We have now come to Article 30 of the Constitution. With regard to this Article we propose to accept consequential amendments that stand in the name of Deputy Fitzgibbon; and there follows, therefore, the acceptance of the principle that University representation be retained in the Dáil. You would leave out from the start of the first sentence down to the end of that sentence, and you would also leave out "exclusive of University members." The Article would, therefore, read: "The number of Senators shall be fifty-six. A citizen to be eligible for membership of the Senate/Seanad must be a person eligible to become a member of the Chamber/Dáil Eireann, and must have reached the age of 35 years. Subject to any provision for the constitution of the first Senate/Seanad the term of office of a member of the Senate/Seanad shall be twelve years."
DEBATES ON ADJOURNMENT. - ARTICLE 30.
Mr. O'HIGGINS:
AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:
Deputy Fitzgibbon's amendment will not, therefore, be moved, and the Article as now read is adopted.
Mr. GERALD FITZGIBBON:
The provisions as to University representation were put in at the request of some timid people, who saw the reversal of all that existed before. I do not represent anybody calling themselves Southern Unionists, or anything of that sort. The people who purported to represent Southern Unionists when they were discussing certain matters with the Irish representatives in London—I do not consider them as representing me. I represent the constituency that sent me here, and I am satisfied, and take on my own shoulders the responsibility of deleting University representation, or moving that it be deleted, in consideration of the great concession this House has made in placing University representatives in the Dáil, to assist in the legislation, instead of being put into a cooling chamber. So far as I and those who represent the University here are concerned we will, as far as we can, absolve the Government of a charge of breach of faith with these people with whom they made arrangements. The Ministry said at the beginning that they put in the clauses in deference to people who negotiated with them. If any charge of bad faith is brought against the Government, let it be brought against me.
Mr. O'HIGGINS:
That is a very fair statement. It is right to say the people we met in London were careful to say they were not representative in any technical sense, that is, they had no mandate from anyone in particular, but they were chosen, I do not know by whom.
Mr. GERALD FITZGIBBON:
Themselves.
Mr. O'HIGGINS:
They were representative of a class and an outlook here. They had certain fears, with regard to which the late President had promised things in a letter to the English Prime Minister. It was to give effect to that promise and to get down to practical details that we were asked by Mr. Churchill to meet these people in London, and they came across, saying quite clearly that they had no definite mandate from any particular body, and were simply there as fairly representative of a class.
Professor WILLIAM THRIFT:
I should like to associate myself with what Deputy Fitzgibbon has said. I represent the University, and it has no con nection with Southern Unionists. On behalf of that University I associate myself with him in saying that I am prepared to accept the withdrawal of this clause. I quite clearly imply that I cannot speak for the other representatives, but, on behalf of one representative, I can tell you he is also prepared to accept the withdrawal in consideration of the concession made giving University representation in the Dáil. But I would suggest to the Minister for Home Affairs to notify the three gentlemen who claimed to represent Southern Unionists, and see if they are satisfied with the alteration.
The following amendment stood in the name of Deputy Darrell Figgis to Article 30:—
"To substitute in the second sentence, instead of the following words, ‘The number of Senators exclusive of University Members shall be fifty-six' the words ‘the number of Senators exclusive of University Members shall be forty-four.' "
Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS:
The amendment I am proposing for Article 30 may appear at first sight to run into conflict with a paper circulated amongst us scheduling a certain agreement made, to which the mover of the previous amendment has already referred. If that were to be made a case by those with whom the Ministry have contracted I would not propose the amendment. I think they will be able to point out that it is not a case—that it does not come into the contract actually—no matter how much it may appear to do so at the first-glance. I wish to repeat it is not my desire that we should violate any of these contracts, and I am entirely in support of the Ministry in fulfilling them in the letter and spirit. The Article itself reads: "The number of Senators, exclusive of the University Members (that having been deleted), shall be fifty-six." At the time that these proposals were first considered they were considered in respect of an entirely new proposal, making the whole territory of Saorstat Eireann one electoral constituency. It was perfectly well recognised that for so wide a constituency the holding of one single election imposed mathematical and arithmetical difficulties, not merely organisation difficulties actually, but simple computation. Certain expert advice was sought on the matter, and the arithmetic of the whole thing was gone into very carefully, as well as the fact that the electoral machinery involved, and as a result of that the figure was not fifty-six. It was increased, I take it, to fifty-six, as the Minister for Home Affairs indicated to us on a previous occasion speaking in this Dáil, and he inferred, if he did not actually state, that the intention to remove the number from the original forty to fifty-six was in the hope that the two bodies might not merely sit together in case of conflict, but vote together. It was finally resolved, however, that if the two bodies came into conflict they should be allowed to sit together and debate together, but not to vote together. And I think he said on that occasion strong pressure was made that they should be permitted, not merely to sit and debate together. but to actually vote together, and I suggest it was in view of voting together the number was increased from the original figure to fifty-six. I suggest further, inasmuch as that intention failed, that the reason for increasing the figure to fifty-six also went by the board. I suggest to the Minister for Home Affairs that he should consider himself, and the Ministry should consider itself, free to reconsider the whole question in face of the difficulties of organisation and computation involved in this method of election. If you are going to take electors—and at the present moment there are about 2,000,000— you are imposing certain difficulties, very considerable difficulties, and difficulties that when these proposals first came under attention were very carefully examined. Clearly you are going to have fifty-six members elected. As to one-quarter for three years, that means that every three years there are to be fourteen members to be elected. And if there are to be, as is provided in the Constitution, three times as many candidates put forward as there are members to be elected, you are going to have forty-two persons, of whom only fourteen can be elected. That means that every three years all the voters in Ireland will receive, not a convenient list of candidates, which they can study at a glance, and of whom they may know something, but they will receive something like a small book of candidates' names against whom they will have to vote. It has been the experience in Proportional Representation that when you get much beyond the tenth or eleventh candidate you are increasing the difficulties very considerably—difficulties inherent in the mind of the voter when he or she is actually registering his or her vote, as well as being inherent in the mind of the computer or calculator of the total result. Therefore it was originally decided that the number should not he as great as it is here. Seeing that the reason for increasing the number from forty to fifty-six has ceased to have any effect, having failed in its intention, I am proposing that it be brought down from fifty-six to forty-four. That means to say that there will be eleven persons to be elected every third year, instead of fourteen. The difference may not seem to be very great, but every one that can be shed should be shed in order to get the electoral problem stated as simply ae possible, both from the point of view of the computer and from the point of view of the elector. Consequently, I am suggesting forty-four instead of fifty-six, giving eleven persons to be elected every third year instead of fourteen. And instead of having three times as many to be elected—forty-two—I am stating twenty-five. Consequently you get this difference between the two proposals. In the proposal in the draft you have fifty-six persons, fourteen to be elected every third year, and forty-two candidates to be put before the electors. Under the proposal I am now suggesting, with certain consequential amendments and revisions, following the sequence of Articles, you will get a Seanad of forty-four, eleven persons to be elected every third year, and not more than twentyfive candidates' names to put forward, and it is because I believe that that change will make the whole conduct of election more practicable and simple, as well as presenting a clearer and more succinct problem to the mind of the elector, who is a factor in the whole question, that I suggest this amendment should be made. I only point out further that, if it be adopted, there are certain slight consequential alterations that would require to be made in subsequent Articles.
Mr. O'HIGGINS:
So far from accepting this amendment, we would be prepared, if those who were parties to the agreement so wish, to substitute sixty for fifty-six, to make up for the University Representation that is now disappearing from the Seanad. I want to say about that Memorandum that we circulated, as a Green Paper, that it should not have been circulated, and that it is not the text of any agreement, but some notes on that agreement that were sent to the President and myself for our information and for our use in the course of the debates here. In the absence of the President I can make bold to say, after careful investigation of this matter, that we have discovered the fault to be his. The text of the agreement would have been issued, and there would not have been any objection to issuing it, but this Memorandum is a matter that might be misleading, if people took it that the wording of the agreement is exactly as it stands here. I think the President himself intends to make a statement on that matter shortly. There was considerable importance attached to the numbers of the Senate, and sixty was the figure arrived at after a discussion, and we do not propose to reduce that, if the parties to the agreement hold out for their sixty, but we certainly would not be inclined to bring the number down any lower than fifty-six. We are reluctant to make use of the closure, on the discussion of any Article of the Constitution, but we would ask the Deputies to remember the value of time, and having regard to external circumstances, and even at the sacrifice of a little grace and style, to put their arguments briefly and bluntly to the Dáil, and I think it will assimilate them just as readily as when they are served up with all the sauce and dressing of eloquence.
Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS:
Do I understand from the Minister that this, in his judgment as one of the negotiators, does come into conflict with the original proposition?
Mr. O'HIGGINS:
Yes.
Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS:
Very well then, in that case I withdraw it.