REPORT OF COMMITTEE RE PROCEDURE FOR TRIENNIAL ELECTIONS.Friday, 19 June 1925 |
Seanad Éireann Debate
Page of 9
|
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: Perhaps the House will allow me to say a few words with regard to this Report, as I was Chairman of the Committee from whom these recommendations are issued. What I wish to call attention to is this, that under normal procedure some Senator would move that the Report be adopted, that would be seconded, and then the Report would be open to general discussion. It seems to me that that would be a very inconvenient method of dealing with this Report, and, if there is no objection from any part of the House, I think the more appropriate course would be to consider it as if we were in Committee and allow me to put each paragraph to the House. May I also say that as I do not regard it as a controversial matter I should like to refer to two essential matters in the Report, not for the purpose of influencing the House but for the purpose of explaining the views of the Committee upon it. We were of opinion, rightly or wrongly, with regard to the out-going Senators that we should either place them all on the list or place none. That is to say, whatever action was taken with regard to the nineteen out-going Senators, they [612] should either all be placed on the list of proposals or none should be put on the list, and should be left to their automatic right under the Constitution.
Our idea was that it would be regarded as an invidious thing and, perhaps, as a slur upon out-going Senators whom we failed to put on our list and the selection would be invidious. There fore, there were two ways of dealing with them, either that they should all be placed on the proposal list or, alternatively, that they should not be eligible for proposal, as they had their automatic right under the Constitution of joining the Panel after the Panel is completed. There is a good deal to be said for both views. I think that the real persons to be consulted are the out-going Senators. If there is any expression of opinion on their part that they would prefer to be left alone and be committed to their rights under the Constitution I am quite sure that the Seanad will respect that view. On the other hand, the alternative proposal is that of the Committee which is before the House. It is not a matter of controversy and I am sure it is a matter upon which we will all agree whatever the views of the out-going Senators may be. There is another small matter which I want to mention. At the time these recommendations were drafted we were under the impression that Wednesday, 24th, would be the last day that would be convenient for allowing the handing in of proposals.
Considering it since then, I do not see the necessity for fixing such an early date, for this reason. The voting is not to take place until the following week, that is, on the 1st July. Between the conclusion of the nominations and the actual voting all that has to be done is preparing the ballot papers, and that cannot take a very long time. Seeing that we altered our date of meeting to Thursday, it seems to me that there is no reason why the date should not be extended to Thursday and, if the House approves, I suggest that it be extended to 12 o'clock on Friday. That would give ample time to do everything that has to be done between Friday and the 1st July, as all that has to be done in the interval is the preparation of the ballot papers. There is just one other [613] matter. You will see that one of the recommendations provides that the proposal of candidates is to be in the form in the schedule. The moment you arrive at a conclusion, if you adopt the form in the schedule, that form will be available after the sitting of the House, as forms have been printed in anticipation of the decision of the House. If you look at the form you will find that at the end there is a provision made for the signature by the candidate of his desire to have his name put forward.
I pointed out the other day that if that was the only way in which the candidate could notify his assent it might cause considerable delay in passing the proposal form backwards and forward between the candidate himself and the Senators who nominate him. I suggest that this form should not be taken away but that there should be an alternative recommendation or paragraph in the Report allowing any candidate, instead of having to send this particular form, simply to send within the stipulated time a statement under his hand that he consents to his name being put on the list. That would be an alternative to the other form. He could sign the proposal form in the schedule, but if he found that inconvenient he should not be prevented from sending forward under his own hand to the office here a consent in writing to have his name put on the list. If it is the wish of the Seanad to adopt the suggestion I have made and to treat this Report as if it were in Committee I will take the recommendations paragraph by paragraph and put them to the House.
PARAGRAPH No. 2.All outgoing Senators, who signify in writing their consent, shall be proposed by the Leas-Chathaoirleach or other Senator authorised by him. All other candidates must be proposed by not less than two Senators, with due regard to Article 33 of the Constitution, in so far as it enacts that special reference is to be had to the necessity for arranging for the representation [614] of important interests and institutions in the country.
Mr. BENNETT:
In connection with this paragraph it appears that outgoing Senators may be nominated by the Leas-Chathaoirleach or another Senator authorised by him. In the event of the Leas-Chathaoirleach or another Senator proposing such Senators, would they still have power subsequently to nominate another candidate?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: What the first three lines mean is this. If the House prefer that the outgoing Senators should be proposed en bloc instead of leaving them their right of having their names put ultimately on the Panel, the method to be adopted is indicated in the first four lines of paragraph No. 2. That is to say, the duty is imposed on the Vice-Chairman or, if he finds he cannot attend, upon some Senator authorised by him to propose these names en bloc. That, of course, does not interfere with the Deputy Chairman's power of nomination as to others; it would not go outside that.
Mr. NESBITT:
Supposing one or two Senators had not signified their intention in writing, then ipso facto the Leas-Chathaoirleach cannot propose them.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: No. To meet that, Senator Douglas has prepared and will send out if the paragraph is carried in this form a notice to each outgoing Senator asking if he wishes to have his name proposed in that way. If the House adopts this method we thought it fair that each outgoing Senator should be expressly notified that this is going to be done, if it meets with his approval, because some out-going Senators may not be here to-day.
Mr. O'FARRELL:
It is well that the House would realise the implications of this paragraph. If it is adopted as it now stands it means that the whole of the outgoing Senators can, if they so desire, waive their constitutional rights of going automatically on the Panel and instead——
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: Not exactly.
[615]Mr. O'FARRELL:
I mean to waive it for the time being or take advantage of submitting their names to a vote of the whole Seanad instead of taking advantage automatically of the constitutional right of going on the Panel. The advantage of that is that at least a number of the outgoing Senators would be absorbed in that way on the Panel of the 19 elected representatives of the Seanad and it would restrict the numbers on the final Panel which may be 76, or in certain circumstances may be as many as 79. If the whole of the outgoing Senators who desire to go forward are absorbed in the Panel formed by the Seanad and the Dáil, then the number on the final Panel should not be more than 57 which would still be numerous enough. There is in adopting this of course a certain amount of disadvantage to certain sections of out-going Senators. There are, for instance, a few people going out who are probably not attached to any particular group in the House and who could hardly hope to get sufficient preferences to place them on the Panel at all, although they might, if placed on the Panel, get a good following in the country. They might reasonably object to submitting themselves to an unfair test instead of exercising their undoubted constitutional rights.
There are also a couple of groups, say 5, three of whom are outgoing, and if these three in each case desire to go forward for election here, they could not possibly hope from their own supporters to be elected on the Panel. To that extent they would be turned down and if afterwards they exercised their constitutional right, it might be reasonably argued that they were more or less injuring themselves morally before the electors in being turned down by the people in this House who ought to know them best. That is inevitable because of the constitution of the House. That is, practically half the House represents a particular section of the community who are not affected by this election at all or who are affected to a very limited extent. They can put forward new nominations on the panel of 19, seven or eight of which may not be in respect of outgoing Senators. I do not think it is desirable that all out-going [616] Senators should be placed on the Panel of this House. It would be well to understand therefore that if the whole of the outgoing Senators who wish to go forward allow themselves to be nominated in the manner suggested they are, with their eyes open, of course, submitting themselves to a test which may be considered an unfair one from their point of view and that in the event of their being turned down, that is not an indication that they do not command the confidence of those whose confidence they might reasonably hope to command. I think the effect of these resolutions would be that any Senator who so desires could have himself nominated by the Leas-Chathaoirleach or alternatively he can avail himself of the opportunity of being nominated by two Senators as provided in a subsequent paragraph of this report. In either way he would be eligible for the election of the 19, or alternatively he could refuse to go forward in either way and merely exercise his constitutional right. That is only a permissive arrangement. It does not make it compulsory for any Senator to submit himself to that fair or unfair test. It leaves it open to him, if he desires to reduce the number of the Panel from being unwieldy, and to avail himself of the ordinary method of nomination and election when this final election comes along on the 1st July.
Colonel MOORE:
First I have the complaint, the usual complaint, that this thing has been rushed on us in such a way that hardly half the Senators know what they are doing. This Committee was appointed on the 30th April last. It did not meet until the 3rd June. During all that time, as far as I know, they might have met to consider these things during the summer months, and they might have sent out their proposals to Senators some time ago. It is a matter that concerns very particularly a certain number of Senators. It concerns us all in a general way. It concerns the whole country, and I think it is a most unreasonable way for the Committee to have acted as they did. This morning Senators were talking together, and one-half of them did not understand this particular matter. [617] Now there is a question of restriction. This Constitution has been drawn up, and published, and the people of Ireland understood that the election to the Senate was going to be open competition at the end of the three years. It is now proposed to limit it.
The Senate is making certain arrangements by which this is to become a close borough, on which the other people of Ireland are not allowed to enter. That may be the result of this Resolution. If the Senate agrees to this Resolution you may have that result. If all these retiring Senators are proposed by anybody, by, say, An Leas-Chathaoirleach or anybody else, and if the Senate agree to put these nineteen retiring Senators on the Panel, that would thereby exclude everybody else—that is, if they make these nineteen Senators the nominees of the Seanad-the nineteen nominees which the Seanad are entitled to have. That will exclude nobody else that comes along, at all events from the Seanad. I am talking with a certain amount of ignorance that most people here have on this matter, and I am not very definite about it. Nobody knows the result. On the other hand, if one votes for that, one is put in the position of practically limiting the Constitution and going out of his way to arrange the thing in a way that was not thought of by those who drew up the Constitution —that is, limiting the number of these that are to be put on the Panel.
On the other hand, one is put in the position here, if one does not agree with that, of voting practically against certain Senators with whom we have been sitting here, who are friends of ours, and whom we would be reluctant to vote against for personal reasons. It would be an invidious thing if some of us would stand up and say: “We will not agree to this Resolution, we will nominate our own batch.” That means voting against these people. It puts us in an invidious position, and into a position in which people do not like to be put. We all ought to know that the Constitution lays down the class of people who are to be elected on the Seanad. We know there are a certain number of people outside who have [618] complied with these conditions and provisions.
In one paragraph it is laid down that those who have done great work for the country should be put on the Seanad. Therefore, we can hardly assume that we have here all the talent of Ireland. People outside might reasonably expect to be given a chance to be put forward for election. If we agree to this clause, or to the part of it that I have pointed out, we are putting ourselves in the position of being criticised by the whole country People would say: “Here are Senators who were elected themselves, not by the votes of the people, but by the Dáil, and they are making it a close borough. No one else is allowed to go up for election but these.” It may be said that only those who have a claim to be elected on the Seanad would go on the list proposed by An Leas-Chathaoirleach. The Senate may unanimously vote that that is their panel, and that they will have no other panel. I think that in the interests of the Senators this clause is undesirable. That is a matter entirely for the Senate, and I have no right to dictate to any Senator going out what the advantage or disadvantage is. I am only pointing out the view that will be taken by the critics in the country, if we adopt a certain measure. It seems to me that we would be in a better position by allowing these candidates to go forward and take their chance with the country, as every one of us will have to do sometime.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: I just want to say, by way of explanation and answer to two points that have been raised by Senator Colonel Moore, that at the time this Committee was appointed, they were of opinion, and were so advised by me, that under the Constitution this election could not take place until after the 7th December. The Executive Council, apparently, were of a different opinion, but they have come round now to the view that that is the proper time and the legal time under the Constitution. Consequently they have introduced a Bill to enable them to carry out this election in October. Of course, had they followed the course which seems to be implied by the Constitution, [619] June would have been ample time for the Committee to meet. It was not until it met that it was ascertained that the Government had come to this decision that the election should take place in October in anticipation of the vacancies in December. That explains why the Committee did not meet until June. At the same time I might also remind the House that I called attention to this matter fully six months ago, and suggested the formation of a committee. But no action was taken on it until very much later. Then with regard to the other matter that Senator Colonel Moore suggested, that this election should be held on the principle known as the principle of “go as you please,” and that there should be the fullest opportunity for everybody being nominated, I should remind him that the Constitution provides to the contrary. The Constitution provides: “The method of proposal and selection for nomination shall be decided by Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann respectively.”
Colonel MOORE:
Yes. The method but not the fact.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: The Constitution contemplated that there would have to be an elaborate provision made both in the Dáil and Seanad for the purpose of the carrying out of the provisions of the Constitution dealing with this election. These are only matters of order that have been raised that I wanted to dispose of. I want to get rid of the suggestion that there has been any delay on the part of your Committee. The moment that they ascertained that the Government proposed to have this election in October they did not lose a moment. We took every opportunity of getting in touch with the Executive Council, and also with the Committee of the Dáil who are dealing with the same subject matter. The Seanad has approved of my suggestion, that we take these paragraphs separately. If, on each paragraph, we are going to roam over the whole question we would never arrive at any conclusion. [620] It is quite pertinent for any Senator to deal with No. 2.
Mr. KENNY:
To the extent that the suggestion is that An Leas-Chathaoirleach should propose, en bloc, the names of the retiring Senators or such of them as give their consent in writing, I wish to say that anything that would have a tendency to create in the minds of the people any feeling that this House, in its rules or in laying down any method of selection, wanted to restrict in any way the choice of the people in the election of Senators, any such suggestion that a Senator has his name put forward in that way, would have a bad effect. The people, of course, will have the ultimate decision in this matter. We should do nothing here to give the impression that we are trying to establish a close borough, and we should do nothing here that would, in any way, prejudice, favourably or unfavourably, the chances of any retiring member of this House.
To that extent it is fettering the free choice of the people. Supposing that a member was turned down in this House, it goes without saying that that turning down would prejudice his election by the people. There will probably be from 57 to 80 candidates. People far away in the west, the south, or the extreme east, would know only men prominent in public life, men whose names have appeared frequently in the Press. The people at the time of the election will harp back to anything the Dáil or Seanad may have done with regard to certain members of the Seanad here. If they find that the Seanad has turned down certain members that will be a little pointer for them, and in the absence of any knowledge they would say that they were turned down by their own colleagues, and that would prejudice them. I think we ought not to do anything that would in any way limit or influence the ultimate choice of the people, or let the impression go abroad that we were in any way trying to give any undue advantage to any retiring member of the present Seanad.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: Are you moving any amendment to this clause, [621] or are you simply asking the Seanad to reject it?
Mr. KENNY:
Yes; I am asking the Seanad to reject it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: Are you suggesting any substitute?
Mr. KENNY:
No; the retiring Senators have a constitutional right to go forward.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: That would leave us in the strange position that we would have no machinery then for dealing with the nominations.
Mr. KENNY:
An Leas-Chathaoirleach has the privilege of nominating all the retiring members. That could be exercised, and all the members could be proposed.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: Are you proposing to strike out that?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: But you said that you were not.
Mr. KENNY:
I propose the elimination of the first five lines.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: I understand that that is not what you said originally, Senator.
Mr. BENNETT:
Senator Colonel Moore desired to create the impression that the committee wanted to make the Seanad a close borough. The suggestion was that by getting, or attempting to get, 19 on the panel a free choice was prevented. This proposal does not suggest that the 19 members should be the sole selection. The only thing it tries to do is to prevent a Senator from proposing 100 candidates, and in that way probably having as many as 3,000 candidates to select from, which is a thing, I am sure, nobody desires. In addition to the 19 names, you would have probably 30 other persons selected. That would be two for each member of the Seanad. That would be a selection of 49 from which to select 19. In addition, there would be 38 selected by the Dáil, so there is no reason why a prominent citizen of the Saorstát should not have the opportunity [622] of having his name submitted on the Panel.
Mr. de LOUGHRY:
A good many feel that it will be a disadvantage if names are sent in only to be turned down. I think if the outgoing Senators entered an agreement not to have their names submitted in this way it would be the better course. The only effect of the proposal would be to increase the number on the ballot paper.
Mr. DOUGLAS:
Senator de Loughry has stated exactly the position. The only effect of the proposal that the An Leas-Chathaoirleach should nominate the names in the way proposed is to make it easier for any person willing to submit his name to the Seanad. If you delete this without doing anything else then you will place the outgoing Senator in the position that he may fail to get a nomination. If he wishes to submit his name to the Seanad he will have to find two Senators to sponsor him, but after this proposal he is placed in a better position than any other form of nomination, for he can easily have his name put forward if he so wishes.
Colonel MOORE:
With regard to the Senator's amendment, and to what Senator Douglas has said, if the first 4½ lines are cut out, it will not necessitate any of the retiring Senators getting two people to nominate them. They will come on the panel automatically.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: There is confusion, and I am not surprised, as the matter is complicated. I quite agree that the Seanad has been more or less rushed in this matter, but this is not the Seanad's fault. I think I can make it quite clear to the House, if they will allow me. We are dealing with two separate lists. The first is the original list. That is the list of Senators proposed as candidates for the outgoing vacancies. If you keep before your minds that that is the proposed list, as distinct from the selection or panel list, then you will see, I think, the difference. There is nothing whatever that indicates, by putting a man on or off the candidates' list, if he is an out [623] going Senator, that the chances of his election to the final panel are in any way prejudiced. The difficulty of the position that faced the Committee in making a recommendation was, we felt that it would be a very invidious thing to leave it to the chance that some Senators would propose for the proposal list one or more of the outgoing Senators, and that some of the outgoing Senators would not have their names proposed on the proposal list. We thought that would be an invidious task for the Seanad itself, and it would be an invidious matter for the outgoing Senators whose names were not put forward for the proposal list. Accordingly we came to the conclusion that it would be desirable, if possible, to arrive at one course or other, and either to provide that they should go on the proposal or preliminary list automatically if they so consented, or that it should not be in the power of the Seanad to put on one or more of them, and in that event they should be left to their automatic right of joining the second list, that is, the Panel under the Constitution. That is the sole object we had in our minds.
Mr. de LOUGHRY:
Did I understand you to say that it was the idea of the Committee that the nineteen should be put forward or none at all?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: The matter primarily concerned them, I am sure, [624] and the Seanad will pay great attention to their wishes. That provision should not apply to outgoing Senators. Outgoing Senators should not be entitled to have their names on the preliminary list, and in view of the fact that the Panel is formed, they have the right to have their names on the Panel. If you once open the door for the selection of outgoing Senators you are penalising those who are not proposed for the preliminary list. Therefore, the obvious course is to provide that no outgoing Senator shall be eligible for the proposal list. Then you leave him his automatic right under the Constitution of joining the Panel when he is finished.
Mr. DOUGLAS:
Either this plan is fair or the other plan of “none” is fair.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: Is it the wish of the House that the plan provided in the first four lines of No. 2 should be omitted and in lieu thereof there should be inserted “no outgoing Senator should be eligible for nomination on the proposed list”?
Mr. KENNY:
I withdraw my proposal in favour of that.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: Then I shall direct this resolution to be amended accordingly.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: No. 3 will be all right except we will leave out the words “other than an outgoing Senator.” I will make a consequential alteration if necessary.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: With regard to No. 4 I propose that the 24th June be changed to the 26th June. That would extend the time during which nominations might be handed in from Wednesday, the 24th, to Friday, the 26th.
Mr. BARRINGTON:
Do I understand that Section 3 is subject to your suggestion?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: Yes; the alterations in No. 2, which are consequential, shall be put in. I mentioned I would fix the hours from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., and from 2.30 to 5.30 every day in the interval between now and the 26th, except Sundays, when the office will be closed, and on Saturdays, when the hours will be from 10 to 1. With regard to No. 5, I want Senators to see that it leaves open to them a method by which they can deliver their papers. While that allows them to send them by post, they will understand that they do so at their own risk. A similar proposal to this has been adopted by the Dáil.
Mrs. COSTELLO:
This has no reference to the concluding part of Section 2. Does it give you any power to say we have already one representing the second interest?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: That is on the technical form of the papers, and I will not go into that abstruse question. We have extended the time for receiving proposals up to the 26th. From No. 8 to No. 16 the sections deal with machinery.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: I altered No. 18 because, as it originally stood, it provided that everything that was to be in writing under those resolutions might be carried out by typewriting or devices of that kind. I thought that should not be applied to the signature of the Senators proposing, or the signature of the candidate testifying his consent. That is approved of.
[651]AN CATHAOIRLEACH:
We now come to the Schedule, and I am not going to ask the Seanad to go through it. I confess I do not understand it, and I doubt very much if any Senators understand it. I ought to mention that your Committee had the advantage, and a very great advantage it proved to be, of having the assitance of Mr. Wilfred Brown of the Local Government Department, who has had long experience in connection with this matter. That experience was also placed at the disposal of the Committee of the Dáil. What is contained in the Schedule is an exact reproduction of what the Dáil agreed to on the subject. The regulations do not differ in many respects from those adopted by the Dáil. As to the counting of the votes, etc., we have, I might say, and I think wisely, followed the procedure fixed by the Dáil.
Mr. KENNY:
Do these profess to be a copy of the stereotyped regulations?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: There are no stereotyped regulations, but there are certain provisions in the Electoral Acts. They are not included in these, because, if you refer to the Acts, this machinery, which is delicate machinery, is applicable solely to this particular matter of the election for 19 vacancies in the Seanad. It is to be done on the principle of Proportional Representation, which has been followed all through. There are certain methods of dealing with transfer votes and so forth, and arithmetical calculations of the most minute kind, which, as I said, I do not profess to understand, and that I suggest the Seanad might wisely leave alone.
Mr. KENNY:
Is it set out specifically under what circumstances a voting paper shall be declared invalid? Take a case where you had a voting paper marked 1, 2, 3, then a break, and a mark opposite the sixth name. That paper would be valid up to number 3, but after that would be invalid.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: Will not the question of the validity of the paper be determined by the returning officer?
[652]AN CATHAOIRLEACH: Which regulations are you speaking of now?
Mr. KENNY:
Of the regulations ordinarily observed under Proportional Representation. Under the Rules laid down ——
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: Laid down where?
Mr. KENNY:
Under Proportional Representation.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: Where are they laid down?
Mr. KENNY:
In the Act, copies of which were furnished to all officials for the past few years.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: If they are in the Act they will be observed.
Mr. KENNY:
You say that these are regulations for observance apart from the others.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: They are supplementary.
Mr. KENNY:
That is not so stated.
Mr. BROWN:
I do not think the Electoral Act applies to this proceeding by the Seanad at all.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: I was going to point that out. We have absolute control.
Mr. BROWN:
It may be some consolation to some Senators who, like myself, do not understand the details, to know that this voting was actually put intoo practice by the Dáil when the Dáil elected the Seanad.
Mr. KENNY:
I want to ask your advice, sir, for the benefit of the Seanad. In the case of a paper where the figures 1, 2, 3 are marked opposite names, and where a gap follows until the paper is again marked 6, 7, or 8, will you declare that paper a valid paper, and would it count for the candidates before whose names the figures appear notwithstanding the break in continuity? My experience is that the paper would be reckoned valid so far as the continuity of the figures went but invalid after the break.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: I will answer [653] that with great caution, but as far as I can see if you look at page II. of the Report you will see that that particular matter is dealt with where there is reference to non-transferable votes.
Mr. de LOUGHRY:
The rules that applied in Parliamentary elections under Proportional Representation should be followed. The votes marked 1, 2, 3 would count as good votes but the votes after the gap would not count.
Mr. O'FARRELL:
Senator Kenny has not pointed out in what way the regulations violate Proportional Representation. He simply says that certain things should be done but he has not pointed out anything which shows that they are not to be done. As far as I can read it the report provides for the ordinary and elementary rules being adopted.
Mr. KENNY:
I think what I mentioned is provided for and I apologise to the Seanad.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: It is quite reasonable that you should make these points. The position is not only very complicated but is thrown at our heads, if I may say so, in a comparatively hurried manner.
Mr. FARREN:
It occurs to me, in view of our earlier decision reagrding the question of proposals, that there are 19 outgoing Senators. I apologise for going back on this question, but as it is important, I ask leave to refer to it. The proposals, under the rules that we have agreed on, will mean that at least 38 Senators must exercise their right to propose candidates for the election. It may not be possible for 38 Senators to exercise their right under that, and in that event we would be placed in an awkward position if we had not 19 nominations. This House must select 19 names. I suggest that we alter the regulations so that each Senator could make a nomination, and that we abandon the regulation requiring the nomination to be made by two Senators. If we make that change, and if 38 Senators exercise the right I have reffered to, then we will ensure that we shall have the requisite 19 names that this House must select.
[654]AN CATHAOIRLEACH: There is great force in what Senator Farren has said. The Committee's recommendation was that the 19 outgoing Senators should have their names automatically placed on the list so that we would start with a list which had 19 names on it. We then considered that it would not be right to have more than the maximum of 30 additional names. In other words to have 49 names upon our nomination panel, but you see we had come to the conclusion that the 19 names were not to go on it in any shape and what the Seanad agreed to was that each Senator could only propose one candidate. In that event there would only be a maximum of 30 on your proposal list, and that is what Senator Farren has called attention to. He says that assumes that all the Senators will exercise their right to nominate, but he points out that supposing only 38 Senators exercised their right to nominate then you will have only 19 candidates proposed for the 19 vacancies.
Mr. FARREN:
Failing the 38 you will not have your Panel complete.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: What the Senator desires is, I think, well worthy of consideration. I think you should still adhere to the necessity of having each candidate proposed by not less than two Senators, but you might alter the provision which says that no Senator shall be entitled to propose more than one candidate—you might alter the one to two. No Senator shall be entitled to propose more than two candidates. If you make the change proposed, I do not think it will give you an unduly large Panel. It is well, of course, to keep in mind that no Senator will be at liberty to propose more than one candidate, and so long as you require that each candidate is to be proposed by two Senators, the most that can be proposed under these Rules, assuming that the whole Seanad should vote, is 30. That would have been all right if you had retained your provision about putting on the 19 outgoing Senators automatically, but you rejected that proposal. Therefore, you have got to form your Panel without regarding the names of outgoing Senators, [655] and in that connection I think recommendation No. 3 ought to be altered so as to read instead of each Senator having the right only to propose one candidate, he or she should have the right to propose two.
Mr. FARREN:
I formally move that that change be made.
Mr. KENNY:
With regard to the voting papers, it is laid down, I see, that a paper shall be invalid if the figure 1, indicating a first preference, is set opposite the name of more than one candidate, or if that figure 1 is not placed opposite the name of some candidate. You, sir, I think, made a suggestion with regard to that which, I think, might be made a supplementary rule.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: I would not like to put that in. That resolution might break the Rules in the Schedule in the Electoral Act, and I would not think of asking the House to take the responsibility of putting it in. I do not know how far these Rules in the Electoral Act are made part of the Statute, that is to say, obligatory, as regards the clause in the Constitution which gioves to the Seanad and the Dáil respectively power to prescribe the method of election. I do not think it would entitle them to go behind these rules.
Mr. KENNY:
But you laid it down.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: I am laying down nothing with regard to these Rules.
Mr. KENNY:
The Rules are laid down here for our acceptance, and paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) in Section 4 to the First Part of the Schedule lay down the conditions under which a ballot paper shall be deemed to be invalid. I think all these things would be covered by the suggestion you made earlier, and that it ought to be made supplementary to these Rules.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: I do not know to what tortures I would be exposing [656] the unfortunate voters if I were to do that.
Mr. KENNY:
There would be just the same torture as they are exposed to under the existing Rules.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: To the same degree, yes, but not in principle. You want to add to the existing Rules.
Mr. KENNY:
I have looked into this matter, and I think all would be settled if your suggestion is accepted. It may very well happen that you will arrive at a crux in your elections for which no provision is made.
Mr. BROWN:
We are making rules for ourselves, and surely we are intellignent enough to understand it. These are for our own voting.
Mr. O'FARRELL:
Senator Kenny is budgeting for a stupid marking of the ballot paper. Well, if a Senator is not intelligent enough to mark his paper he deserves to lose his vote.
Mr. BENNETT:
The paper does not make any provision for the nomination of ladies.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: We have it on very high authority that man embraces woman. I think you may assume that the Electoral Act provides for this and that it includes persons of both sexes. I think the House should agree that the recommendations in the report of the Committee, as amended, be adopted, because if that is done now we could get the amendments made this evening and the actual corrected copy can be sent out to each Senator to-night. I think a formal resolution should be passed adopting the report of the Committee as amended.
Colonel MOORE:
I beg to move:—
“That the report of the Committee dealiing with the forthcoming Seanad elections, as amended, be adopted.”
Mr. FARREN:
I beg to second the resolution.
Mrs. COSTELLO:
When will the proposal form be ready?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH: It is ready now.
| Last Updated: 16/05/2011 17:59:10 |
Page of 9
|