Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs debate -
Friday, 8 Oct 1993

SECTION 16.

Ms Keogh

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 14, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) A special meeting of a Council e.g. a county or a corporation of a county borough shall be convened to consider nomination of a candidate at a presidential election.".

As part of the nominating procedure, a council of a county or a corporation of a county borough may, by resolution, etc, resolve to nominate one named person to be a candidate at a presidential election. If a council, or a number of councils together, have the right to nominate a candidate it should be incumbent upon those councils to meet to consider this. There is no provision for doing this. Iknow that in the case of one person who wished to be nominated for the election campaign there was a difficulty in getting councils to even consider that person's candidature. It is regrettable that somebody who may be very well qualified to run is not even considered. It is part of this whole political closed shop which we come across in relation to nominations for the presidency. It is regrettable that if one has a power to nominate that one does not even bother to exercise it and for that reason I tabled this amendment.

Dr. Upton

I do not agree with this proposal for a number of reasons. First, county councils have the capacity to call specail meetings if they think that is appropriate. It they are seriously concerned about nominating somebody for the presidency and feel that a special meeting is required they already have the capacity to do that. In addition, I think that an obligation to call a specail meeting of county councils to consider this question will result in the dialouge of the deaf —people getting involved in politicking which I do not think would advance politics or the presidency. People will use the opportunity to restate positions which everybody is arleady aware of and I suspect that the public will not take much notice. I not think this is a desirable amendment.

Mr. E. Ryan

I agree with Deputy Upton. I do not see the relevance of this. I do not agree with Deputy Keogh about a closed shop. The problem for anybody who wants to be a candidate at the Presidential election is to try to get the necessary number of county councillors to back them. I do not think the problem is not being able to call a meeting nor do I think that the amendment will help the problem which she is trying to resolve.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): Deputy Eoin Ryan and Deputy Upton have probably answered for me in that I feel there are adequate procedures available under Standing Orders of individual local authorities to enable such meetings to be held if members so wish. In this context, the inclusion of such a requirement in this legislation is not warranted. It would not make such sense to have 32 local authorities convening special meetings and perhaps so nominations would take place. It would seem to be a waste of taxpayers’ money and of local authority members’ and of staff time. I do not think there is any need for this amendment.

Ms. Keogh

: It is not exactly a gigantic vote of confidence in our local authorities. I can say that quite categorically. If you are talking about the dialogue of the deaf, my colleague on Dublin County Council —

(Interruptions.)

Ms. Keogh

I do not accept the argument either that just because councils have the right to convene meetings that is sufficient power. I am trying to get people to consider things seriously. It is my experience at county council level that unless something has to be considered it often just falls between the cracks. The position of President is an important one. We often talk about parish pump politics, and perhaps my colleagues believe that is what local government is about, but if we are to consider candidates for the presidency, that if a local authority has the power it should at least examine the possibility of nominating a candidate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 16 agreed to.

Section 17 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Chairman

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and may be discussed together. Agreed? Agreed.

Ms Keogh

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 15, before section 18, to insert the following new section:

"18. — A nomination of a person to be a candidate at a presidential election may be secured by a nomination in writing signed by no less than thirty thousand (30,000) people, residents of the Republic of Ireland."

This is more of the argument that it is in the Constitution and therefore this cannot be accepted. I may have a particular hang-up about the nominating procedure for the presidency——

Interruptions.

Ms Keogh

I think that we will have at least ten members and I am sure that my colleagues here, if I ever thought of doing such a thing, would have great pleasure in signing nomination papers.

I said earlier that I would like to get away from the party political element of nominating a candidate which is why I am saying: "a nomination in writing signed by no less than 30,000 people". It is quite an arbitrary number but I think it is a sufficient number to show that somebody is a serious candidate. I would not like to see a frivolous candidate seeking nomination for such an important position. To get away from the local authorities and the political parties there should be some other mechanism devised to nominate a candidate. I respectfully submit, Minister, that if we are having another constitutional amendment then perhaps something along these lines could be considered. As I said, 30,000 may sound an arbitrary figure but to get 30,000 signatures does signal serious intent.

Mr. Gilmore

I would like to support this amendment. I think it is an unfortunate fact that the right to nominate a candidate for the presidency is very much within the realm of the larger political parties at present because irrespective of which mechanism is used, whether it is the requirement for 20 Members of the Oireachtas to sign the nomination paper or the requirement for a number of local authorities to sign it, effectively the political parties decide who is entitled to stand for the office of President. As the office of President is by its very nature seen as being above politics the right to nominate a candidate for the presidency should also be above politics.

It was an unfortunate state of affairs, although I have the height of respect for the people who held the office of President during that time, that for a whole period between, I think, 1974 and 1990, there was no election for the office of President. The larger political parties were able to tick-tack between themselves and decide that there would be an agreed candidate. That is because there is an arrangement that one must have 20 Members of the Oireachtas. The present incumbent barely made it. The number who signed the nomination papers of the incumbent was approximately 24. Therefore, it is something which needs to be opened up to the people.

Deputy Keogh mentioned the constitutional issue involved. Perhaps there are a number of constitutional issues which might be considered in relation to the Office of the President. There has been much talk about opening up the Office of the President, about redefining it, extending its role and so on. The method by which people become President needs to be opened up. This is an obvious area and I ask the Minister to respond positively to the idea of producing a constitutional amendment to open up the procedure for nomination of candidates for the Presidency. It should not be confined to political parties; it should belong to the people. The formula proposed by Deputy Keogh, that people should have the right to sign the nomination papers, is a good one.

Another aspect which needs to be considered in relation to nomination for the Office of President is the age limit. I do not understand why a person must be more than 35 years of age to become President of Ireland. The fact that this age limit was included in the Constitution has given rise to a belief — one which was held until 1990 — that the Office of President was a type of sinecure for retiring politicians. It is a denial of rights to young people here to say that someone under 35 years should not be entitled to be nominated for the Office of President. The 35 years age barrier should be lifted now. It is no longer of any personal concern, but it should be opened up so that any young person who wants to stand for the Office of President is able to do so.

Mr. Sargent

I have another few years to go before I can be President of Ireland, therefore I do not see it as an immediate priority. Nevertheless, I support Deputy Gilmore's point in the interest of the common good. I strongly support Deputy Keogh's amendment . It shows we can improve our traditional systems of nomination which relate to the presidential and other elections, including the European elections when £1,000 must be gathered to show that one is sincere about standing for election. It means that those with money are given an advantage over those without money. When that becomes the priority it undermines the nature of democracy.

In this amendment we are talking about a random figure of 30,000 people which I presume we can argue about. However, the principle behind the amendment should be accepted. It should be recognised that this is bringing politics to the streets and allowing people to make an impact. It gives a clear message to every citizen that they can be politicians in their own right, taking decisions and being consulted on something which will have a lasting impact on them. That is a worthwhile message and we should promote it if we are serious about being democratic. There is no perfect system. However, we must look at the system we have to ensure that it reaches some state of perfection and that it is an improvement.

Mar a dúirt an Teachta Gilmore, tá Uachtarán againn anois atá ann tré thimpist, beagnach, de bharr an chóras atá againn. Ceapaim go bhfuil an-obair á dhéanamh aici, ach bhí seans ann nach toghfar í ar chor ar bith leis an gcóras atá againn.

This should remind us that we have a job to do in improving the system. I support this amendment as an attempt to achieve this.

Dr. Upton

I do not agree with Deputy Sargent when he talks about the President being elected "tré thimpist", which presumably means "through accident". I doubt if any analysis of the history of the election of the President would lead to the conclusion that it was accidental.

In relation to the amendment, Deputy Keogh mentioned that it is unconstitutional. Therefore, the debate is somewhat academic. There is some merit in the idea. However, if it becomes a realistic prospect clear controls should be laid down as to how these 30,000 signatures are gathered. I would not like a situation to develop where people with clipboards would knock on doors and ask people to sign the forms because I suspect that people would sign anything. That is the view shared by people who have gathered signatures over the years. I collected signatures and I was greatly encouraged by the level of support I appeared to get. I could have been fooled had I not thought about the meaning behind this signing process. Therefore, if one is talking about this type of procedure it is important that people sign at a particular place, that clear restrictions are placed on how one should sign, and that people could be prevented from signing if necesary. Indeed, it would be important that events such as those mentioned by Deputy Deasy earlier in relation to an election do not occur.

The figure of 30,000 would represent 2 per cent of the people who vote in elections. If a candidate has the capacity to generate that level of support, I suspect that such a candidate would have the support of one of the major political parties. If Deputy Keogh's amendment is adopted it might not be too different from what is happening at present, even if the method is wider than what now exists.

Mr. Finucane

I will talk briefly on this issue because Deputy Upton has made my point. One could organise a petition and get 30,000 signatures. However, it would be a wrong method to use. In England there are many fringe candidates, including Screaming Lord Sutch. He stands for every election. There would be nothing to stop a head-banger standing for election here and getting 30,000 votes, but it would debase the presidential election. I do not believe there is anything wrong with the present approach.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I am concerned about Deputy Upton collecting signatures. I wonder what he does with them.

Dr. Upton

That was in my earlier days; it was youthful enthusiasm.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): The Deputy does not need them any more.

I appreciate the attempt of Deputy Keogh and others to open up the system of nominating a President. The points made are interesting. However, I am confined to what can be done under the Bill. As Deputies said, any change in the method of nomination of a candidate for election as President would require a constitutional amendment. It is not appropriate to ordinary legislation. Therefore, there is no point pressing the amendment.

Ms Keogh

This is a good opportunity for discussion. I am absolutely amazed at some of the reaction to this amendment. Deputy Upton has very little faith in human nature, but maybe that is because of the years of experience he has had. I made the point that the nomination procedure is not frivilous and I would say to Deputy Finucane that there are plenty of head-bangers who have run for election. All they needed was a few bob and somebody to nominate them.

Dr. Upton

And many of them got elected as well.

Ms Keogh

Perhaps the figure of 30,000 people is arbitrary. Of course there would have to be reasonable control on the procedure. I am not suggesting that we all march into the street and get every signature in sight by using all sorts of devices to make people sign on the dotted line, but I am seriously suggesting that we broaden the procedure and that is my reason for discussing this.

Deputy Gilmore spoke of the age barrier of 35 years. That is something which should be reduced. It is a bit ridiculous and quite arbitrary. How mature is somebody at 34 or 36 years? Maybe we should have due gravitas and provide for a certain barrier, but I think that if somebody is old enough to vote they are old enough to run for election.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 18 agreed to.