Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Jan 1964

Vol. 207 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Elections and Referenda Regulations.

42.

asked the Minister for Local Government if he will take steps to amend the forms set out hereunder and specified in the Forms (Dáil Elections, Presidential Elections and Referenda) Regulations, 1963 (S.I. No 246 of 1963) as follows: Form DEI—Notice of Dáil Election: (i) by making provision for notification of the usual office hours, and (ii) by deleting the fifth paragraph and incorporating in a revised paragraph an appropriate reference to the certificate of authentication of the candidature of the candidate of a registered political party: Form DE2 — Nomination Paper: by substituting the word “Candidate” for “Candidates” after the words “Surname of” and on the back of the form (i) by deleting the term “Certificate of Political Affiliation” and substituting the appropriate description of the document in question, and (ii) by deleting the words “Senator Art. 15 (14)” under the heading “Under the Constitution”; and Form BE3 by substituting an appropriate heading for the Certificate.

The phrase "during the usual office hours" used in the Form of Notice of Dáil Election conforms directly with the terms of Rule 5, as inserted by section 21 of the Electoral Act, 1963, in the Fifth Schedule to the Electoral Act, 1923.

The title "Certificate of Political Affiliation" has been given to the certificate under section 21 of the Electoral Act, 1963, in form D.E.3 authenticating the candidature of a candidate of a registered Political Party. Insofar as the Form of Notice of Dáil Election and of Nomination Paper refer to that certificate the references are correct. This title is concise and intelligible and the purpose of the document is clear. The alternative, "Certificate Authenticating the Candidature of a Candidate of a Registered Political Party" would be unduly cumbersome.

The addition of the letter "s" to the word "candidate" in the typed copy of the Regulations given to the Deputy was a typographical error which does not appear in the Regulations as executed or in the printed forms of nomination paper.

The notes on the back of the Form of Nomination Paper are, as the heading indicates, for guidance only and do not purport to be a definitive statement of the law. The purpose of the item referred to in the question is to draw attention to the provisions of the Constitution affecting Senators.

I do not propose to amend the forms as suggested.

Does the Minister not agree that a form of this nature could be misleading if issued to the returning officers? In the copy which I received, there was a mistake, which may be in all of them. Does the Minister not consider that that is something that could be misleading, as is also the reference to Senators being debarred under the Constitution from being candidates, which is not correct?

I do not agree with the Deputy but I would say that if there are any suggestions for a form that would seem to be better than the form we have used, I will certainly consider them. I have considered the suggestions contained in the question and I find, and I think it will be admitted, that they are not an improvement. If there are any suggestions that could be shown to be an improvement I shall certainly give them every consideration.

Is it or is it not prohibited by the Constitution for a Senator to present himself as a candidate at a Dáil election? Surely within the knowledge of us all several Senators have been candidates at Dáil elections, some of them succeeding and some of them being defeated?

That is surely not what we are concerned with in this question. The constitutionality of a Senator going forward does not really arise on this question.

I understood that this document sets out amongst the categories of persons disqualified from offering themselves as Parliamentary candidates at Dáil elections, a Senator, under Article 15 subsection (14) of the Constitution. Does that not appear in the document and, if it does, is it not incorrect?

I am afraid I have nothing to add to what I have said and when studied in the full context of the question, it will be found that what I have said is quite correct.

Let me clarify this simply. I understand that the document issued sets out qualifications, disqualifications and incapacities for election to Dáil Éireann. "Citizens who have reached the age of 21 years and not disqualified or incapacitated are eligible for election. Persons disqualified or incapacitated are a person holding an office of President or a Senator, under Article 15 subsection (14) of the Constitution."

For election, not for nomination.

He is not disqualified for election.

They are not. A member may not be a member of two Houses.

I am sure the Taoiseach knows perfectly well that Senators have repeatedly stood for Dáil elections.

If elected, they had to resign. It refers to election, not to nomination.

Is this a Committee Stage?

Is there not serious danger of misunderstanding if a circular is issued declaring that it is a disqualification for election to Dáil Éireann to be a Senator under Article 15 (14)? Would it not be much wiser to say that a person may not sit in both Houses or exclude them from that paragraph? Manifestly, the President cannot be a candidate. Manifestly, a judge of the High Court cannot be a candidate. Manifestly, the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot be a candidate. But we include in that category a Senator who, notoriously, can be a candidate. All we want to do is to help the Minister and to avoid confusion being raised. But surely, in the mind of any rational man, if you set out three categories of persons none of whom is eligible to be a candidate and include a fourth category of persons who are eligible to be a candidate but not to be an elected Deputy, you are creating confusion. The sensible thing to do would be to delete the word "Senator" from Article 15 (14). If he wishes to include a further warning that the Senator, on Election to Dáil Éireann, must resign from the Seanad, he may do so. However, it is manifestly wrong to put a Senator in the same category in this context as a judge of the High Court, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the President.

Could he not do as Mr. Anthony Wedgewood Benn did when he renounced his peerage?

Would the Minister consider that point?

I have tried to follow what the Deputy has said but I do not quite grasp what is implicit. If the Deputy and the House have any views on this, a reassurance is that there will be a redrafting of this particular matter subsequent to the Petitions and Disqualifications Bill or Act when it would become law.

It means that the Minister will take out the word "Senator".

I have no intention of doing that at the moment.

But, later on, the Minister will.

If and when the law is changed.

Will the Minister make it possible for Members of the Dáil to get into the Seanad——

We made that possible years ago, as some Deputies know.

Barr
Roinn