Vol. 69 No. 11
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 4, line 25, Section 5 (1), to delete the words "clerk of Dáil Eireann" and substitute the words "Seanad returning officer."
As I explained in connection with two or three other amendments, the purpose there is to ensure that, in the whole scheme, the Seanad returning officer will have charge of the register.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 4, Section 5 (1), before paragraph (c), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(c) the day and hour (in this Act referred to as the expiration of the time for ex-officio nominations) on and at which the period during which the Seanad returning officer may receive ex-officio nominations to the administrative panel shall expire.
That is by way of anticipation of a proposal later on in the amendments by which the Taoiseach and those who have been either an ex-Taoiseach or ex-President of the Executive Council will have the right on the administrative panel to nominate not more than two.
Perhaps there may be some objection to this matter of ex-officio nominations.
I think it will be found that this matter of ex-officio nominations to the administrative panel comes later on, in amendment No. 66. Amendment No. 66 deals definitely with the point of ex-officio nominations.
Surely amendment No. 23 comes first—at least the last part of amendment No. 23?
Yes, it does, but I think that if the Deputy will look at amendment No. 66 he will find that it is the pivotal amendment on that matter.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 66 together will give us an idea of the powers to be taken, will they not?
I suggest that the main discussion will take place on amendment No. 66. The amendment we are now discussing only deals with the machinery to make way for the proposals in amendment No. 66.
In other words, that amendment No. 10 will not be passed now, but will be regarded as ante factum.
It is a question for the House to decide the matter of the main discussion. Am I to take it that amendment No. 10 is agreed to?
No.
I am prepared to leave it in suspense.
That is the trouble, however. We must go through the Bill amendment by amendment.
Well, then, we might as well not alone have it suspended, but hanged right away.
Well, then, the discussion can take place now instead of on amendment No. 66.
In this amendment we are merely asked to have a paragraph inserted so as to enable an Order to be made comprising this detail; "The day and hour on and at which the period during which the Seanad returning officer may receive ex-officio nominations to the administrative panel shall expire.” We are then driven to consider what are the Government proposals for the administrative panel. We get part of that in amendment No. 23, in which there is a general scheme to set up a register of bodies entitled to nominate persons to the panels of candidates, and that is very general in its form except in so far as the whole matter is to be, to a great extent, under the control of this unknown gentleman, the Seanad returning officer; but in regard to the administrative panel, it is set out in sub-paragraph (f) that the Irish County Councils' General Council and the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland shall be registered in respect of the said panel without any application in that behalf under this Act, and that no other body shall be registered in respect of the panel unless its objects and activities consist, wholly or substantially, of voluntary social services of a charitable or eleemosynary character. What follows from that is that there are two groups mentioned by the people who believe that there is no such thing as a proper functional organisation in the country, but that when they come to the question of the administrative panel, they have discovered the Irish County Councils' General Council—which, I suggest, is the quintessence of a political body at the moment—and the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland, and they are to be registered without any application. We were asked whether we sought the approval of the bodies we had suggested. Have the members of the Irish County Councils' General Council been asked whether or not they want to be slammed into this panel, or has the Association of Municipal Authorities been requested for assent or dissent in this matter?
I presume that the Deputy is discussing this whole question as outlined in amendments Nos. 23 and 66 now?
Yes, Sir.
Very well.
Well, amendment No. 23 only in an incidental way. At any rate, those two bodies, to which I have referred, are to go on a panel, and then there follows something in the way of a limit, which is to the effect that no other body shall be registered in respect of the panel unless its objects and activities consist, wholly or substantially, of voluntary social services of a charitable or eleemosynary character. We have the device adopted here that two bodies are to go on the panel immediately, and outside that, we have the fact that they are to go on without making any application. Besides that, we have the fact that there cannot be any other body registered unless its activities and objects consist, wholly or substantially, of voluntary social services, and so on. Then, we find that, under amendment No. 66, there is a scheme proposed whereby the Taoiseach shall be entitled to nominate to the administrative panel such number of persons, not exceeding two, as he shall think fit, and that any person who has held office as Taoiseach or as President of the Executive Council shall be entitled to nominate to the administrative panel such number of persons, not exceeding two, as he shall think fit. I am not sure what is the meaning of the second part. Does it mean that, supposing a person who has been President of the Executive Council slips into the position of Taoiseach, he can nominate two persons in each capacity? It would appear to be so. It is possible that we may have a person who will have held office both as President of the Executive Council and Taoiseach, and as the Bill stands, it appears to me that such a person would have the right to nominate four—two persons in each capacity—that if there is any person in that capacity, he can nominate two or four as the circumstances will allow. In any event, that is the way the panel is to be built up—two bodies to go on without being asked to go on, and then the Taoiseach and the President of the Executive Council can each nominate a maximum of two. Outside that there is the forbidding part of amendment No. 23, which is to the effect that no body can be registered unless it is of a particular type. Of course, to be registered there has to be an application to this all-powerful gentleman, the Seanad returning officer. Of course, he is given a much more limited term of reference in regard to the qualification than is even in the Constitution. It is stated that he is to allow on no group or body unless its objects consist wholly or substantially of voluntary social service of a charitable or eleemosynary nature.
I want to ask has this been considered in relation to the Article in the Constitution. The Article states that the panels are to be constituted of candidates who have knowledge and practical experience of certain interests, one of which is to be administration of social services, including voluntary social activities; "including," note that social service is defined as meaning only social activities which are of a voluntary, charitable or eleemosynary character. If that is not a narrowing of the Constitution, then where is the panel upon which candidates who have knowledge and experience of social service, not of the limited type set out here, find their place? I suggest that this is a very definite limitation of what is in the Constitution, a legislative narrowing of the phrase, and it has not been described to us here as a constitutional amendment. I suggest that, possibly, by inadvertence, it is going to work that way. It may be argued that it does not amend the Constitution, if it is argued that the phrase brought in by amendment No 23 will produce identical results as the operation of the phrase in the Constitution. If it is not going to be argued in that way the other argument must be taken—that these were excluded. Obviously those who come under the special limitation in this amendment can find their candidates on some other panel. I want to be told where it is.
The Government proposals in regard to the administrative panel are, as the Deputy pointed out, contained in this series of amendments which have been under discussion. We have started by putting in a special position the administrative panel. I think there was no objection raised, when the Constitution was under discussion, to constituting a separate division of that class. Most Deputies will agree that it is advisable to have on the Seanad men with experience of public administration. At a certain stage, there was brought in the addition of social service and, in particular, voluntary social service was included. What class of people had we in mind generally with regard to the administrative panel? Who are the people whom it would be advisable to get on to the Seanad in that class? Obviously, those who had experience either of national administration or of local administration in the first instance.
With regard to getting people who have knowledge of national administration, we have the right of any two Deputies to nominate on to that panel. Their power of nomination is not restricted. They are not prevented from nominating on to that panel. In addition, there is the power given to persons who may be expected, on account of the office they hold, to have special knowledge of such people, to know where such people are to be got. A person who has acted as head of the Government, as President of the Executive Council, or any future head of the Government, will undoubtedly have opportunities of seeing, either amongst Ministers who may have gone out from this House, or amongst retired civil servants, or amongst other members, for example, Parliamentary Secretaries, men who may have distinguished themselves, to his knowledge, in administration, who will know the details of the administration, and will be able to make use of that knowledge in criticism of a measure which would be discussed in the Seanad. Giving special power to anyone who has been head of an administration to nominate two is, I think, a wise provision. It may be said that he can, as a member of the Dáil, nominate one. The question is whether the knowledge which he must have gained during the period in which he has been acting as head of the Government should not be availed of and whether he should be given the right to nominate. Of course, nobody is going to confuse the right to nominate with the right to appoint. The election has to be carried out. The same electorate will pronounce upon his nominee as upon the nominees of outside bodies or of individual members of the Dáil.
There was a point raised by Deputy McGilligan in passing as to whether it was intended that it should happen that a person who might be an ex-President of the Executive Council and Taoiseach should have two nominations in regard to both offices. That was not the intention, and that can be amended to make it quite clear. As it stands, it is possible that it might be contended that he could nominate two in respect of each of the offices. That was not the intention. The intention was to give a person, who might on account of the office he held have special knowledge, an opportunity of nominating persons out of that knowledge, and also, to a certain extent, by putting his name to it, to give a certain amount of backing to his nominees, if you like. I do not see what objection there can be to that. I agree that there is no need that one person should have a double right and, on the Report Stage, if it is necessary to tighten that up to make it quite clear that the intention was only to give two nominations, so to speak, to one individual, that can be done.
With regard to these outside bodies, and the inclusion here of two outside bodies with the right to nominate to that administrative panel, the General Council of County Councils and the Association of Municipal Authorities are two existing bodies constituted in a way which gives them a character of their own. If you were trying to pick out a group, they are the group best qualified, I would say, to select people who would have knowledge of local administration as regards the counties and the municipal bodies. They are constituted on a fairly wide and representative basis, and I think their special character would justify their inclusion here. I asked these bodies before we put their names in if they were willing to do this or not. I do not think what you are doing is giving them a right. I do not think there is any compulsion on them to exercise that right. If they do not want to nominate, they are not compelled to do it. It is a function which I think they will be glad to exercise.
The Constitution says that the administrative panel shall consist of persons having "knowledge and experience of the following interests and services," and the fifth division is: "Public administration and social services, including voluntary social activities." In regard to public administration and social services, you will have knowledge and experience of that on the part of those who have held special forms of national offices, ex-civil servants, for example, or ex-Ministers. The Constitution is not like an Act of Parliament in which you have every word defined. It would be a much more lengthy document than it is if that were the case, so that in "voluntary social service" you want to include associations of citizens that have as their aim the giving of general social service. The term "social service" is very, very wide. Are we, as Deputy McGilligan suggests, narrowing that by saying here that they should be of a charitable or eleemosynary character? Notionally, I suppose we are, but in practice I do not think that we will be doing that. I think it is advisable to indicate more clearly than it has been indicated in the Constitution what are the classes of organisation which should be given the right to nominate for this panel. I cannot think of any particular type of organisation that might claim the right to nominate that would not come under the heading of a charitable or eleemosynary organisation. The Deputy might suggest some. There is, I suggest, notionally a difference, but I cannot see that any class of organisation we might think of——
You mean that social service will not be caught by the phrase?
It will not.
Is it considered that there is social service which is not voluntary social activity?
No. I doubt if you will be able to give me examples of an organisation of a charitable or eleemosynary character——
The President has put in the word "voluntary".
It is in the Constitution.
Would you mind reading the Article of the Constitution?
I did, but I shall read it again. I shall read the introduction which is Section 7, Article 18, subsection (2):—
Before each general election of the members of Seanad Eireann to be elected from panels of candidates, five panels of candidates shall be formed in the manner provided by law containing respectively the names of persons having knowledge and practical experience of the following interests and services.
Then we skip down to paragraph 5, which says:—
Public administration and social services, including voluntary social activities.
Are there social services not necessarily voluntary?
There are. I have mentioned public administration and social services as one phrase. Take for example the Department of Local Government at present. It is an administrative Department, but it is a controlled social service. Public administration and social services are here embodied as one phrase. The intention was to make sure that that particular phrase "social service" which is here attached to public administration would not be confined to social service in relation to a public Department. Therefore, you widened it by adding "including voluntary social activities." It seems to me that it is only in connection with the latter phrase that any difficulty would arise. I am not suggesting that it is not wider in a notional way than the class we have defined as charitable and eleemosynary organisation.
Has it not the effect that the President in his Bill is limiting the first portion of No. 5?
I see the Deputy's point. I have taken that section in two parts all the time. I intended the phrase "public administration and social services" to mean administration either in national or local bodies and I had special advertence to the part which the Department of Local Government or the Department of Industry and Commerce plays in national social services. Let us say that there was an ex-official of one of these Departments which had been dealing specially with these social services. One of the particular claims for qualification which he would have had was that he was administering social services so to speak. The other was one that was intended to be taken up by charitable organisations. As regards the limitation in the first, are we limiting the first? I suppose that in a sense we are.
Are we not doing it absolutely?
No, because we have it in the Constitution that these classes are such as to be defined by law. It has to be implemented by law. There is clearly an intention in the Constitution that the Legislature should, in implementing that, look over the field and select——
Would the President read the phrase in the Constitution which allowed a limitation by law to be put on the qualification of candidates?
We have said that they are to be elected from panels of candidates. It goes on to say "five panels of candidates shall be formed in the manner provided by law."
"The manner to be provided by law." But go on. This is an Order in the Constitution.
"Containing respectively the names of persons having knowledge..."
Of the following interests?
Yes.
You cannot limit that.
As I read it, and I think the reading of it is accurate too, what I say here is that by law you shall form panels of candidates, and the manner in which those are to be formed is the subject we are dealing with at the moment. Surely, within the manner in which they are to be formed would be the question of the class of persons you are to take to do it.
For instance under the heading of "the manner," you could cut out fisheries altogether from the agricultural panel?
I do not say so.
We are suggesting that you are doing the same limitation in panel 5—practically the same.
The point is this. Public administration and social service are covered and can be covered by nominations from those municipal and other bodies. They are quite capable of putting up those names which will be put there by the fact that they represent people who are engaged in social services, and to meet the case of including voluntary social activities we have a second portion, namely those of a charitable and eleemosynary kind. I think we are carrying out the intention of the Constitution in explaining how, on this particular panel, the names are to be got— the manner in which the panel is to be formed. We are selecting for it bodies which are capable of giving us those names, and we are not at all excluding the possibility of having on that particular panel people whose sole qualification for being put on it would be that they were engaged in social activities, because the local bodies— the county council or the corresponding municipal body—can put up names of people whose only claim to be on the panel would be that they have knowledge of a special service, namely social services. We are not excluding in fact any particular class of person. What we are doing is selecting, as we will have to do in any case, certain suitable groups for throwing up those names to us.
Might I ask the President why is he departing from the general plan? Why does he definitely exclude, absolutely exclude, the possibility of any other nominating bodies from paragraph 7 of Article 17 —public administration and social services? Why does he definitely exclude the possibility of any other nominating body except those two? Mind you, no other nominating body could come on as long as this Bill is in force, no matter how many bodies are set up. You definitely now, and for all time as long as this Bill is in force, exclude those. Why?
I will tell the Deputy.
The President has certainly not told us since I came in.
I am not departing from the general plan. I wish we could do for all the panels what we are at present doing here. The general plan is to try to get the smallest number of representative nominating bodies that we can get. If I were myself the returning officer in accordance with this Bill if it were passed, I would try to limit the number as much as possible, provided that I could get bodies sufficiently representative. I think it is a mistake to have a very large number of all sorts of bodies, with the idea that anybody at all can come along. If I were able to do it in respect of all those bodies I would put them in a Schedule to the Bill. I think when they are bodies of a sufficiently comprehensive character it is desirable to give them a special position. I do not depart; what I am doing is initiating, in the best way which is possible, what I think ought to be done there, namely to have, where you can get them, representative bodies doing that. Deputies on the other side were trying to do something the same with regard to the trades union councils.
Oh no.
The same sort of idea was at the back of that suggestion——
——namely, that you have a body here which can be taken as fairly representative, and we may as well deal with it. I think, and that is why it is here in this Bill, that those two bodies are there ready to hand, and that we ought to put them in the position that they can get the people they would nominate, either for social services or administration from the local point of view, on to that panel, and that in addition to those there would be the nominations from the Dáil and the nominations from such outside charitable bodies as may be regarded by the returning officer as, from their character, entitled to nominate. I think it is sufficiently wide to give us the number we require.
We have a new principle. I think principles are made not from day to day but from hour to hour. The trouble is that they are continually changing.
Oh, no.
He is not altering; he is only initiating. Again and again we have challenged the President—the President will admit it —to give us even an intimation of the kind of bodies in any of those Schedules that he thinks he would give us as nominating bodies. He has not done it.
I have done it. The Deputy is not taking it in.
He has always refused to do it. What does he do? He takes the body that everybody except himself in Ireland knows is the body most completely and thoroughly of one political persuasion—the General Council of County Councils. He does not know that.
And I do not believe it.
We had the pleasure in another place of pointing it out to him. I was not going into any of the great secrets of that commission, but it was pointed out to him in another place. He does not believe it. He does not believe that the General Council of County Councils——
It is all of one persuasion?
I do not say all. I say the most predominantly of one persuasion in politics.
At the commission, the Minister for Agriculture agreed that it was so.
I have a sort of feeling that, if I examine that, I will find——
In that case do not excite your feelings. Do not examine it. I should be very sorry to upset the feelings of the President in that matter. Just find out how many of that General Council of County Councils are not of the Fianna Fáil persuasion. I would advise the President to do another thing. He knows nothing about that either. Look at the type of political persuasion they put on entirely non-political bodies when they were asked to nominate. The President is ignorant of that too. We are not ignorant of it. We have good reason to know it. They put on people of entirely one political persuasion. Perhaps the body of people they put on of that persuasion are the best qualified to act on educational matters. That may be so, but it is an extraordinary coincidence that everyone of them is of one political persuasion. It is very strange, one of the accidents that happen to the President; it is an extraordinary accident that the one body that he nominates here first, the one that should first come into his mind, is the most politically coloured body in the whole country.
I would like to have my education advanced a bit further. Is that statement equally true of the municipal bodies?
I am speaking of this particular body. I have no knowledge of the other body. Everybody in the country, except the President, perhaps, knows that what I am saying about the General Council of County Councils is true. That body is definitely Fianna Fáil; there is no doubt about it. It is one of the two bodies that are here picked out for special mention by the President. We have an entirely new principle from the man who posed as, and apparently believed himself to be, attached to the principle of vocational education. He now says that the fewer vocational bodies nominating, the better. That is certainly an idea. The man who looks forward to the time when the country will be vocationally organised tells us now that the fewer there are of these bodies for this purpose, the better.
Provided they are representative of the classes, they are all right.
You are taking good care if you enforce that principle that they will not be representative. The General Council of County Councils would put on the most ignorant person, the man with the least knowledge of social matters and administration, a knowledge much less than would be possessed by other people who would be outstanding for their grasp of administration. They would certainly put on these before they would put on a properly qualified person. The difficulty is that there is an ideal man who can do all things right, and as against that you have the general public who can do all things wrong if they disagree. Here is a body that happens to agree. It is perfect. Therefore, let us mix it with another body, about the political composition of which I know very little, nothing at all, perhaps.
It is suggested that we should try as far as possible to make a little closed borough for this body. No other body can come in and poach on its preserves. This is really a most amazing thing. Deputy McGilligan is raising points about the Constitution, but surely Deputy McGilligan should know that the President has a right to violate the Constitution whenever he thinks proper? This is not a document to be interpreted by law; it is a document to be interpreted by the President, when he is the President; it is a document to be interpreted by Deputy de Valera when he is Leader of the Opposition; but it is not a document to be interpreted by law. What is the good of Deputy McGilligan proving it is violating the Constitution? The President does it with the greatest of pleasure. He will violate any principle to gain, not even a Party point, but a momentary point of advantage or of semi-advantage in debate.
What provision is made for the councils that have been suppressed? The General Council of County Councils has a lopsided character inasmuch as several administrative bodies have been suppressed within the last five or six years. There was no election in those suppressed areas at the time we last had this class of election. Again, a good many of the people who were elected on those bodies are dead. How is the position going to be remedied? Are all those councils that are suppressed to have no voice in this nominating body? What machinery, if any, is going to be set up? The position is that county councils and corporations cannot appoint any servant under their jurisdiction; they can only appoint whoever is nominated by the Appointments Commissioners. But still they are quite good enough to nominate candidates for the Seanad. I should like to have some information as to the position of the suppressed councils.
With regard to that matter, I do not know. I have just asked for information. I do not know that a suppressed council uses its representation on the General Council of County Councils. That may be a fact, but I am not sure about it.
They have lost it. They never have been summoned and never have attended.
That may be, but the county councils were in existence for some time and at that time they elected their representatives on the General Council of County Councils. I do not know whether the constitution of that body is of such a character as to exclude, immediately a council is suppressed, the representatives of that council on the general council. I am not able to give a definite answer on that point at the moment. I have tried to get information.
It is a thing that should have been made clear and should have been ascertained before now.
It is not so necessary in a matter of that sort, so long as you have the main body, that other group. I am sure Deputy O'Sullivan is not, at this stage, going to start on the new principle that is suggested by this, that we must make sure that every body we have to give the right of nomination to must be completely representative of the whole class. Nobody has suggested that should be so. Fairly representative is all we have aimed to get, and we have got that, I think, on this body, the General Council of County Councils.
The President means fairly unfairly.
It is not, it is common sense. We do not mean to make special provision because of a few county councils that may be suppressed. Suppression ought to be a very rare exception and we cannot make these laws to take in every type of exception. It is not necessary, in any case, because you will get a fair expression from that body generally, as it will be composed of men and women who will have knowledge of local administration and social services —at least sufficient to give us the nominations we require. If there are exceptions of that sort, if I found they were excluded, it would not bother me, because you have that body so constituted as to get fair representation and a fair knowledge of local administration. Even if I am told about these cases, I would not think it necessary to bring in any form of amendment as in the other case. In the other case you wanted the electors to be fairly representative and to have a fair knowledge of people in all parts of the country. I felt it was necessary to enable the county whose council had been suppressed to have electors and the only way I could do it was by seeing that where a council was suppressed, the members of that council elected originally would be elected with a sort of double function, one to administer the affairs of the county and the other as people who would have the right to select some of their number for the electoral college.
I have indicated my view with regard to the panels. The aim is not to have too many bodies, to be prepared to stop when you have sufficient representative bodies to give us the nominations. I hold that these bodies I refer to here are obviously the type of bodies that are competent to put forward nominations for the administrative panel. I take it that the county councils send to the general council as their representative the ablest person out of their members, whatever the Party. I do not know whether the representative is selected under proportional representation or not, but I take it that the men sent there are regarded as the ablest and most experienced on the council. If that is so, then we ought to have in the general council the cream, so to speak, of the county councils and the country.
The same thing, I think, ought to be in general true of the Association of Municipal Authorities. If you are able to get as obviously suitable bodies for the other panels, our work, in my opinion, would be largely done. We would be able to do something more than simply leaving it to a returning officer to make his selection; we would be able to put in the form of a schedule to this Bill the bodies to which we would give the right of making these nominations. The fact that we mentioned these bodies would not, in my opinion, be contrary to the general intentions of the Constitution or even to any legal interpretation. If the Constitution comes to be interpreted by a court, nobody is going to suggest to me that the judges, in interpreting it, are going to apply the narrow canons they would apply in construing a detailed Act of Parliament. It is obvious that a Constitution ought to be dealt with in a wider way and I hold that, even if you took the letter of the Constitution and the most strict interpretation of it, what we are doing would be in accordance with its provisions.
The President has said that he is not quite sure whether, in the case of suppressed county councils, the representatives are still able to act on the General Council of County Councils and that, even if they were, it would not concern him very much, and he would not consider an amendment necessary. There are at the moment four county councils suppressed. What would be the position if a Government decided, for any reason, to abolish 12, 14 or 16 county councils?
So long as that body is there as a body, it acts.
If the General Council of County Councils were reduced to the President and secretary, the President would still consider that they should have some function in this respect?
If that absurd situation should arise, which I do not expect will arise——
It is not a question of what the President expects.
It is a question of what commonsense suggests.
You have four county councils suppressed—it does not matter for what reason—and it is quite possible that, for certain reasons, it may be decided to suppress from one to ten other county councils. That does not affect the President?
If I did make an amendment, in all probability I should be told that they were not able to administer their counties and that they were able to elect representatives for this purpose.
For that reason, the President is going to leave the position as it is.
I approached this amendment with a certain amount of diffidence because one has to read the Constitution, the Bill and the amendments. Having done that, I am not sure that the fool is not to be sent further.
You have to go for an interpretation to the opposite side.
The interpretation will be as sound as the interpretation we got from the opposite side. The interpretations we got from the other side previously about the Seanad did not stand examination.
We are arguing with a man who puts certain phrases into a Bill and now makes clear that he does not understand their significance.
The President is talking about interpretations; I prefer to start with sentiments—the sentiments expressed in Article 18 of the Constitution. Nobody could quarrel with the five divisions set out there. One wonders, however, if that is going to be merely a pious hope. I suppose this has arisen out of the fact that certain people with specialised knowledge or specialised training stand no hope of getting into a legislative assembly where their services might be badly required. For that reason, we all applaud the idea that, in the constitution of these five separate panels an attempt is to be made to obtain representation of these interests. When one comes to look at the working out of that—we are getting down to the question of interpretation now —I am afraid it becomes very doubtful as to whether we are going to get anything like what is aimed at and I, certainly, am not going to try to prophesy. It seems to me that we are going to get either a feast or a famine and one will be as bad as the other.
The President said in some of his remarks last night—Ministers have time and again repeated it—that this country is not organised on the lines of vocational interests. While that may be perfectly true up to a point, this country has made more than a modest beginning in organisation along the lines of certain vocational interests. It was not until I heard the President make some remarks last night—which, I might say, astounded me—that I began to see that I had not understood the underlying principles that the President and the Government have in their minds in regard to organisation of vocational interests. Glancing down Article 18 of the Constitution, one sees various subjects mentioned—the national language, culture, literature, art and education; then we get down to industry and commerce, including banking, finance, accountancy, engineering and architecture. Certain of those industries or professions are as well organised as they will be in our lifetime. Take, for instance, the case of the engineers. The engineers are organised into a professional body and the architects are organised into another professional body. I think that the Royal Institute of Architects contains all the architects who would be required by the country. The quantity surveyors are equally well organised and the chartered accountants are well organised. When you come to artists—I mean artists who use the brush—you have got the Royal Academy. I do not know whether you would get any artists—artists who paint—outside that body.
At election times, you would.
Yes,but they are not professional artists. Then, we come down to the musicians. Who would look for musicians outside the Academy of Music? As regards doctors and surgeons, you have the Royal College of Physicians and the College of Surgeons.
What about the Medical Association?
We have the Medical Association as well. That is a group of nine or ten and they are as well organised as you will ever get them. The President, last night, seemed to envisage a type of vocational organisation in which employers and employees would all be in the one industry. I suppose that that, theoretically, would be the way industry would be organised if we had to begin all over again. But if that were so, I take it that this Article in the Constitution would have to be revised because there would be no such thing as labour. Labour would have disappeared into the various vocations. Deputy Corish does not seem very much alarmed by that prospect, but I suppose he could retort that employers would have disappeared as well, and so they would.
No, neither the one nor the other.
They would have disappeared into the vocational organisations. That is something they have tried in other countries and it has been brought to a high pitch in Italy. If we were given the 25 years suggested in which to achieve organisation along those lines, that might possibly come about, but we have to take things as they are, and as we see them at the moment. I should like to approach this Bill as a realist and to consider how we are going to get some of the people the President professes to want. Apparently, we are going to get them from certain nominating bodies which will nominate these people into these five compartments, as I will call them for want of a better word. These compartments run from five to 11 and the Government has defined the number each is to have. I have an amendment down in relation to the industrial and commercial panel. We find that the Government's proposal for the industrial and commercial panel is one of nine members who are to include banking, finance, accountancy, engineering and architecture. Giving architecture one, engineering one, accountancy one, and finance, one; we are left with five people to represent the industry and commerce of the country.
The President seems to think that having got the people into these compartments by means of suitable nominating bodies, all will be well, but that is where I should like to join issue with the President and to say that that is where the real fun would begin. I understand that there has been a certain diffidence about announcing the names of these bodies, but I have in mind one particular body which would be eminently suitable for registration as a nominating body, and I am quite sure it will get into that position. It is composed of representatives of labour, employers and agriculture. I have no acquaintance with higher mathematics and the President will have to work out the sum in arithmetic for me, but I suppose that a certain number of people will be nominated into each compartment. It seems to me that there will be a glorious opportunity for striking bargains with some of these nominating bodies. I would contend that my intelligence is not greatly inferior to the average of other members of the House, but I can imagine myself going to one of these bodies and saying "Who are you going to nominate for the Seanad? Do you not know that so and so would not stand any chance of being elected? You have a very desirable person in your council or on your committee and do you not think you ought to nominate him?" There will then have arrived a position in which, as I have said, these compartments will result in either a feast or a famine. The great difficulty will be experienced in getting the people at the heads of their professions and industries to go forward at all. In fact, I can imagine certain people saying "I will allow my name to go forward but I do not care whether I am elected or not. If they want me, I am prepared to help them, but I am a very busy person and I cannot give the time to it. If you like to elect me, well and good, and if you do not, it does not matter."
What will happen is that in these compartments, there will be a number of nominating bodies which will nominate a heterogeneous mass of people who, because they have been nominated by the nominating bodies and have a label around their necks showing that they belong to a particular profession, will go forward. Then there will be an election at which the people who have certain affiliations will get the greatest support, and we will get back to the political election from people who have a pale shadow of certain professional and other qualifications, but who are politicians, pure and simple, and going forward for election on a Party ticket. Quite frankly, I stand aghast at all this circumlocution. Nobody could quarrel with the idea of these five panels enshrined in the Constitution, but when you come to its working out, the execution is horrible. I believe that it all arises from the Government having begged the question. The President will know the logical fallacy to which I refer. They have denied that this country is vocationally organised and, while I would be the last to say that there could not be a great deal more vocational organisation achieved, I think it would be a great incentive to vocational organisation and vocational interest if, in some way, they could be brought a stage nearer. Quite frankly, I should like to see certain persons nominating one person right on to the Seanad. I do not know but that would be the best way with a whole lot of professional bodies which are highly organised. However, as there is no amendment, I can merely indicate one way out of the difficulty. It seems to me that we are going to get in these compartments either a feast or a famine. A lot of people who will be very desirable will possibly be nominated at the first election. When they discover themselves at the bottom of the poll after the election they will see that it was not worth while going forward, and then we will have the famine, in which case people will be elected quite frankly, on a political basis. What I have said, although it directly concerns this amendment, is criticism of the Bill in general. I can only apologise for that by saying that I did not speak on the general debate. This is an occasion on which to ask the Government to halt, to see where they are going to get. There are well-defined bodies, in which there will not be higher organisation, as far as I can see along present lines, unless we are going to depart from that, and get something like the Italian model, in which case, I suppose, we will have vocational organisations par excellence, when labour, employers, architects and all will have disappeared into vocational organisations. I appeal to the Government to consider the question as a whole. They are not going to get the type of people they are looking for under Article 18 by this amendment. However pious their aspirations, and I admit they are high enough under Article 18 of the Constitution, it looks at present as if the results would be disappointing.
I should like to make some reference to the question of giving the County Councils' General Council the right of nomination. When listening to the President's reply to Deputy Morrissey, I understood him to say that if the position ever arose when a majority of the county councils was abolished and the County Councils' General Council left representing a minority, or a very small number, it would be allowed the same right as if it represented the vast majority. The President said that he did not think that state of affairs would exist. That point is bad enough when considering the future, but I suggest the position as regards the General Council of County Councils, seeing that the amendment is dealing with a permanent Seanad and not a transitional Seanad, is an entirely undemocratic one. The President suggested that the general council was fairly representative. I suggest that it is not. The County Councils' General Council is elected by the various county councils. The figures the President read out last night, giving the membership and the political alignment of these bodies, show that they are practically on a 50-50 basis. I remind the President that a majority of one on any council might give the right to elect a representative on the general council. While the County Councils' General Council does not represent fairly the people who elected the county councils in 1934, it does not at all represent the people who elected the county councils last June, because we are dealing with a different register now. In 1934 the county councils were elected on registers that were, according to the present Government, archaic, out-of-date, and a relic of the old ascendancy days. At present the county councils are not in office by virtue of election, to any great extent; they are in office by virtue of legislation that extended their life, and the County Councils' General Council is in office by virtue of legislation which extended the life of the county councils that elected it. I suggest that the County Councils' General Council—a large number of whose members were elected by a majority of two votes in particular counties—is not concerned at all with the present local government register. The President said he did not know the political alignment of the County Councils' General Council. He was asked about another body, the Association of Municipal Authorities. While the President may know nothing about the county councils or the General Council of County Councils, I am beginning to wonder if he ever reads the newspapers, even the Irish Press. Would the President be able to tell us what is happening in the country? It will come as a great surprise to me if the President knows what is going on at all. I was very much surprised at his attitude as regards the county councils and the County Councils' General Council in view of the general election. I suggest a comparison between the County Councils' General Council and the Association of Municipal Councils. There is no comparison from the point of view of work between the two bodies. From my knowledge of the two bodies, gained merely from reading the newspapers, I characterise the County Councils' General Council as a body that minds every business except its own, and I characterise the Association of Municipal Councils as a body that, as far as I know, minds its own business.
I was rather amazed at the action of Deputies opposite during the past three days in criticising the county councils and objecting to these councils having any voice in the election of the Seanad. I wish to protest, on behalf of a body on which the Party opposite has a majority, at the insults hurled at these bodies during the past two days, particularly by Deputy McGilligan, when he alluded to them as antediluvian county councils. The chairman of that county council, for instance, was for a long time an honoured member of the Party opposite, and, if I may say so, was a credit to this or to any other Assembly. I object to the manner in which county councils have been attacked here. Apparently, the Deputies opposite have only one use for members of county councils, and that is to get them to preside at public meetings at election times. When the elections are on they are very ready to go through the country scouring a parish to get a county councillor to preside at their meetings, or to sign their nomination papers for them. They scour the country, right, left and centre in an endeavour to get a number of M.C.C.'s to nominate them for election to the Dáil, but apparently that is the only use the Deputies opposite have for county councillors.
Deputy Corry would not do that of course.
From my experience I can say that most of the county councils are democratic bodies. As far as the Cork County Council is concerned, it is such a fine body that, if a comparison has to be made, I would not give it second place even to this Assembly. I was rather surprised at hearing Deputy Linehan attack the manner in which members are elected on the county council and on the other committees filled by that body, because I remember that, at the last election to that body in Cork, Deputy Linehan and a few of his associates, who were not even members, came in and ordered their members on that body how they were to vote. I admit that the members on the county council in Cork, and the members on all the committees in Cork, were not put forward by the Fine Gael representatives. They were put forward by three individuals of whom Deputy Linehan was one. Those three individuals came in and ordered their members what they were to do. It is rather peculiar, therefore, that at this stage Deputy Linehan should come in here and say that those men who were elected on his instructions and those of his colleagues should not have a vote for the Seanad.
I am more generous than that. I believe in the policy of "live and let live". I do not think it is fair of Deputy Linehan to try to prevent men who were nominated and elected on his express instructions from having a vote for the Seanad. I am sure Deputy Linehan would feel very sore if those representatives on the Cork County Council, elected on his express instructions, said to him, as they could say, that they were entitled to elect the Seanad and not the Deputy: that it was enough for him to be here in the Dáil having one voice in legislation, and that they claimed they should have some check on the legislation passed in another Chamber in which Deputy Linehan was a member. I think that what is proposed here is meeting the matter fairly. I, for one, consider that the county councillors have a perfect right to vote. I may say that I held that view long before the question of the Seanad ever came before this House. As the most important bodies in the various counties, responsible for the administration of the large sums of money which they collect from the ratepayers, I held and hold now that they should have some voice in the legislation passed here.
That is hardly the point at issue, I think.
I admit it is a very sore point for Deputy McGilligan who will probably, in a few months' time, be going around to the county councillors whom he is now condemning with bell, book and candle, asking them to preside at his meetings or sign nomination papers for him.
I am not allowed to discuss that on this amendment.
It will be a sore point with the Deputy when he has to go around to those same county councillors with a nomination paper asking them to put their names on the dotted line so that he may get nominated for election to the Dáil.
I wonder what county council will be nominating me for North City?
Is there not such a thing as a corporation in North City?
The corporation are quite different. The corporations are elected on a proper register.
Question. I know the borough councils are.
Is the Deputy suggesting that the corporation elections in recent years were not carried out on the new registers containing the names of all persons who had reached the age of 21? I say that they were. I say further that the present county councils were elected on the old register which does not include the names of the young people of 21, and for that reason they are not representative of the country.
When Deputy Linehan puts forward that argument I would advise him to look up the Dáil Debates and read the description of those voters, that he is now alluding to, given by ex-Deputy Desmond Fitzgerald. When Deputy Fitzgerald was a member of this House he spent 11 days praising the very register that Deputy Linehan is now condemning, and attacking the register that Deputy Linehan is praising. He told the House about the rag, tag and bobtall that would now be voting for the county councils, and here we have Deputy Linehan now turning the wheel around completely, although I understood that he came into this House to support the same policy as that of ex-Deputy Desmond Fitzgerald. This quick change of front on the part of Deputy Linehan is rather amazing. No doubt there have been many changes in the past. I do not think a fairer method could be found for electing a Seanad than that before us. Surely, the county councillors of the country represent somebody. They were elected to their present positions by the electors in their own counties, and to my mind have a far better claim to have a vote at the Seanad election than some of the other bodies that I see mentioned here. If there are any bodies that we can stand over as representing the views of the electorate of the country, the views of the people generally, they are surely the county councils and the General Council of County Councils. They have been elected by the ordinary people of the country, and surely when you are going to give votes to the universities, to so-called business people and to general bodies of rogues and thieves througout the country——
Is that the Deputy's synonym for business people? —thanks.
Is Deputy Corry suggesting that provision is being made in the Government's Bill for the election of rogues and thieves throughout the country?
Let us have a discussion by way of speech and not by way of cross-examination.
Surely the expression "rogues and thieves" should be withdrawn.
This is the third day that we have spent here listening patiently to the Deputies opposite, gentlemen who go around from chapel-gate to chapel-gate when there is a county council election on begging the people to honour them by putting them on it, and who then come in here and attack the county councils, telling us that the county councils ought not to have a vote in the election of a Seanad. We have spent three days here listening to that kind of thing, and it is about time that a halt was called. I say that the General Council of County Councils is a far more representative body, and has a far better right——
What is left of them.
Now, when Deputy Gorey's Party was here on these benches they were not slow to press for the abolition of the county councils and local bodies—and with far less reason. I suggest that the General Council of County Councils have a better right to nominate members to the Seanad, and to have a voice in the election of the Seanad, than a large number of the business bodies and the other bodies that we see getting representation here. I could understand Deputies opposite, and with far more reason, opposing certain other bodies from getting a voice in the election of the Seanad. I could understand that, but I cannot understand the amazing attitude they have adopted here for the last three days—attacking local bodies, with bell, book and candle, in effect, and saying that county councils or local bodies, generally, should have no voice in the election of the proposed Seanad. As I say, I cannot understand it. I say that any body that has charge of the administration of a large amount of public funds— funds subscribed by the general public—should have some voice in matters of legislation; and, to my mind at any rate—and this is a purely personal view—I think they should have a far greater claim to vote on this matter of electing members to the Seanad than even the representatives we have in this House. However, I am sure that some of those bodies would like to have some check on, let us say, Deputy Linehan, since he exercised such a good check on them in connection with the Cork County Council.
If I understand the Deputy aright, it is I who should be nominated.
We are not discussing the affairs of the Cork County Council now.
Let the Cork County Council elect the Seanad.
I think they would probably be a better Seanad than what you have here.
That is because they give the Deputy so much of his own way.
Deputy Brazier may have succeeded in coming in here in the shoes of the Chairman.
We are not going to allow the affairs of the Cork County Council to be brought in here in connection with this amendment. We are discussing the amendment, and not what happened at meetings of the Cork County Council. We do not want that here.
I apologise, Sir; but what I am saying is that we have spent three days listening to Deputy McGilligan and other Deputies here vilifying county councils, and local bodies generally, right, left and centre, and referring to them as antediluvian.
I never used the word "antediluvian."
The Deputy made the statement at least twice.
Does the Deputy say that I used the word "antediluvian?" Mind you, I have thought much worse of them than that, but I did not use that word.
The Deputy can look up the Official Reports. He was so anxious to use up time here, however, that he did not know what he was saying; but when Deputies come in here and attack local bodies in that manner——
I did not use the word "antediluvian."
——they should at least have the decency in future to steer clear of this matter of attacking county councillors when it is a question of getting their nomination papers filled in and when they want somebody to get votes for them at the chapel gates in the country. In conclusion, Sir, I want to say that I maintain that the General Council of County Councils, and the county councils generally, have a far better right to a voice in the election of the proposed Seanad than any Deputy on the opposite benches, certainly; and I think that if Deputy McGilligan will look behind him he will see more antediluvian people than will be found in Cork County Council.
Before we go any further, Sir, I should like to know from the President what is the position with regard to Commissioners who have been put in charge of the suppressed county councils.
Yes. I have got a list of the persons serving at present on it, and that list indicates that some of the Commissioners are on it. I must say that I am surprised about that, because, from what I understood of the nature of this organisation, I see nothing that would suggest that Commissioners should be on the list of the General Council of County Councils, but the position seems to be that they have allowed such Commissioners to be reckoned as amongst the number. The rules of the organisation, dealing with representation, appeared to be that each county council, being a member of the General Council of County Councils, may elect two representatives to a seat on the General Council of Count Councils; that county councils representing a population of more than 150,000 people may elect three representatives, and that those representing a population of more than 300,000 may elect four representatives. In the case of the suppression of a county council, as far as I can see, it would appear that the representatives of the suppressed council thereby became ineligible for membership. Apparently, however, from the list of names which has been shown to me, it would appear that the Commissioners from some of the suppressed county councils are on it. I can understand the desire of the other members to have representation from the county, even though the county council had been suppressed; and apparently they have interpreted their constitution in such a way as to admit of the Commissioners instead of, as I would have thought, the original representatives.
In other words, these county councils are definitely out of the picture, and the only thing that remains is the councils, at present remaining, which have complied with the required political standards. I think that that is a very serious position, and I think that before matters went so far as, apparently, they have gone, the whole position should have been ascertained by the people in charge of the putting up of the conditions with regard to nomination to the Seanad. Hitherto, it has been a case of groping in the dark, and we were certainly groping in the dark until we got the information I have just now got. We know it now. The President has said that, even with the present position, he would still, in his opinion—not alone in his opinion, but with his conviction—attach the same importance to the present county councils, if they were fully represented.
Exactly.
That is, if it were not lopsided and made that way by one of its own Departments in order to make it suit the required political standards. Of course, the President pays great lip-service to principles and ideals, but he always takes great care to get around these principles and ideals in some way to suit himself. I would not be surprised if the President were to start a class in Geneva, in order to show the other countries represented there how to state high principles and ideals, and, at the same time, to get around them in order to suit their own viewpoint. I think it is a disgrace, and a lesson in gerrymandering, to see the way this amendment is going to be given effect to in the present position we have here. We need not go into the fact now that there will be no elections held, and that certain representatives of these county councils have died; but the President evidently took a leaf, in the whole idea behind his principles and ideals, out of the Fascist book—vocational bodies and all the rest of it. He took special care that the giving effect to these ideals would be a matter for his own people only. In other words, it means that he will own the Seanad. It means that, between the nominating bodies, and so on, that are mentioned here, the President will own the Seanad.
Red herrings have been drawn across the trail of the discussion here in connection with the Cork County Council. We are not discussing the affairs of the Cork County Council, but we are discussing the question of the whole position of the General Council of County Councils. We are discussing the position with regard to the whole of the county councils and the General Council of County Councils, which is supposed to represent the people. It does not represent the people. It represents, practically speaking, one viewpoint, and that is the viewpoint of the President, who controls practically all the county councils. The others are wiped out of the picture. One is tempted to leave this House altogether, never come back, and leave it to the President to do what he likes—to leave it to the trick-of-the-loops, and the President is the high priest of trick-of-the-loops.
I can stand a great deal. I have, as a rule, not bothered very much about what Deputies say.
I acknowledge that I said something that I should not have said.
There is a certain respect, I think, due to the office I occupy, and I suggest that the term "trick-of-the-loop," and all the rest, as applied to me while I hold that office, at any rate, should not be used here.
I recognise that now, and I am sorry for having said something in the heat of the moment which I should not have said.
I intended to ask Deputy Gorey to withdraw the expression. There was another expression used, "corrupt practices," which I also intended to ask Deputy Gorey to withdraw. I think it referred to the Party machine rather than to any particular individual.
Yes, I withdraw both expressions.
The phrase, "corrupt practices," has not been ruled as unparliamentary. If it were, a lot of the speech of the Minister for Finance, which pivoted on the use of that phrase, would have to be dealt with retrospectively. It was applied to myself yesterday.
I cannot make a retrospective ruling.
I would rather let the Minister for Finance use that kind of language than not to speak at all. If he is only capable of expressing his thoughts through that sort of language, I would rather have it than nothing. I would rather have Deputy Corry speak the language he understands than have silence. The debate on the administrative panel has gone on two points—the practical point and the constitutional point. I want to deal with the constitutional point first. The Constitution tells us that there are to be panels of candidates formed and the phrase occurs at that point "in the manner provided by law." The phrase "in the manner provided by law" is exhausted when you come to that point in the reading. Panels of candidates are to be formed in the manner provided by law. The word "candidates" is carried forward. The formation of these panels is certainly subject to whatever the Dáil does in the way of legislation. After the use of the phrase "in the manner provided by law"—and I suggest, therefore, excluded from the operation of that phrase—there is this "containing the names of persons having knowledge and practical experience of the following interests" which are set out. Let us come to the relevant one. There is to be one panel formed in the manner provided by law. The manner of the formation of that panel is a matter for the law. There is a mandate afterwards that that panel is to contain the names of persons having knowledge and practical experience of public administration and social services, including voluntary social activities.
We have an amendment proposed, and we have the use of the phrase "voluntary social services" with an addition, "voluntary social services of a charitable or eleemosynary character." Does that limit to any degree the phrase used in the Constitution? I suggest it does. If the amendment, in its restrictive part in sub-section (f) said: "No other body shall be registered in the said register in respect of the said panel unless its objects and activities consist, wholly or substantially, of voluntary social services," and there came to a full stop, even then there is objection to this amendment as being a violation of the constitutional provision. But the amendment adds this phrase which I suggest is a narrowing phrase and puts a greater restriction than the use of the phrase "voluntary social services."
Let me turn to the Constitution. If the phrases here mean anything they certainly do not mean what the President explained this morning, that the knowledge and practical experience required is of interests and services described as being public administration social services, not including, that is to say, voluntary social activities. In the Constitution that phrase is used to pick out one set of the interests or services included, but by no means exhausting the other phrase "voluntary social services." I asked the President if it is not clear from the use of that phrase that the contemplation of the Constitution was that there were social services which are not public administration, and that there were social services which were a great deal wider than voluntary social activities. If that is so, then I ask, in relation to these amendments, where the candidates who represent social services which are other than voluntary social activities, and which are certainly other than voluntary social activities of a charitable or eleemosynary character, are to find their place on the panel?
The President says that "public administration" and "social services" must be read together. If they are, then there is a more serious limitation than ever, because, apparently, social services must be regarded as services of a public administration type. If that is the limitation, the ordinary rules of interpretation in the courts would mean that the voluntary social activities referred to must be voluntary social activities within the public administration category. I am quite certain that never was intended and that that argument only emerged on the spur of the moment to meet a difficulty presented to the President on the reading of his amendment. I am suggesting seriously that there is a restriction and limitation and that it is not a proper one. I am suggesting that it will work out unfairly and I am going to suggest, on the practical side, that of course it has been again manoeuvred and engineered with a view to getting the greatest possible influence brought into the building up of the new Seanad.
The President made another statement which is even more startling. Taking his view that the phrase, "in the manner provided by law" carries forward and informs the rest of the sentence, he came to a particular conclusion—that the interests and services of which candidates must have practical knowledge and experience can be limited when the law is being made under the phrase. He gave as an instance that you could, for instance, cut out "social services" altogether. I want that considered in relation to the paragraph immediately above. Does the President consider it is proper, when considering the formation of panels, to cut out, say, "industry" altogether, to have a group of bodies mentioned, when one is thinking of nominating bodies and terms of reference to the Seanad returning officer with regard to the nominating bodies in paragraph 4, and to have a limitation imposed that the bodies would only be commercial bodies that would include persons who had knowledge and practical experience of banking, finance, accountancy, engineering and architecture? The President's excuse in defence of the limitation, which he admits putting there, was: "Oh, as long as the body we are appointing may give us the representatives, we are not called upon to see that they will concur." I suggest that groups that would be brought under the heading of "commerce" might give you industrialists, though I think that is hardly likely, and the President apparently thinks that that is a correct working of the law under the Constitution.
There is then to be an administrative panel. It was supposed to contain people who were experienced and had knowledge of public administration and social services. One or two pointers were given in connection with social services. In furtherance of that provision in the Constitution, it is now proposed that two bodies are to be put on the register, two bodies who will have power with regard to the administrative panel. They are the Irish County Councils' General Council and the Association of Municipal Authorities. There are also to be two people nominated by the Taoiseach and ex-President of the Executive Council, and then there are to be whatever public bodies can scrape on to the register of nominating bodies in the way that is set out here. How is that to happen? The Seanad returning officer rules the roost. The Seanad returning officer is given special terms of reference with regard to the panel. He is told not to allow anybody on except the nominees of the Taoiseach and the ex-President of the Executive Council, nominees of the General Council of County Councils and the Association of Municipal Authorities, and "no other body unless it is one whose objects and activities consist wholly or substantially of voluntary social services of a charitable or eleemosynary character." Once he rules on his terms of reference his decision can only be upset by a partisan committee of the Dáil, consisting of 15 members and to reverse his decision requires no less a strength than nine. That is supposed to be giving free voting with regard to the formation of the Seanad.
The debate for the past two days has been instructive in the elucidation it has provided of general principles and the President's view on them. Proportional representation is on trial, and it is mainly on trial because it has not given the President the results he desired. There has been a partial failing of the gerrymandering which he admitted last night was tried at the last general election. It has not given him the representation here that he felt he was entitled to. It was excused simply on the grounds that there was some manipulation of the machinery of the proportional representation system necessary in order to give a Government with authority, and it was manipulated. There was no question about the manipulation. The result was that there were elected 68 members to that side, with one carried forward by legislation. There were 68 elected over there and 69 elected against. It is definitely known that if the ordinary system of proportional representation had been in operation, it would have been a matter of about 62 or 63 over there to 75 against. But, even with the manipulation, and manipulation with the intent of giving a Government with authority, the election resulted only in 69 members on that side. Now, because that result occurred, proportional representation is on its trial, if you please.
Quite a lot of things were put on their trial by the President. The old Seanad and the old system of proportional representation—all these have been weighed in the balance and found wanting because they kicked against the President's views. Proportional representation is on its trial, and even the gerrymandering that was done is on its trial. It has not been successful, but in this gerrymandered House we have now the position that a Seanad, with the limited powers I spoke of yesterday, has to be elected. It has to be elected without leaving it open to a fluctuating chance of some moderate success, because the Dáil has not been properly manipulated, and the gerrymandered constituencies have not given the President the majority which he thought he would get. So we are going to throw in the county councils. I did not use the word "antediluvian" in reference to the county councils, as Deputy Corry suggested. I think Deputy Corry must have been thinking of certain terms of objurgation, relating to birth, when he made use of that phrase. I did not use that word in connection with the county councils, but I think it would be correct to say that, in the main, they are stale and unrepresentative. It is bad enough to have this House dependent on the bad results that flow from the partial failure of the President's gerrymandering ideas. Whatever chance there might be of getting a nonpolitical result from such a body as this, constituted as it is, it is even worse to have this whole situation compromised by the addition of these stale and unrepresentative bodies.
Just look at what we are doing when we come to one panel. The President is certainly taking no chances. He is guarding his political reputation as far as he can by adding these councils. He is to have 11 nominees of his own, and we know that in an emergency that will be used in the most blatant political way. Then we come to the administrative panel, from which only seven Senators can emerge. The President is taking no chances with that. What do we get? Two bodies are named. Why they were segregated for this distinction we do not know. It is amazing that the first body put into this clause is a body which is notoriously political. Deputy Linehan indicated what might have happened. Deputy Linehan might have indicated, with a precise example, what did happen. There is a local council, and the representation that the people provided themselves with after the result of the election was known was seen to be this: Fine Gael supporters mustered 12 on the council, Fianna Fáil mustered nine, and Labour mustered four. There was a majority between Labour and Fianna Fáil of one, but Fine Gael had the strongest group on the council. What is the representation on the county council? Two Fianna Fáil and one Labour, and that glorious decoction of politics is the body that is singled out here for the most exceptional treatment.
The President asks us to believe here that he does not know what the general composition of the General Council of County Councils is. If the President does not know it, the Minister for Local Government knows all about it and the hand of the Minister for Local Government is running all through this Bill. The President has conferences frequently with the heads of Departments and with the Executive Council as a group, but they do not even pretend to show such innocence of the realities of the situation as he tries to put across in this House. Nobody believes—I personally do not believe—that the President did not know what the composition of the General Council was, and I suggest that the only reason why the General Council was put in here is because it is a completely politicised body.
That is the addition of a body. There is one notable omission. Why are not civil servants given the right to nominate? When thinking in terms of public administration, would not one's thoughts come very quickly to the conclusion that the civil servants are a representative body? Why are not civil servants given some right here? I do not know whether civil servants will come in under bodies whose objects consist wholly or substantially of voluntary or social services of a charitable or eleemosynary nature. I imagine not. If they do not, then the President has done this; he has shoved on to the panel of the administrative category a wholly political group, and he has prevented civil servants from having any say in that administrative panel. Why? Is it not known—the President cannot say that he has not knowledge of this, because he has refused to meet deputations from them—that the Civil Service representative groups are in revolt against the Government? I suppose the same political innocence will be paraded in regard to this, but I suggest that that is something which leads to it. There is an approach to something more than suspicion when one considers that this completely political body is put on here, and that another body which is showing a certain point of view against the political Party which forms the Government at the moment is not merely not given a prominent position, such as the County Councils' General Council is given, but is prevented from having any say in the nominations to the administrative panel. We can view the whole scheme now. I think each paragraph of this, as debated, simply turns the searchlight on some new political point in this whole matter of the building up of the Seanad. As I say, the introduction of the county councils was to add strength to the waning forces of the President in this House. Those forces were intended to be stronger, and the gerrymandering was done with the deliberate purpose of having them stronger. That has failed, and the President's threat last night was that he will probably, one of those days, kick overboard the principle of proportional representation altogether because it has not given him the strength he wants. We get the addition of the county councils, and even that as an electing body may be a failure, as the President announced yesterday—in case there should be any doubt about his point of view—that he will hold those 11 nominees to tilt the political balance. Then we come to the administrative panel. We have this glorious political body, bearing the complexion which the President wants—although he does not know anything about it—and the other one of the two bodies picked out is being compulsorily placed on the panel for the administrative group. The civil servants are definitely excluded.
I suppose there will be a parade of fair play when we come to deal with the suggestion that a Taoiseach can nominate two and that the ex-President of the Executive Council can nominate two. It used to be one of the points of criticism about the game of football as played in America that if a man who had a sore on his leg because of a previous injury went out wearing either a knee cap or a shinguard it only attracted attention to him, and his opponents belaboured the point that was covered. He exposed his weakness by having a shinguard. Think of the marked men the two nominees of the ex-President of the Executive Council will be. They are going to be exposed to the completely political electorate that the President has now achieved with regard to a Seanad. The ex-President of the Executive Council had better not nominate two people, because I should say there is going to be greater concentration on keeping those two off than there will be on those who are to be put on.
A point which I feel has been not completely understood in this scheme yet is the position of the Seanad returning officer. He looms largely over the whole picture. He is to be an appointee of the Government. He is, ominously enough, to be an appointee of the Minister for Local Government. No man incurred greater odium than that same Minister for his treatment of a certain head of a Department.
Are we discussing that now?
The merits or demerits of that particular question cannot be discussed now.
I want to put a point of order. The Seanad returning officer is part of this scheme. I suggest that that is the first step in any understanding of this matter. The Seanad returning officer is to be an appointee of the Minister for Local Government. That particular Seanad returning officer, we were told yesterday, was likely to be a civil servant. I hold that, in that context, I am entitled to refer to the activities of the Minister for Local Government with regard to civil servants.
On that point, may I suggest that if that matter is to be brought in, and allegations are made against the Minister for Local Government, then I certainly will have to deal with them.
Certainly.
Very well, then. The position then is that, when a person wants to get an excuse to bring up another matter for debate, he can do so, and make allegations which compel other people to follow his bad example in interfering with the ordinary course of the work?
It is not an excuse.
The displacement of a certain officer was fully discussed here in this House. While I allowed Deputy McGilligan to make a passing reference to the action of the Minister for Local Government in the displacement of that officer, I cannot allow the merits or demerits of that particular displacement from office to be discussed on this amendment.
I am not going to discuss it.
Will it not be in order—now that we are going to appoint a man to this important position, which will be under the control of the Government—to give a warning signal to the House as to what they were doing, in the light of the experience which this House has had of the Minister's treatment of officials who do not fall into line or have not a proper conception of the general policy of the Government? Surely, Sir, when we are going to put a man into this extraordinarily important position as regards the election of the Seanad, we should be allowed to point to this matter as a warning signal? I am not suggesting that it should be discussed, but merely referred to as a matter from which a lesson can be drawn.
I allowed Deputies to make certain passing references, and to say that a certain instance had occurred which might warn certain civil servants, but the going into the merits or demerits of that particular displacement from office is something which I cannot allow at this stage.
That point is fully accepted.
But if the fact that this matter occurred is not going to be simply referred to but to be characterised by phrases, it will involve discussion on our side.
The House clearly decided on this matter. There was a motion before the House in respect of that displacement from office.
Not before this House.
There is continuity of responsibilities, possibly.
Are we to assume that this is the same Government as the last?
I am not going to pontificate on something which is not before me. Clearly I cannot allow that matter to be re-opened. The question of the displacement from office of that particular officer cannot be re-opened.
Certainly not.
Nor can I allow phrases characterising it.
No, but we may draw a lesson from it.
Phrases characterising it may not be used.
That, I submit, is ruling a little in advance. If such phrases occur later they can be ruled on. The Seanad returning officer is to have great power. The Seanad returning officer builds up the list. The Seanad returning officer operates the terms of reference which are here, and he excludes certain bodies. There is a political committee of 15 representing the members of the Dáil and what the Seanad returning officer does can only be overthrown by a vote of nine out of that 15. That is a well-guarded position, if the Seanad returning officer is a well-guarded person. Is it possible to have him so? I suggest it is, and previous experience shows how it can be done.
We would be very glad to hear the Deputy's suggestions on that point.
An open mind?
All the time.
God help us.
I said that previous experience showed how it could be done. The President was so conscious of his weakness in regard to that previous experience that in a fumbling way yesterday he thought the Seanad returning officer might be made a whole-time officer. He was asked what that officer would revert to after he had discharged his official duties as a Seanad returning officer: would he revert to his Department? I got no clear answer from the President on that point. If he has to revert to his Department, where is the security for the individual? He is a civil servant one day, and he becomes the Seanad returning officer the next. The position as returning officer may last for about a month, and then the individual goes back to his Department and to a Minister whom he may have annoyed in his capacity as Seanad returning officer.
It was suggested here that he would be a whole-time officer. I submit that the term "whole-time officer" was never so misapplied, if that were to be the situation. The position would be that he would have a disturbed fortnight or a month every year, and he would be in perennial slumber if you except that period every year. I suggest it is a highly important position. We have often discussed this matter of provisional appointments, and they have been discussed from the point of view of the influence that could be brought to bear on anyone who might hold a certain appointment. If you control that man's life in his Department, you control him when he is in the so-called provisional appointment, although he is a so-called independent person in that capacity. Here we will have a man who will be in a position of amazing importance. Yesterday we were told that he was likely to be a civil servant, and yet we have no idea when he is to cease to be a whole-time officer, or whether he has to revert to his Department, having carried out those important functions to which I have referred.
There was reference here to the possibility of an individual in the Civil Service being seconded for the purpose of carrying out the duties of Seanad returning officer, and then he would revert to his Civil Service post. If that is the situation, he is going to have a comfortable time of it. He will be for a brief time carrying out those highly important duties of returning officer, but all the time he will be aware that he will have to go back and face the Minister in his Department. Again, I think the context of the whole building up of the Seanad counts. If the plan for the Seanad was clearly nonpolitical, if the President had gone out of his way to exclude political considerations, instead of going out of his way to bring them all in, then the Seanad returning officer appointed to revise the list and carry out his other onerous duties, might be in a position to say that he had his definite terms of reference, and that he had the general tendency of the Government displayed, and their whole attitude towards the Seanad proposal was to keep all sorts of political matters out of it. That would be a different situation.
What is the position with which we are faced? The Seanad returning officer will find everything warped and distorted, so that everything political is brought into the Seanad, and he merely becomes an important link in the political chain. Will anyone tell me that that is not going to have any influence on the mind of the man who is going forward for the post of Seanad returning officer? When he reads the Bill, and understands how it is all founded on political bodies, how here and there there is a special exaggerated expression of politics—in those circumstances is it going to be suggested here that you will get a Seanad returning officer who will be one day a civil servant, the next day an important official carrying out very important duties, and later becoming a civil servant again; and will it be said that he is not going to be influenced by the horrible experience of the late Secretary to the Department of Local Government? That warning stands there for everyone to read, and, worse than that, there stands the explanation given here.
I suggest that that will certainly colour the mind of any man appointed to this post and I will insist, as far as I can, in the details of this discussion, on bringing out what the powers of a Seanad returning officer are. I suggest he is meant to be a political figure; he is a completely incongruous bit in the scheme if he is not covered over with politics, with the political electorate of the Dáil, the insufficient Dáil in the eyes of the President, who gerrymandered the constituencies to give him a certain result. We have the addition of the county councils and the addition of this amazingly political body, the General Council of County Councils. When we have these things so marked with politics, can anybody believe that the Seanad returning officer is not meant to be as highly coloured politically as the rest? I suggest he is. I repeat that this is contrary to the Constitution and when we look at the practical working out of it we realise that it is intended to be the President's last and best effort to secure as thoroughly political an assembly as any man ever thought of.
The whole trouble in this matter has been that I cannot devise some system by which Fine Gael will get what they have not got at present, and that is a majority on representative bodies. That is the difficulty that it all boils down to. When we take out any of the bodies, it is immediately objected to, and the difficulty is ultimately shown to be that on this particular body Fine Gael has not got a majority. Yesterday it was suggested that the addition of the county councils meant that we were trying to load it in favour of our political Party. I got the numbers and mentioned them last night and it was clearly proved that if we were out for improving our position in the Seanad in that way we would really disimprove it, because our proportion of representatives on the county councils and the county boroughs would be only 44 per cent., while our representation is 60 per cent. here in the House.
The same thing is said about the General Council of County Councils. We cannot help, if we bring in representative institutions at all, if at the present time they do represent the feeling of the county generally, and it does give a majority on these bodies to Fianna Fáil. The sum total of all the opposition to the working out of this scheme is not that the bodies we are taking are not representative or are not of the type that would suggest itself to anybody trying to work out a scheme, but because they do not give a majority to the opposite Party. The fact is that they do represent public opinion and they do give certain majorities to us.
By 44 per cent.?
In the case of the addition of the county councils, it was objected that we were trying to load the dice by getting in these outside bodies. I proved that instead of that it would be weakening us if we had that consideration in mind. The Deputy who talked most about this is the Deputy who yesterday was going to offer us, for this transitional Seanad as he called it, anything we liked, provided we would start on some other scheme and spend the same amount of time in making out a scheme.
A decent scheme.
The Deputies on the other side had ample time in which to turn out a decent scheme and we can see all they did. It is not of such a character as to indicate that there is something wonderful in their ideals.
It is not political; it is not based on politics.
I am not going back over a criticism of the proposals of the Deputy. Even the permanent proposals suggested would indicate that you could have politics just as well if you wanted to.
Are they there?
They will be there if you want them. You could get them into any scheme.
Are they picked for politics?
That scheme is not under discussion.
I am going to continue to speak without bothering about the interruptions. I explained last night the basis of these schemes. I made quite clear that the present working out of a vocational Seanad could only be a compromise. It has been suggested now that these bodies are not representative. I suppose the General Council of County Councils would contain about 60 or 70 members and, because four or five, or seven or eight members are absent, we are to say that it is completely inefficient and unsuitable for doing the work we have suggested. Apparently, that is Deputy Gorey's idea. If certain people are not there, for one reason or another, it is to be ruled out as an unsuitable body. I hold that the General Council of County Councils is a suitable body to put up nominees for the administrative panel. With regard to all these panels and with regard to the particular purpose we have in view, I may perhaps, read paragraph 27 of the Seanad Commission Report:
"A proposal which recommended itself to some members of the Commission was that a proportion of the Second House be selected on the basis of vocations or occupations but these members did not reach a scheme which satisfied a majority of the Commission to recommend to you. It is to be noted, however, that a selection of members of the Second House on a basis of vocations or occupations was not contemplated for the purpose of making the Second House a body to represent such vocations or occupations in the discharge of the functions and powers of the Second House, but rather that it might be possible by selecting for a panel persons who had attained positions of responsibility or distinction in their own particular vocations or occupations to afford a wide choice of persons certainly qualified by their ability, character, knowledge and experience for membership of the House, and that the selection of members might be made on a political party basis."
Hear, hear!
And it is not being made on a political party basis.
"It is realised that the Second House is not to be contemplated as consisting of individual specialists in their own particular business whose function would be in the nature of giving expert advice on their own particular subjects, but it is repeated that it is suggested for the purpose of securing the selection of generally eligible persons to constitute the Second House who should be competent to deal with all its business whatever it may be."
The five panels are indicated there, and we are dealing at the moment with one of these panels—the administrative panel. We hold that the method by which the names for that administrative panel are to be found, as put down in our Bill, is a good method. You have those who either are or have been heads of Governments. They will have a knowledge of administration, or they should have, and each of them ought to be competent, with their experience, to put up the names of two persons at least. You have the General Council of County Councils, which is representative of 31 bodies. No doubt, it will change from election to election, but, if we are looking for people who, from their experience, could give us the names of persons suitable for the administrative panel, I cannot see how you could get a better body. They should, certainly, from the point of view of local administration, be able to indicate to us the names of persons who have that particular type of knowledge. We come, then, to the question of voluntary social activities. Provision is made by which the Seanad returning officer can, within the general limits in the Bill, register any bodies that come in and fall under that head. I repeat that we are not trying to get into this panel, and cannot get, in respect of any one of the panels, a group that will make it completely representative. The suggestion that that could be done is all nonsense. All we can do is make arrangements by which men who have special knowledge in these particular groups will be brought to the surface. With the municipal bodies we have here, the county councils, national administration and Deputies of the Dáil, surely we have a sufficiently wide selection for nomination to ensure that suitable people for that panel will be brought forward and put before the electoral college for election.
There is no doubt that you could, in respect of each one of these panels, have all sorts of types of organisation which might do the work, but we can take only a representative set. Deputy Dockrell, speaking on another panel— the cultural panel—tells us of the organisation of some of the professions. Undoubtedly, a number of the professions are organised. If we had only one or two professions, or groups of them, something might be said for putting one or two in the Bill—scheduling them as we are doing in this case.
But there are a very large number of them, and, in addition to the six from the universities, there are only five to be got. You will have difficulties in respect of these unless you are allowed to have a sufficiently large number. Various bodies will come on, and it may be a doctor or an architect or a lawyer who will be sent up by one of these bodies registered by the returning officer. It will be only one, two, three, four or five of these who will be elected by the electoral college. It would be impossible to have one from each group. If we wanted to have a Seanad as representative as some Deputies desire, Phoenix Park would be required to accommodate it, because we have all sorts of activities in the country, and we cannot hope to have a Seanad fully and absolutely representative of all activities. Deputy Dockrell clearly does not understand what I was referring to last night, and this is not the proper place to go into the explanation of it.
Probably not.
It is obvious that Deputy Dockrell does not understand what I was referring to.
You have not given your own second-hand explanation of it yet.
I am not going into any further explanation of it. I said all I wanted to say last night.
Did I misquote the President?
No. I did not say that. I say that the Deputy, from some of his remarks, clearly does not understand the scheme at all.
It was your fault.
I have not suggested whose fault it was. I say the Deputy clearly does not understand what I was referring to.
Quite clearly.
I was wrong in my interpretation?
What the Deputy said was completely away from what I stated. The position, therefore, with regard to these bodies is that, as a rule, leaving aside civil servants and officers of administration who would have to come in directly, those who have experience of public administration are people who have been put into these positions as a result of election by somebody or some group. They are, therefore, people who will either be found in this House or administering local services. That was the intention behind the words "administrative panel," and there is no use in saying that because we get the obvious groups to select and nominate these people, we are trying to make it a political matter. In its nature, it is a panel that would be most political because the people who would naturally come forward to it would be public administrators, and if you exclude civil servants, and, by that, I mean also servants of local bodies, when you are looking for people with knowledge of administration, public or local, you will naturally be looking to bodies who are of a political character.
It has been suggested that the civil servants ought to be included. I do not think so. I am going to be asked whether the Army or police force are also to be included. I do not think so. They are not being excluded once they are not in service. The ex-civil servant as an administrator is quite qualified to be put on the panel and can be put on it by any member of the Dáil or any person who is, or was, the head of a Government, and can be put on by either municipal or local authorities, if he has shown himself a good administrator as a servant of these bodies. It is not my intention, anyhow, to make specific provision for representation for Civil Service bodies. I do not think it would be a good principle to do it, and I should like to know if Deputies opposite really suggest that it should be done.
I do.
I disagree with the Deputy and I should like to see how many Deputies opposite are going to agree with him.
Are you interpreting this Party's thoughts now?
I should like to know how far the Deputy is interpreting his Party's thoughts.
I believe I am interpreting them in this matter.
I should like to hear some corroboration all the same.
And if you do, will that be regarded as proof?
I should like to know whether that is the interpretation of the viewpoint of the Party opposite. Whether it is their view, or only the view of one or two individuals in the Party, we do not propose to make that provision. I think it would be a bad provision, and I think that, so far as the administrative panel is concerned, between the members of the Dáil, the former heads of Governments, the General Council of County Councils and the municipal authorities' body, if there are people who deserve to be put into the Second House because of their knowledge of public administration, there are sufficient bodies there to bring names forward and put them up for election. Therefore, on the practical part of the proposal, I am standing on what is here. With regard to the suggestion that it is against the Constitution, I have again read over the Article in the light of the suggestions made by the Deputy, and I disagree with him. I think the clear and obvious interpretation of the section of the Constitution is that the manner of forming the panels was to be determined by law. That is exactly what we are doing and that, when they are formed, they should consist of persons with knowledge and personal experience is being provided for.
I have a certain sympathy with the President in connection with this whole matter. There is a film running in Dublin at present called "The Road Back" and I am afraid the President is in precisely that position in relation to this and other matters. It is a most melancholy position to have to retrace your footsteps and to have to ask the Dáil to enact legislation of this kind. The President fulminated against this undesirable type of legislative machine less than 12 months ago and he comes here to-day as a person who has got to retrace his footsteps. Naturally, he is showing all the irritability and bad temper that goes hand in hand with that sorry journey. I am sorry for the President. It is a pity that he should be put in the position of having to lose his temper so frequently.
The Deputy's idea of a person losing his temper is rather funny.
I am prepared to allow the matter to be adjudicated upon by anybody, except the electoral panel which the President will set up under this Bill. Anybody listening to the President and seeing the sharp bursts of lost temper over this business will have no hesitation in realising that the President is irritated.
The only thing that irritates me is the clock.
I know that. We saw last week, and every week since the general election, that the clock and the calendar are two objectionable things to the President. He dislikes the clock and the calendar, and he is now developing the complex that he even dislikes the Dáil, because, for 17 weeks, the Dáil was permitted to sit only on seven days.
That matter was discussed this morning and is scarcely relevant now.
The President is provoking another discussion by referring to these factors of time and place which are irritating him. I know that the President would like to come in here with a crazy scheme of this character and to say "This is the best scheme you can devise. If you cannot understand it, you are deficient in intelligence, but take our word for it, it is a good scheme, the best that can be got and let us get through with it." The President does not like anybody to put the microscope to his proposals and that is the explanation of all the irritability that has been shown during the last 20 minutes and during previous discussions. We had another outburst last night. I object to this whole nomination scheme of the Government and, in particular, to the circumscribed method of nomination provided in the amendment. The President may genuinely believe that the General Council of County Councils is not a political body. Nobody else believes it.
He does not say whether he believes it—he just does not know.
That was in relation to the question of the majority on it, which is a very different thing.
If the President cared to make inquiries in the matter——
I have not been able to get that information as to what are the Party numbers on it.
It is the only occasion on which the Party machine has failed to get information of use to the President and it is an imperfection which, I am sure, the President will repair shortly. If the President would make inquiries in this matter, he would realise perfectly clearly that the General Council of County Councils is a political body.
I did not deny that it was political in character.
We know the manner in which it is constituted. It is constituted in a manner favourable to the Government.
Because we happen to be in the majority. That is the only reason.
44 per cent?
And complete control of the council?
Deputy Norton is in possession.
Now we get a line on the President's view. I say that it is a political body and favourable to the Government. The President says: "Yes, because we are in the majority," but a few moments ago he said that, after checking up the county council representation, he discovered that the Government Party had only about 44 per cent.
That is on the electorate body that has been constituted.
The general council is elected by those bodies of which the Government has only 44 per cent. and it is rather strange that a minority of 44 per cent. could elect a majority favourable to the Government on the general council.
I am only assuming that.
Do not look into it—you might find it out.
I might discover the same thing as I discovered last night.
You were just as positive last night.
It is a great thing not to have information.
Sometimes it does not add to your knowledge.
The difficulty is to ascertain who is stating the facts in this matter. The former Government newspaper organ—I say former advisedly, because the new organ is the Irish Times—told us in 1934 that the Government had swept the country in the local elections, and that they had an outstanding majority on the county councils. I am sure that that paper was not rebuked by the President. He has a certain interest in the newspaper which made that statement. While the former organ of the Government stated that they had a majority on the county councils, we now find that the President discovers they have only 44 per cent. Whom are we to believe in the matter? Is it the President or the Irish Press is the model of truth in the news? That newspaper states that the Government had a majority, and the President says that they have only 44 per cent. Whom are we to believe?
We are bigger than any other Party.
That is not the statement of the former Government organ.
I do not know what the numbers are.
That is our difficulty. A paper of that kind, boasting of the volume of truth which emanates from it, says that the Government has a majority, and the President, in order to get this Bill through, says that they have not; that they have only 44 per cent. I think the Irish Press is right on this occasion.
The figures I have show the opposite.
The President may quarrel with the statement, but I think it is right, and that the Government has a majority on the county councils, while he has got figures showing that the Government has only 44 per cent. of the representation. I believe the percentage is higher, and I believe it is because it is higher that this peculiar method of creating an electoral college has been devised, as it is going to give the Government an under preponderance in the college.
I gave the figures last night.
You issued a manifesto after the election that did not show that.
I suggest that we are dealing with one particular question now.
I suggest that the President should allow Deputy Norton to continue.
The trouble is that the President believes, for the purpose of this Bill, that the Government has a minority on the county councils. My view is that they have a majority.
The Deputy should not repeat himself.
It has not got home.
The President repeated himself much more frequently, and I am doing so because the President is testing the accuracy of my statement What is the object of this nomination scheme? The whole method of having an electoral college composed overwhelmingly of representatives of county councils, on which the Government has a majority, is for one purpose only, to give the Government a majority in the Second House. Here we have a further attempt to make sure that that majority will be secured by leaving the County Councils General Council and the Municipal Association in a privileged position with regard to nomination to the college. I object to that restriction. I object to it all the more because, in the long run, those who would be electing persons to constitute the new Seanad will be persons bound to render allegiance to the Government. The nomination aspect of the Government's proposals is bad, but it is worse when you consider the type of electoral college that is to be constituted for election of the Seanad. If the scheme relied upon election by the Dáil, it would not really be as bad as the nomination scheme, based upon election by an electoral college overwhelmingly favorable to the Government. If there were nominations by outside bodies and the Dáil, and a provision by which the new Seanad would be elected by the Dáil, I do not think that would be as bad as this scheme. What makes the nomination scheme more objectionable is that it is not only nomination of a character favourable to the Government, when prescribed in this fashion, but from these nominations the new Seanad will be elected on a basis distinctly favourable to the Government. When discussing this at the Select Committee, the outstanding point on which there was agreement, certainly so far as the transitional Seanad was concerned, was the belief of all Parties that the Dáil should be the ultimate electorate. In the main Bill there was provision for the Dáil, and for certain persons who were candidates at the last election who received a certain number of votes, but when that proposal was examined in Committee there was a desire on the part of the Government to shed that part of the scheme. They realised that in the long run the Dáil electorate was a better electorate than the Dáil plus unsuccessful candidates who fought the last election. I do not think that can be challenged. The Government viewpoint was that the Dáil should be the ultimate authority to elect the new Seanad, so that, although nomination might come from the Dáil and outside bodies, even the President's Party on the Committee realised that the simplest and most expeditious method of electing a Seanad was to concentrate the election in the hands of the Dáil. I am amazed that the Government has now swung away completely from that method of election, and given us a nomination scheme with the worst possible type of electorate. That is my objection to the nomination scheme, and my objection to the electorate scheme. I think the nomination scheme takes on a much more serious and ugly aspect when it is remembered that it is of that type.
With regard to the business for next week, I understand the House will adjourn now until Tuesday, and that there will be no meeting on Wednesday.
So I understand.
Is it understood that Private Deputies' business will be taken on Tuesday?
Is it possible to have Private Deputies' business taken that day?
That is a matter for the Government.
Is it not a matter that might be determined by a motion before the House for Thursday?
That will be considered.
I do not want to put down a motion if it will be ruled out.
The Standing Orders make no provision for taking Private Deputies' business on Tuesdays.
Is it proposed to give Private Deputies' time any day next week? Have you received any information that Private Deputies' time will be given next week in substitution for Wednesday?
I have received no intimation either way.
May I ask the President, through you, if it is proposed to give Private Deputies' time next week?
I do not see any prospect for Private Deputies' time next week at the rate at which we are making progress. It is essential that this Bill should be put through, and we have only a comparatively short time to do so. There will have to be an interruption to discuss the position and changes at some stage. I think it is only right that Deputies should have the complete scheme when we have got a first run through the amendments. It may be necessary to have an interval of some days before the Bill is taken finally, and we have only a very short time for that.
We adjourned after one day's sitting in the past three weeks.
The Deputy knows that this Bill could not be ready then.
Is that the fault of the House?
