses which control these organisations and we may get proposals for nominations from these bodies based on a much more democratic procedure than hitherto and I suggest that that is what we all want. We want to ensure that it is the body of national teachers in the country as a whole, and not the officers of that organisation, who will be making nominations for this House. And it is similar with any other organisation of the same description. The Oireachtas makes the law and prescribes the rules and those who want to comply with the law must keep those rules.
The point I raised is now clear. The Minister has made it perfectly clear that this House is entitled to make a law prescribing certain rules in relation to annual meetings of nominating bodies. Nobody challenges that. The only question with which I was concerned was the meaning of Section 22, and now, since I know the meaning, I may say that it is one of the most insane proposals made in this House for a long time. It is proposed that there will be a democratic appointment of five persons to serve on a nominating committee. To do that an organisation with 12,000 members will be obliged to call all its members— some of whom do not live within its jurisdiction—to a public meeting in Croke Park in order to elect five members on a nominating committee, a body which may never even meet. To say that this is democratic is absurd. What is a true expression of democracy, however, is that in the teachers' organisation the individual members in a county or a part of a county meet annually and appoint delegates from that local area to attend the annual congress of the teachers' organisation which occupies the whole of Easter week. That is the most democratic form of organisation one can expect, and, in fact, it is much more democratic than, for instance, the mass meetings held in Beresford Place. The delegates attend the annual meeting with an agenda which has been circulated in advance and considered by the rank and file of the members of the local branch. After consideration the delegates are instructed by the local members how to vote and what they are to do in relation to each item on the agenda. But in order to have the privilege of being a nominating body for the purpose of the Seanad they must alter their rules to provide for an annual meeting, a mass meeting. If anybody knows anything about the conduct of mass meetings, they must agree that that proposal is utterly unworkable and that no large organisation can possibly comply with regulations of that kind. It seems to me that the section was drafted with an eye on organisations like the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society, a body of 120 or 100 members, all residing in or near Dublin, or whose members outside Dublin are professional people, university professors and others, who find it desirable to attend meetings in Dublin because they have the means and the facilities. Can anybody imagine an organisation like the Irish National Teachers' Organisation bringing 12,000 members from Antrim, Kerry, Cork and Galway to Dublin in order to elect five members on a nominating committee that may never meet?
I would ask the Minister to reconsider the proposals of the section, to take out the section and to relate it to the facts. If—as it seems to me—he wants to get rid of these bodies, all right, because he is getting rid of them whether he likes it or not as they will not comply with regulations which to them are absurd and which confer no advantage. For let me make this clear, the Irish National Teachers' Organisation derives no advantage whatever from the fact that it is a nominating body, and particularly there is no advantage in electing five people to serve on a nominating committee which may not meet even once in 12 months.
If the Minister's interpretation is correct, there is no doubt that Senator Duffy is right and that this proposal is grotesque and completely unworkable. There has been a lot of talk of the Teachers' Organisation, but there are far bigger organisations than that. How does he expect to get a general meeting of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society which has over 100,000 members? There are 60,000 members in the Beet Growers' Association. What are you going to do with them? Even the Creamery Managers' Organisation is a nominating body. There is a very considerable number of them. Is this whole vocational organisation going to be permeated with a fever of political unrest because thousands and thousands have to be collected to nominate five people—to come to a gathering to vote and, when they come, they are outvoted and they will have no nominee at all on the particular panel to which they have a right to make a nomination? There is a saying in the country that a thing is "as clear as mud." I consider that the Minister's explanation is as clear as mud.
I do not accept the view that the Minister's interpretation is necessarily correct. I cannot find any such description of an annual meeting in Section 22. It is so described in Section 8, but Section 8 is only an indication and, according to the Minister, is not obligatory on any officer of the presiding bodies. Therefore, it seems to me that it will entirely depend on the particular body. The interpretation placed on it by the Minister and by Senator Duffy does not seem to be in the section as it stands. It says "annual meeting", but if it is in it, it will be because of other rules outside any in the section.
Either Senator Duffy and Senator Baxter and I are right or Senator Douglas is right. It does not, however, matter at this stage who is right, because if my interpretation is incorrect, I am prepared to admit that there is a case to be met in the circumstances to which Senator Duffy and Senator Baxter have referred. In that event, a simple amendment of this section after the next election will dispose of the matter.
I desire to repeat what I said yesterday. I said that this is not only a long measure, but a very complicated measure which the Minister clearly does not understand and which he should have made temporary, because he cannot amend it at this stage. Here we have the idea of a simple amendment to keep the national teachers from meeting in the Phoenix Park.
I see a difficulty about sub-section (5) of Section 22. It reads:—
"Where the first appointment by a nominating body of members of a nomination committee is made at an annual meeting of the body, the body shall at that meeting appoint the day for its next annual meeting...."
I am connected with a number of bodies, and I know that it is a matter for consideration several times during the year to select a convenient date. I should imagine that this paragraph as it stands will create difficulty. I consider that the fixing of the date for the next subsequent annual meeting at one particular meeting will lead to difficulties.
I should like to ask the Minister if my point about a quorum in relation to an annual meeting is correct?
I assume that that would be provided for in the rules of the nominated body itself, Senator. I think we must realise in this connection that one of the duties of the elected registration officer for the purposes of this Act will be to satisfy himself that the bodies are in a position to fulfil the requirements of the Act. I assume, in that connection, that all these questions in relation to a quorum and to the method of holding annual meetings and so forth will arise for consideration.
Surely these organisations, if they are at all worthy of being nominating bodies, are getting themselves into that position by virtue of the fact that they are doing work of much greater importance than anything under the operations of this Act. Take, for instance, the Beet Growers' Association, the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, or the Irish National Teachers' Organisation. It is because they are doing much more essential work for the community that they are entitled to make a claim to be a nominating body. If their work is satisfactory to their members, who are we to come now to outline their rules for them? If they function and operate under rules which are satisfactory to themselves and to their members—as they have been doing for years and years without any necessity to amend or alter them except in so far as they regard it necessary now and again for the purposes of their own business or work—why can we not accept the procedure under which they have functioned to date for the purposes of this Act rather than impose altogether new conditions? I cannot understand it and I am certain that they will not understand it and, in all probability, they will not bother their heads about coming under the Act at all.
I should not like the House to be under any misapprehension in this connection. I wonder if the Minister is right in saying that the word "may" gives a discretion to the Seanad returning officer. I think it requires more than the word "may". I think "may in his discretion" should be inserted. There is a probability that the word "may" might be interpreted as meaning "shall" and, if it is, it would raise awkward difficulties.
Is that on Section 8? I raised that point and I was told that I was wrong.
I am not so sure that the Senator was wrong. I think it might be more satisfactory if the paragraph were to read: "provide for an annual general meeting..." with the words "to which all members are invited" omitted.
As I have said, I am the agent of the joint committee. The joint committee, after full discussion, decided that this particular formula should be adopted.
Absolutely.
I know that the Senator has no regard for any committee of which he was not a participant.
Who? I?
After all, the members of the joint committee did give a great deal of attention to this matter. As we know, there were stricter proposals before the committee and they were altered. Compromises were arrived at which were embodied in the phraseology in this section. I can, like a number of Senators, understand that a great number of things can happen in regard to the registration of nominating bodies. For instance, the Beet Growers' Association could be dealt with by making the standing committee or the executive of the Beet Growers' Association a nominating body for the purposes of this Act, but that does not mean that the body as one unit should become a nominating body. The executive of the live-stock industry could be made a nominating body. As a matter of fact, all the complications which have been introduced were introduced because Senators refused to face the fundamental position which is that the duty will rest on the Clerk of the Seanad, as registration officer, to ensure that those who appear on the register of nominating bodies are competent to discharge the duties and fulfil the functions contemplated by this Bill.
Surely the Minister propounds a fantastic constitutional and parliamentary heresy when he says that he is here as the agent of the joint committee. I was a member of the joint committee and I may say that a joint committee on any subject simply makes recommendations. If the Minister brings in a Bill it is his plain duty to see that it is properly drafted and workable. It is his duty to examine the proposals of the joint committee with greater care and attention than any joint committee can in the nature of things devote to such proposals. Any joint committee merely puts them up in a general way. The Minister is quite wrong when he says that he is the agent of the joint committee and I am sure that he does not regard himself as such. It is something which he does not seem to understand.
Has the Minister had regard to the possibility of litigation arising out of this?
There will be no litigation. The decision of the appeal committee is final, except in regard to mandamus.
I would not like to give an opinion on the question as to the possibility of litigation, but there is no doubt that the point made by Senator O'Dea is an extremely important one. It goes back to Section 8, while definitely relating itself to Section 22. If "may" may mean "shall"— as I am inclined to think it does in Section 8—then you have put in rules which, in my personal opinion, bring about the position that there is not one body at present on the register that complies strictly with every rule. When I raised that point, I was assured by the Minister and Senator Hearne that it only meant "may" and that, in fact, the new Seanad returning officer, when appointed, would not rule out anybody under those particular rules. I dropped the matter then and left it at that. Now, Senator O'Dea thinks that there is a danger that "may" may mean "shall". I think myself there is. As far as this particular section is concerned, there is nothing in the section that provides for those things unless the body has it actually in its own rules. I am convinced of that. If Senator O'Dea's point is a good one, and if you go back to Section 8, a body will not be on the register at all unless they have the rule that all members must attend. Senator O'Dea is quite right in suggesting that it would be better to take those words out. But do not stop at those words. Take out some of the other things that are more or less meaningless and which, for no good reason, would prevent a body from being registered. Do not say that they must have in the rules that it must appear on the agenda that the minutes of the last meeting will be read. You do not put in rules that the minutes of the last meeting will be read. The minutes are read. Sometimes they are read at a meeting of a committee or a board. Do not make it obligatory. If, as the Minister said, "may" means "may" and it is not in any sense obligatory, then there is no need to amend it; it will work itself out.
I think the Minister is under the impression in this discussion that because this Bill says that the decision of the appeal committee is final and conclusive that is an end of the matter. I want to draw his attention to the fact——
On a point of order, we have already disposed of Sections 12 and 14 under which this question of appeal arises. I merely replied to Senator Keane in reply to a question of his. I do not think we should open up the whole discussion here as to whether the decision of the appeal committee under Section 14 is going to be final and conclusive or not. We could spend hours on that.
I am concerned with the four sub-sections of Section 22 which seem to be of vital importance to these bodies that expect to be nominating bodies—that is, sub-sections (4), (5), (6) and (7). I have been looking at the section in an effort to see what we can do with it. It seems to me that what is provided in these four sub-sections is merely machinery which could be dropped, leaving wide discretion, of course, to the Seanad returning officer, without prescribing the provisions set out here. Everything that is vital to the section is covered in the remaining four sub-sections. I would urge upon the Minister that he might consider introducing a simple amendment on the Report Stage for the purpose of dropping these four sub-sections.
I indicated two or three bodies—two of them nominating bodies already. Would the Minister point out whether, for instance, the executive committee of the standing committee is the Executive Committee of the Standing Committee of the Beet Growers' Association? The Beet Growers' Association is somewhat different from the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. As far as I know every beet grower is a member. The membership is rather different in the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society inasmuch as it is co-operative groups which are members. Would the Minister point out whether under this section it is possible for the Executive Committee or the Standing Committee of the Best Growers' Association to nominate its nominating committee? I cannot see how under the Bill as it stands there is any way open to an organisation like the Beet Growers' Association other than by calling together their 60,000 members. If they do not do that, then the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society and the creamery managers and the bloodstock breeders can go on protesting, bringing into being a perpetual controversy as to whether or not this particular committee has legitimately done its work. Is that the situation with which we will find ourselves faced? I think the Minister is humbugging the whole lot of us and humbugging the House and himself if he thinks he will get away with that. No matter what he says about being the mouthpiece of the committee, surely the committee make no claim to infallibility. No matter what claim they make the responsibility falls on us in the last analysis to ensure that this is workable. Would the Minister please answer that question and clarify that point for us?
I regret I cannot overcome the invincible ignorance of the Senator.
The Minister is, as he has always been, ill-mannered and ill-informed.
On the section, there is one small point which I would like to raise. It is provided under sub-section (2) that
"a member of a nomination committee ceasing to hold office as such member by reason of the expiration of the day before the day of an annual meeting of the nominating body which appointed him shall be eligible for reappointment."
What is the idea of having that sub-section there? Surely, a member could be eligible for reappointment if he ceased to be a member because the nominating body which he represented ceased to be on the relevant panel and then, a year later, put on the panel. Surely, he could still be eligible for reelection. It seems to me that this sub-section is entirely unnecessary. Surely, he is automatically eligible for re-election.
I do not see what the Senator's difficulty is. I do not see any practical point in what the Senator has said.
My point is that if you say a person is eligible for reappointment, you assume that persons who cease to be members for other reasons are not eligible. That can be implied. If that is so, I think it is a mistake.
Sub-section (1) says that he shall cease to be a member on the expiration of the day before the day of the annual meeting.
But one could cease to be eligible for other reasons than that.
It is merely to make it quite clear that he does not cease to be eligible because he ceases to hold office.
On the section, I want to draw attention to the second last paragraph of sub-section (2). This is the section which provides for the making of the Seanad General Election Order. Sub-section (2) provides that certain "provisions shall have effect in relation to a Seanad General Election Order". One of those provisions set out in paragraph (c) is:—
"The day appointed by the Order for the expiration of the time for Oireachtas nominations shall not be less than seven days after the day appointed by the Order for the expiration of the time for general panel nominations and, where practicable, shall be subsequent to the date fixed for the re-assembly of Dáil Éireann after such dissolution."
It seems to me that there is clearly left in doubt the question whether the provisions of paragraph (c) shall apply before the re-assembly of Dáil Éireann after the general election. If we believe in the Party system and if the Dáil, at any rate, is based on the Party system, there must obviously be time left after a general election for the members of each Party elected at that general election to meet and to form an opinion as to what proposals they will make as a Party under the provisions of this Bill. If you leave the words "where practicable" in this section, you leave it optional with the person making the Seanad General Election Order to fix the time limit, so that in fact the time may expire before the re-assembly of Dáil Éireann or before the Parties have an opportunity of meeting.
I think there is a mistake in sub-section (2), paragraph (c), or, if it is not a mistake, I do not quite understand it. The general reference is to "general panel proposed nominations". The words "general panel nominations" seem to me to be intended to be the same as "general panel proposed nominations". If "proposed" is left out there, it might be taken to have a different meaning. It seems to me that, if possible, the date on which the nominations are received from nominating committees should be a few days earlier than the last date on which Dáil nominations can be received. I think that is a point of some importance.
There is some discrepancy between the phrase used in paragraph (2) (b) and the phrase used in paragraph (2) (c), but I do not think it is of great importance, because the Order is required to provide that the day appointed "for the expiration of time for general panel proposed nominations shall not be less than four weeks after such dissolution and, where practicable, shall not be prior to the date fixed for the reassembly of Dáil Éireann" and the day appointed by the Order "for the expiration of the time for Oireachtas nominations shall not be less than seven days after the day appointed by the Order for the expiration of the time for general panel nominations and, where practicable, shall be subsequent to the date fixed for the reassembly of Dáil Éireann". Even taking the stricter interpretation of (2) (c), I think it is possible still to keep it within the law.
At first I thought the Minister was doing something which I thought was desirable. Secondly, I thought it was a mistake he made. You have the general panel proposed nominations. They are a list of names that come before the nominating committees. It seems to me that the general panel nominations are those which come from the committees. If you leave it as it is, I think it will be right, and, frankly, I think it is a good thing. I think it is better that this should go as it is. I only thought it right to draw attention to the distinction. I am quite willing to leave it alone, because I think it is better.
I think it is better, too.
Might I draw attention again to an error? On page 23, paragraph (b) in the fifth line from the top the words "the Act" should obviously read "this Act". I take it that correction will be made.
Yes.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The correction can be made without an amendment.
This is one of the simple and uncomplicated sections, is it not?
Is not this the section under which a miniature election is held before the general election?
If you like to put it that way.
Candidates for the Seanad from nominating bodies should be warned that they will have to submit themselves to three successive processes. In the first place, they will have to be selected by a nominating body as one of three and, in the second place, they will have to submit themselves to a body composed of nominees of the nominating bodies who will reduce the number of persons nominated by the nominated bodies to six by a simple process of voting. In that process of voting, neither a person's knowledge nor experience will, presumably, outweigh other considerations. Having survived that particular process of a second election, they will then have to go to a general election by the members of the Dáil and Seanad and the county councils and the county boroughs. In other words the process of simplifying and improving the method of election to the Seanad has resulted in—I will keep on repeating the words—this extremely complicated system by which a candidate from a nominating body has to survive three separate processes of election before he becomes a member of the Seanad. The whole thing is "cracked".
We ought to get a good Seanad.
I think there is conflict between the conditions in paragraph (c) at the top of page 25 and paragraph (m). It is a question of whether the candidates are or are not entitled to be present at the counting of the votes. Paragraph (c) says:—
"The Seanad returning officer and his assistants and the persons named in the electoral roll constituted for the meeting under Section 33 of this Act, and no other person may be present at the meeting."
Then paragraph (m) says:—
"At the close of the poll, the Seanad returning officer shall ascertain, in accordance with this Act and, in particular the rules contained in the Second Schedule of this Act, the result of the poll and shall announce such result to the candidates then present (if any)."
It seems to me according to paragraph (c) that the candidates would not be present.
A person may be at once a candidate and a voter, or a member of the nomination committee.
Why not say quite clearly then in paragraph (m) that the returning officer shall announce the result of the poll to members of the nomination committee then present (if any)?
There is nothing to prevent a candidate being present at the announcement of the poll.
I think there is. I think that under the earlier sub-sections candidates are specifically excluded and the roll of business, if I may put it that way, called by Section 34 is not concluded under the sub-section until the announcement is made. I want to raise a different point with the Minister. Under paragraph (g) the poll is compulsorily closed at the end of two hours. I visualise it as quite within the realms of possibility that you might have 100 nominating bodies under this arrangement. That is to say that this miniature election is going to take place with 300 people present. By the time these people sign the roll, a considerable period will have elapsed. Each one has got to sign a roll, get from the Seanad returning officer his ballot paper and it has got to be filled. If you have as big a number as is conceivably possible, all the time is going to be occupied with these operations. Quite clearly there should be a proper discretion in the returning officer to deal with the poll or a larger amount of time should be provided. After the opening of the poll candidates must sign their names in the one book. The opening of the poll does not take place after they sign their names. The opening of the poll takes place before that.
It is becoming more obvious as we go on that the Minister has no clear conception of what is in the Bill at all. What I regret about the section most of all is the fact that we are going to import into a number of nominating bodies in the country a political atmosphere that has been hitherto absent. Senator Hayes pointed out the way in which this section is going to operate. Let us begin at the beginning. You have, first of all, a nominating body. Let us say that the executive of a nominating body will make a nomination. The person nominated will have to submit himself to a further body made up of nominees of the nominating body before he finally reaches the list to be submitted to the eventual electors. What will be the attitude of the county councillors who are going to vote? Is there not a political atmosphere imported into the county council in regard to the people upon whom they are going to pass judgment? I think myself the whole thing is cockeyed and that it is going to play havoc in the internal affairs of our nominating bodies. The Minister thinks that he is going to get a better Seanad, but I think he is reducing the whole thing to such ridicule that no decent man will be responsible for offering himself as a candidate. You are importing into the nominating bodies a political atmosphere that has not obtained before. The net result will be that this new method of election will cause disruption in many of these nominating bodies.
I just want to say before we pass from the section that I think Senator Sweetman has misrepresented the section. There is nothing to provide that the opening of the poll coincides with the opening of the meeting. On the contrary, all these formalities have to be gone through before a ballot paper can be given out. It is quite open to the returning officer not to give a ballot paper until every person has complied with the formalities provided.
Supposing one person decides that he is not going to be present at the hour fixed, the returning officer must keep it open all night if necessary until he is present.
Not necessarily. If the meeting is fixed for 11 o'clock and the members of the nomination committee are not all present at that hour he can adjourn the meeting. Paragraph (d) states—
"each member of the nomination committee attending the meeting shall, when or as soon as may be after he enters the meeting, sign his name in a book or other record (to be provided and kept by the Seanad returning officer) of attendances."
Having satisfied himself that he has given ample time for every member of the nomination committee to attend and having further satisfied himself that all the formalities have been complied with the returning officer can then declare the poll open and will close it two hours later.
So that the Minister's view is that the poll is only part of the proceedings of the meeting?
Certainly.
What is going to happen in this case? Every member of the nomination committee is entitled to sit at the nomination committe during the whole of the proceedings. I think the Minister will agree with that. Now the poll is only part of the proceedings. Unfortunately under paragraph (m) the Seanad returning officer is not entitled to announce the result to any member of the nomination committee then present who does not happen to be a candidate. The paragraph says—
"shall announce such results to the candidates then present (if any)".
There are members of the nomination committee who may not be candidates. But members of the nomination committee, according to the Minister himself, are entitled to be there for the whole proceedings and the poll is only part of the proceedings. Either the Minister is wrong in his statement as to the period which the meeting may occupy or paragraph (m) is wrong. The two paragraphs are entirely inconsistent in this "simple and uncomplicated" section.
The meeting is quite a separate matter from the taking of the poll, quite another transaction as everybody knows. The Senator knows that as well as everybody else.
Therefore paragraph (m) as drawn is contrary to what the Minister has stated.
Is there anything in the Bill to prevent members of the Oireachtas from also having votes in the nomination committee?
Members of the Oireachtas can, of course, go to the nomination committee as representatives of the nominating body to which they belong but they are only going to participate in the nominations. They are not going to participate in the election.
Who is entitled to be present during this count?
See paragraph (n).
The Minister says that the ascertainment of the result of the polls is a different thing.
The candidates are invited to be present if they wish, or their agents.
Are the members of the nominating committee not entitled to be present?
I do not think so. The returning officer will have charge of that.
But the returning officer, in paragraph (n), has no discretion at all.
He has.
No; "the Seanad returning officer and his assistants and the candidates (or their duly appointed representatives), and no other person, shall be entitled to be present."
"Shall be entitled"—that is a proviso which appears in the electoral law generally but, as we all know, the returning officer may, by courtesy, allow other people to be present, and he does.
Is that the same wording as in the 1923 Act?
I think so—it is very close to it, anyhow.
Question agreed to.
Let me call attention to another small point. At the bottom of page 26, in sub-paragraph (iv), it seems to me that the line should read: "preference to a nomination by a nominating body". Will that second "a" be inserted?
Yes.
Does it still remain a nominating body? Should it not really be "give preference to a nomination by a nominating committee"?
I had a note down to make the same point. The nominating bodies do not nominate any more.
They propose.
In that case this cannot arise; there cannot be a nomination by a nominating body, and therefore there is nothing to give preference to.
This has to be construed, given a meaning. It is merely a general guide to the returning officer as to the manner in which he shall group the sub-panels.
Will the Minister undertake to examine the provisions of sub-section (2)?
In regard to what?
I have some doubts about that sub-section.
Senators may raise doubts in relation to these matters, but they ought to remember that, except for the change from nominating committee to nominating body, the section as a whole has operated at four Seanad elections and has not been questioned.
But I think the position has been changed.
I agree—I admit that.
Then this becomes meaningless.
But it is merely a guide as to how the names will be arranged.
Surely, it is a legal direction to the Seanad returning officer. I am merely asking the Minister to have this re-examined.
This is merely a guide to the returning officer as to how he shall act if there happens to be duplication in regard to panels.
I suggest it is not a guide; it is a mandatory provision.
Assuming it is a mandatory provision, the returning officer is bound to construe it in a reasonable way and he can assume quite easily that a person nominated by a nominating body must have passed through a nominating committee if he is to be considered here at all, because this will be the final panel. I do not think there is anything like the ambiguity which Senators have found in this particular expression. It is quite clear that, if a person is a candidate and has been nominated from two sources, the question arises whether he will be put on one panel or the other. If there happens to be a duplicate entry the returning officer shall give preference to the nomination of a person nominated by a nominating body.
Supposing he had no legal right to make that preference, and a candidate challenged that, the validity of the election might depend on it. In the final count there must be a certain number for each sub-panel and it could become a vital matter as to the panel on which the person was put. I think there is a mistake in this section and the Minister thinks it better to allow the mistake to remain there for the time being rather than send this Bill back to the Dáil.
This is what happens when somebody, instead of looking at the section as a whole, takes one portion of it and regards it from a narrow aspect. If Senators will look at paragraph (2) (a) they will see clearly that this is purely a provisional operation— it is not a final operation—
"he shall group the provisional Oireachtas sub-panels and the provisional nominating bodies sub-panels into five groups".
That is all a preliminary process of the final settlement of the panels.
Where are the instructions for the final settlement? I took the word "provisional" to mean that it is still possible to challenge those names and they may be put off the panel.
They still remain provisional panels—they are still described as provisional panels. The whole procedure at this stage is still more or less indefinite in form.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
A verbal change in Section 36, page 26, line 60, has been suggested. It is proposed to insert the letter "a" in sub-section (2) (iv), before the words "nominating body".
Agreed.
Question agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:—
To delete sub-section (2).
This section provides the electorate for the purpose of the election of a new Seanad. I direct attention to the provisions of sub-section (2), which amount to this, that all the members of a dissolved county council would be electors for the purpose of the Act as if they were members of a functioning council. There is one exception to that rule, which is in Section 85. Section 85 provides, in sub-section (4):—
"Notwithstanding Section 44 of this Act, a person shall not be a member of the electorate at a Seanad general election by reason only of the fact that he was a member of the council of the County of Dublin at any time before the passing of this Act."
With the exception, therefore, of the members of the dissolved County Council of Dublin, all members of dissolved county councils are by this Act given the right to vote at the Seanad general election.
So far as I know, at the moment there is one county council dissolved and its members, I take it, will be summoned from all parts of the globe to perform their functions under this Bill. This, however, is not a temporary measure. We disposed of that yesterday. It is permanent legislation. So that, as years go by, we may find two, three, five county councils dissolved. That is not entirely unlikely. There was one period in which there were five county councils out of commission. Should it happen again, the members of those councils, some of whom may not have taken part in the business of a council for ten years, would be called upon to vote under this Bill in the election of members for the Seanad. They would be in a rather unique position because, inasmuch as their council is dissolved, there is no likelihood that they will lose office as voters. The members of a county council which is actively functioning will have to submit themselves to an election periodically. The character and the personnel of the council may change and almost inevitably will change from time to time, but a dissolved county council will be in the unique position that, so long as it remains dissolved, its members will be permanent voters in Seanad elections, of course, unless they die. I do not know if there is any other disqualification. I do not know whether a term of imprisonment or bankruptcy would interfere with the right of a member of a dissolved council to vote. I am satisfied that once he dies his right to vote ceases.
If the Senator really has any doubt about it, he might read the sub-section he is proposing to delete.
I accept it that the disqualifications which apply to members of functioning county councils apply to them and I accept it that they cease to be electors but the fact that they do not seek re-election will not prevent them, at any rate, being electors for long periods of years. The Dublin County Council, I think, has not met for upwards of ten years. I agree that its members are not voters because of the provisions of Section 85, under this Bill, but, as time goes on, the Kerry County Council will be a long time out of commission. It must be at least seven years since the last election took place in Kerry and it may be seven or eight years before another election takes place. Broadly speaking, I think the principle of permitting members of a dissolved council to be voters for the purpose of a Seanad election is bad and I think that the provisions of Section 85 should apply to all councils which are dissolved and that sub-section (2) of Section 44 should be deleted.
I think Senator Duffy's fears are unfounded. There is no likelihood, under this Bill or under any other Act of the Oireachtas, that the members of a county council who have been removed from office will be permitted to remain members of the Seanad electorate in perpetuity. You cannot, of course, read this Bill apart from other enactments on the Statute Book. So far as the existing law is concerned, unless by special legislalation the Oireachtas determines otherwise, if the members of a local authority have been removed from office, an election must be held to reelect the members of that local authority within three years. So that that is in fact the maximum period. In the case of the Dublin County Council, to which the Senator has referred, there have been at least two Acts of the Oireachtas which have postponed the reconstitution of that body and the election of that body over the period to which the Senator has referred. They have been Acts designed to meet the special circumstances of County Dublin, arising out of the fact that a great deal of reorganisation has to be carried through before we are in a position to determine what the ultimate organisation of local government in Dublin City and County is going to be and how they are going to be coordinated with one another.
There is a special problem, as everybody knows, in relation to County Dublin and, therefore, it has been in a special position, dealt with, as I have said, by no less than two Acts of the Oireachtas, and full cognisance of the fact that it is in a special position has been taken in this Bill, as the Senator knows, which provides that the former members of the Dublin County Council are disqualified from voting. The position in relation to members of other county councils is quite different.
The dilemma with which the Minister for Local Government is faced is this: that he does not want to give any ground for the allegation that if he has to remove the members of a local authority from office because he thinks that their administration is not such as the interests of the ratepayers would require, he does not want to be impeded from doing that by the allegation that he is doing it for political motives in order to deprive the opponents of the Government of a certain number of votes in an election to the Seanad. That is the reason why we decided that, even though the members of a local authority have been removed from office because they have not been functioning properly, nevertheless, we are allowing them to retain the right to vote in the election for the Seanad. Now I can see that there is a great deal to be said against that, but I think the position has at least the overriding merit that no Minister for Local Government can endeavour to influence the result of a Seanad election by removing people from office. The fact of the matter is that if he does remove them from office he will be likely to influence the election, undoubtedly indirectly, both against himself and against the Party which supports him, and for that reason this is in the nature, if you like, of a self-denying ordinance.
The following amendment appears on the Order Paper in my name:—
In sub-section (3), lines 32 and 33, to delete the words "or former members".
Sub-section (3) provides that the secretary of a county council or a town clerk of a county borough shall, not later than 15 days after a dissolution of the Dáil, send to the Seanad returning officer a statement of the names, addresses and descriptions of the members or former members of the council, etc. I am wondering whether, after the decision on the last amendment, this amendment can be moved.
On the section, what does the expression "former members" mean?
Persons who have been removed from office.
Where is that defined?
In Section 41 of the Local Government Act, which governs removal from office.
Where is the provision for the publication of the electoral roll?
It is not published.
In that case, how are candidates to ascertain the names of those to whom they are to send circulars, such as we heard read here yesterday?
I presume on application to the returning officer.
There used to be, I think, a provision in the existing Act to ensure publication in Iris Oifigiúil.
It was published, but there was not such a provision. It was not obligatory to publish the roll in that form. I think the Senator can take it that it will be published.
I draw attention to the wording of sub-section (1) which provides that "every person entitled to a vote at a Seanad general election shall be entitled to vote in the following and in no other manner, that is to say, by marking one or more of the ballot papers sent to him under Section 50 of this Act and returning by registered post to the Seanad returning officer all of those ballot papers together with the form of declaration of identity." Does that mean that if a voter is furnished with five ballot papers —one for each panel—and is interested only in one panel, marks his vote on that panel and burns the other four papers his vote is invalid?
Yes. He must return all the ballot papers.
Whether he uses them or not?
Yes.
This is the section which indicates the numbers to be elected on each panel. I want to protest against the allocations. I think the records of the House will show that a protest was also made on an occasion in the past when we had a somewhat similar scheme put before us. The section makes provision for five members from the Cultural and Educational Panel, for 11 members from the Agricultural Panel, for 11 members from the Labour Panel, for nine members from the Industrial and Commercial Panel and for seven members from the Administrative Panel. Senator Douglas and others have argued against the principle of making all county councillors a court of electors. The whole construction of this section is very contradictory. It is true that the scales have been weighted, from the point of view of people with votes, in favour of the rural section of the community, but when you come to the distribution of the people who are to be elected from the various panels you find agriculture getting 11 members out of the whole House. I do not assent to that distribution at all. I think it bears no relation whatever to the importance of the agricultural community in the life of the nation. I know, of course, it will be urged that some of the other panels will return agriculturists. I suggest that not many such people will be returned from any of the other panels. Looking around this House one can see how large a part of the membership is drawn from sections in the community other than the agricultural section. I think that the representation which is to be given to the agricultural industry under this Bill is unfair. That applies not only to this Bill but to many other measures which make provision for the representation of various interests.
If we consider the sort of people who could make a contribution to legislation, this House, I suggest, if considered from the vocational angle, is the place in which representatives of the agricultural industry could give the best service, but since agriculture is allotted only 11 out of a membership of 60, it is not possible to find a place for them. It may be that one or two members who can claim to have a knowledge of, or to speak for, agriculture may get returned from the Administrative Panel, but taking the membership of the House as a whole, the representation is entirely titled towards interests other rather than agriculture. I think I hear the Minister talking in an undertone about Senator Quirke being a representative and about his being nominated on the Agricultural Panel. That is so, but all the people whom you can elect on that panel number 11 people. That may be the Minister's concept of what agriculture is entitled to in this House, but it is not mine. If there is not more progress agriculturally in the country, it is due to the fact that agriculturists do not get sufficient chance to have their point of view put. I am not finding fault with others getting a share of the representation, but it indicates the approach of the Minister and the Government to this problem. From the countryman's angle, it is thoroughly unacceptable and I cannot permit the section to go through in its present form without making my protest.
I am sorry the Senator did not read the Constitution. Had he done so, he would have seen that the maximum representation to be allotted to any panel is 11 and that is the representation being given to the Agricultural Panel. There are a lot of things I could say about some of the arguments the Senator used. His main grievance always appears to be that the agricultural community chose others in preference to himself and his friends to represent them. There are almost 80,000 people in Cavan who represent very strongly the agricultural interest and yet the Senator's Party could not secure one member of the Dáil there.
That does not meet the point at all, but it is like the Minister —shadow-boxing, talking nonsense and putting forward a hypothetical case because he cannot face the situation as it is. The Minister does not deny that the number of representatives being given to the agricultural community under this plan is 11.
That is what the Constitution gives them and the people, including the people of Cavan, accepted the Constitution, despite Senator Baxter.
We are not much the richer since it was passed and the contribution, which the Constitution, through this plan, is making in respect of representation for the agricultural community is 11 members out of 60. That, of course, is the Minister's view of what agriculture is worth to the nation. That is all it is entitled to get.
Senator Baxter should be fair. He is attacking the Minister as if this proposal came from the Government. This proposal is a recommendation of the joint committee on which were Senators Counihan, Duffy, Hayes, Hearne, McGuinness, Moore and O'Dea, as well as Senator Quirke, who replaced Senator McGuinness who died. Why does not the Senator be fair and deal with this as coming from a united committee of both Houses and not as something controversial, from his point of view, coming from the Government? When speaking earlier, I said that these recommendations came to the Government from the united committee and I said that unfortunately the Government seemed to adopt them all. I personally do not agree with some of these recommendations, but the fact that they came unanimously from the joint committee carried such weight that the Government adopted the whole scheme. They did not recommend any change in the representation for agriculture, and I refer not so much to representation for the agricultural community as to the so-called agricultural representatives in the Seanad, because there are members in the Seanad other than those like Senator Baxter who feel they have an interest in and represent agriculture.
Mr. Hawkins
Senator Baxter has tried to lead the House to believe that the representation for agricultural interests was confined to 11 members. I hold that that is not true. As a matter of fact, a member of one of our political Parties which claims to be an agricultural and farmers' Party was elected on the Labour Panel. Nobody will deny that Senator Johnston, who was elected from Trinity College, is an advocate of farming and agricultural interests on almost every occasion and that there are on other panels members who have as great and as lively an interest in the agricultural community as Senator Baxter and those people elected on the agricultural panel. I should say that agriculture has a majority of representatives as compared with any other section.
One comment which I should like to make on that is that, if what Senator Hawkins says is true, these people are notable by their absence and lack of support of agricultural interests, with the exception of Senator Johnston. From a technical angle, Senator O'Donovan does make a contribution, but it is from a technical angle.
In fairness to Senator Counihan, who is not here, the Senator should not exclude him.
Senator Quirke is becoming vocal again. Senator Counihan is elected on the Agricultural Panel. Senators here speak about the infallibility of the people who sat on this committee. That is a new forte for the Minister and some of his colleagues in relation to their attitude to reports presented to them. Many reports have been presented to them with much greater weight behind them than is behind this report. When the Vocational Organisation Commission's report came before them as a unanimous document——
No.
Practically.
No.
We did not then hear anything about the infallibility of the people who reported.
It seems to me that the difficulty about agriculture in this House is that it is over-represented.
Particularly by those who have been rejected by the farmers of Ireland.
If they were out for purchase, I suppose they would not have been.
I suppose that what we will get under this Bill, having regard to what we discussed on Section 22, is a mass meeting of farmers in the Phoenix Park to select their representative here. We may get a different point of view, but I do not think we will get more representation, because it seems to me that, when anything is said about agriculture, everybody in the House jumps to arms in defence of agriculture. It is that defence which is killing agriculture. The difficulty is that those who are experts in relation to agriculture cannot agree among themselves for five minutes as to what is to be done to improve it. The result of it all is that agricultural production is going down.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are not dealing with agricultural policy or production on this section.
Nor with the splits in the Labour Party.
Or in the Farmers' Party. It is desirable that we should pay more attention to the effect of this Bill in securing adequate, and, I hope, effective representation for agriculture. That is the purpose of Section 22 and I have every reason to think that agriculture will be very efficiently and effectively represented in the next Seanad in view of the amount of canvassing which is going on already. Some of the interests mentioned in this section probably have a greater grievance than the agriculturists. The Administrative Panel, notwithstanding the fact that four out of five elected will be members of local authorities, has quite inadequate representation under the section. I would suggest to Senator Baxter that one of the most effective methods by which he would get representation for rural, including agricultural, interests would be to strengthen representation on the Administrative Panel. I admit that we have no power to do that under the Bill. The framework of the House is settled in the Constitution and therefore, whether Senator Baxter or I like or dislike the scheme, we are tied to it in respect of numbers and in respect of groups.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In sub-section (1), lines 31 and 32, to delete the words "one hundred and eighty" and substitute the word "ninety".
This relates to the period during which the Minister will be entitled to sit on a recommendation sent from the Seanad for the purpose of filling a Seanad vacancy. Where a casual vacancy occurs at the moment, and also under the Bill, a resolution is passed by the House and sent to the Minister directing his attention to the fact that a casual vacancy exists because of the death or resignation of a member of a particular named panel; and the sub-section provides, as the present statute provides, that the Minister has 180 days, that is, six months, in which to hold a by-election for the purpose of filling that vacancy. I think that period is unreasonably long. If a vacancy exists here and the House considers it should be filled, the time within which the Minister may make his arrangements should be limited to three months, that is, 90 days.
The Seanad does not proceed immediately to pass a resolution when a casual vacancy occurs. On occasions, two and three months are allowed to elapse before the resolution is forwarded to the Minister. If the Minister avails of the provisions of sub-section (2) in their entirety, a period of 12 months may elapse between the occuring of the vacancy and the action taken by the Minister under this section for the purpose of filling it.
I think the House should not accept this amendment. I do not see that any inconvenience is caused to anyone or that any damage is done to any interest by the provisions of the existing law. I do not propose to amend them, and I would ask the House not to amend them. The principle we have proceeded upon, as I have already explained, is that no amendment was to be made in the existing law which was not recommended by the joint committee.
I would like to be informed in what respect sub-section (1) here differs from paragraph (n) of Section 61. Both paragraphs seem to be the same and I am unable to discover why it is necessary to repeat in Section 63 what is already set out in Section 61.
I think it is quite clear that there is a difference. Section 63 governs the whole procedure and the drafting of a certificate of provisional election. Paragraph (n) refers only to the fact that certain things having been done or certain conditions having been fulfilled, the Seanad returning officer must fill a certificate.
A small question arises in relation to sub-section (1), which provides:
"(1) Where the Seanad returning officer adjourns an election under this Chapter for the purpose of taking a poll, he shall forthwith inform the Clerk of Dáil Eireann in writing of the adjournment, and send to him a copy of the list of candidates, and the said Clerk shall, not more than four days after being so informed, furnish to the Seanad returning officer a statement of the names, addresses, and descriptions of all the members of Dáil Eireann who are then entitled to sit and vote in that House."
I wonder whether the expression "sit and vote " has a special significance in view of the fact that members of Dáil Eireann may be suspended from service in the House at the time the election takes place.
It is a general description of persons who are competent to discharge Parliamentary duties.
That is not what is here. The words are "who are entitled to sit and vote in the House". A member who is suspended is not entitled to sit or vote in the House or to be in the precincts of the House and I would like to know whether these words have a special significance.
They might have. A person might be suspended for misconduct or for one reason or another.
Would there be any objection to making that "member of Dáil Eireann"?
There might be.
What difference does it make to have it "entitled to sit and vote in the House"?
I do not know, but you ought to know. I think that no person should know better than the Senator.
I thought that this was supposed to be so simple that we could understand everything.
I said that, so far as the recommendations of the committee were concerned.
Will not the Minister agree that there is a difficulty here, if it has the effect of preventing a member of Dáil Eireann from exercising the vote for a Seanad election, when members of a suspended county council are invited in?
That is quite a different matter altogether. A member of Dáil Eireann or Seanad Eireann might be entitled to sit and vote, but if he were interned, for instance, or if he had a personal interest, he would not be in a position to vote.
Speaking for myself, I am not endeavouring to create any difficulty for the Minister, but we must be sure that we know what is in the Bill and what laws we are making and I was hoping that the Minister would be at least as anxious about that particular matter as any other member of the House. I think it is his duty if there is any doubt about a matter of this kind to have that doubt removed before asking this House to pass a Bill into law.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In sub-section (3), line 26, to delete the word "such".
This draws attention to what appears to be an obvious error. We are dealing with sub-sections (1) and (2) in regard to sending ballot papers to the electors and we refer to the declaration of identity in sub-section (3). "As far as every such declaration of identity shall be in the prescribed form." I take it that every declaration of identity shall be in the prescribed form and that the word "such" has crept in accidentally and that it should not have been there at all. If sub-section (3) were a continuation of sub-section (2) it would be correct, or if it were a continuation of sub-section (1) it would be correct.
There are duplicate declarations of identity and so on.
I am not arguing that I am correct, but it occurred to me that in a separate sub-section the word "such" should not be used while it might be used in the same sub-section.
The draftsman put it in here because there are various forms of declaration of identity, duplicate declarations of identity and the original declaration of identity.
I think with all respect that the expression "every declaration of identity shall be in the prescribed form" seems clear, precise and conclusive.
May I draw attention to the heading of this chapter. The heading is: "General provisions in respect of every ruling upon nomination under Part III." Part III has nothing to do with rulings. It relates to the nominating committees. I have been wondering whether that does not refer to Chapter 3 of this Part rather than Part III. It certainly can have no relationship with Part III. I would refer the Minister to Part III which contains three sections. Only Section 21 is concerned with the formation and maintenance of nominating committees.
I think it should be Chapter 3.
This just shows how moithered we are. I think that we had better adjourn for tea. The Minister will have his case made up when he comes back.
This relates to Part V or to the by-elections.
This is Chapter 6. Chapter 4 is in Part V.
It is quite clear. If Senators will read Section 76 they will see "upon nomination held under this Part of this Act.""This Part of this Act"—it must be Part V, because Section 76 appears in Part V. The heading, instead of reading "General provisions in respect of every ruling upon nomination under Part III" should read "General provisions in respect of every ruling upon nomination under Chapter 3".
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is Section 76 agreed?
Have we a ruling from you, Sir, as to what is being done about the heading to this chapter. It is obviously and admittedly incorrect. Will it be corrected?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Yes.
I am afraid my patience is exhausted. I am moving no more amendments.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
When is it proposed to take the next stage?
Senators
Now.
Surely that is not seriously meant. A number of points were raised during the course of the discussion this afternoon which show that clearly there is a doubt. I think the Minister might well look at these points this evening and come back either to-night or to-morrow morning. That is my suggestion. I do not want to hold up the debate but I seriously suggest that it would be a blemish on this House and on Government Departments if, in relation to Bills in which there clearly are questions open to doubt, no very convincing replies are given. I suggest that these points should be satisfactorily cleared up first.
Most of the matters which were raised here were, I should say, matters which related to the question of the qualification of registration bodies and the manner in which the nomination committees should be constituted. For the purpose of the impending election the existing register of nominating bodies is deemed to be the register of nominating bodies under the Bill. So far as the immediate mechanism of the impending election is concerned, there will be no difficulty whatsoever. There will be no difficulty, either, in these nominating bodies selecting their five representatives to the nominating committee. I am prepared to concede that, in the light of what has been said here, another Oireachtas must review the provisions relating——
Hear, hear. That is the suggestion I made.
I know. If the Senator will permit me to finish? Another Oireachtas must review certain of the provisions relating to the manner in which the nominating bodies shall select their representatives upon the nomination committees. Obviously, I think, there must be alternative provisions to meet the case of bodies such as those which have been mentioned here, say, the Best Growers' Association and that body which is, apparently, so close to Senator Duffy's head if not his heart, the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, although I would say that, under the Act as it stands, the governing executives of these organisations could be entered on the register of nominating bodies. However, I do not wish to pursue that matter.
As I have said, I am prepared to concede that a case has been made for a review of the particular manner in which large organisations will select their representatives on the nomination bodies. I am not prepared to go so far as Senator O'Dea appears to go by saying that the provision in Section 8 which appears to give the Clerk of the Seanad discretion to reject an application for registration unless certain conditions which are therein set out are complied with makes it mandatory on the Clerk of the Seanad to reject any body, except an excepted body, in respect of which these conditions have not been fulfilled. There may be a case for further consideration there.
So far as the discussion on the Committee Stage of this Bill has proceeded, no point of real substance has, I think, been raised except these two. I suggest that we can let these matters stand until the next Oireachtas. We could, I think, even bearing these things in mind and without any loss of dignity, take all the remaining stages of this Bill this evening. I would ask the House to do so, not because the Minister in charge of the Bill would be greatly convenienced, but because all these bodies which have rights under the Bill will be convenienced. If we can get the Bill passed this evening and if the Seanad will pass the resolution which is on the Order Paper the Bill can be made law and a lot of matters which cannot be undertaken until the Bill has been enacted as an Act will then be put in train, such as the giving of due notice to persons affected, issuing forms to nominating bodies and others who are interested in securing candidature for the election.
Judging from the Minister's attitude I take it we can continue for a few minutes after 6 o'clock in order to complete this question. I have been reduced, as a result of the Minister's attitude, to such a state that I do not care what happens. The real blemish is that a majority of the members of the House is prepared to let the Minister have a very obviously defective Bill without any amendment. We are confronted with a Bill which we are not allowed to amend. The Minister said that the blemishes relate to only one Part of the Bill. For this particular election the Seanad returning officer remains as before. Under the Bill in the second next election the Clerk of the Seanad becomes the returning officer. It is impossible for any civil servant, for the Clerk of the Seanad, or any other officer to work the Bill as it now stands without amendment. I challenge the Minister. It cannot be done. Nobody could do it.
The Bill is fundamentally defective and it is unfair to give to any officer of this House or any officer of the State the manifestly difficult task of working a Bill which is defective right through. I made a suggestion yesterday which would have enabled the Bill to be amended; I made a suggestion which would have rendered it imperative upon the next Oireachtas to discuss the Bill. We have demonstrated to the Minister that the Bill is complicated and radically defective— defective to the extent that the Minister himself fails to understand it and cannot explain it. He now suggests that the next Parliament may examine this Bill. Why does he not accept the proposal that the next Parliament must examine it? The Minister has reduced this House to the state where it is told that its attitude must be that it must take this Bill and that it cannot amend it. We do not mind when it is taken.
I suggest the best way of dealing with the present difficulty is to divide on this motion. There is no use having the Report Stage to-morrow if the principle is accepted that it may not be amended. If the majority of the House feel that an amendment cannot be put in, then the best thing to do is to have a division now on the Report Stage. If we are going to have a Report Stage, then let us amend the Bill and get down to it in detail.
Tá
- Campbell, Seán P.
- Clarkin, Andrew S.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Hawkins, Frederick.
- Hearne, Michael.
- O Buachalla, Liam.
- O'Callaghan, William.
- O'Dea, Louis E.
- O'Donovan, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Honan, Thomas V.
- Johnston, Séamus.
- Kelly, Peter T.
- Kennedy, Margaret L.
- Longford, Earl of.
- Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
- Quirke, William.
- Ruane, Thomas.
- Ryan, Michael J.
- Stafford, Matthew.
- Summerfield, Frederick M.
Níl
- Baxter, Patrick F.
- Counihan, John J.
- Douglas, James G.
- Duffy, Luke J.
- Hayden, Thomas.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Keane, Sir John.
- Kyle, Sam.
- McGee, James T.
- Meighan, John J.
- O'Reilly, Patrick John.
- Smyth, Michael.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tunney, James.
Without consideration.
It is agreed that that can be put in by the Clerk.
The Taoiseach's nominees want to more discussion on anything. They want to vote.