Seanad debates

Thursday, 21 July 2011

Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2011: Committee Stage (Resumed).

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Willie PenroseWillie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)

While I appreciate the reasoning behind this amendment, I do not propose to accept it. Senator Wilson is trying to take account of a situation where European elections or local authority elections might be held close to a by-election. We must bear in mind from where we are coming with regard to the proposed amendment of section 29 of the Electoral Act 1992. Up to now the position has been the filling of a vacancy in the Dáil was entirely at the latter's discretion. We are now introducing constraints on the discretion by requiring the Dáil to act within six months, otherwise it will fall automatically to the Chairman of the Dáil to direct the Clerk to issue the writ for the filling of a vacancy. As the Minster for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, outlined on Second Stage, this step is being taken in the interests of ensuring that people will be fully represented in the Dáil. People have a right to full democratic representation in the national Parliament.

The outer limit in respect of the holding of by-elections will be six months.

There is no suggestion that vacancies should be left open for a full six months; they can be filled within one or two months or whatever is most appropriate. Deferring the filling of vacancies, as has been done on several occasions over the years, damages the reputation and integrity of our political institutions and could be seen as undervaluing democratic representation. Every week and month of a Member's time in office is important and must be accorded due respect. For that reason, vacancies should not be left unfulfilled beyond a reasonable time.

The six-month timeframe provided for in the Bill is reasonable. I am not in favour of a proposal that would over-complicate or dilute that objective by stretching it to nine months in the circumstances proposed. The six-month period is intended as an outer limit, not a minimum. Notwithstanding the Senator's eloquent argument in favour of the amendment, I do not propose to accept it.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.