Motion No. 1 on the Order Paper is in the names of Deputies O'Higgins and McGilligan, and there is an amendment to the motion in the names of Deputies Cogan and Donnellan. I should like to point out that the Deputy seconding the motion has a right to reserve his speech, but such a right does not obtain in the case of a Deputy seconding the amendment.
Private Deputies' Business. - Method of Seanad Elections— Motion.
I move:—
That the Dáil disapproves of the present method of electing the Seanad and calls for the appointment of a committee to make recommendations on the subject.
In moving the motion standing in the names of Deputy McGilligan and myself, Sir, I should like to apologise for the fact, which has just come to my knowledge, that the taking of this motion now has inconvenienced the Taoiseach. I very much regret that inconvenience. I do not think, however, that we can be accused of any impatience with regard to this particular motion, when I remind the Taoiseach that it was on the Order Paper in ample time, if it were accepted, to have a committee sitting and have come to its conclusions in time to have a new form of election to the Seanad for the general election to the Seanad for 1943.
This motion has been on the Order Paper since—one Parliament after another—but only on one occasion was it reached in the order of business here, and on that occasion some prosecutions were taking place in the courts with regard to elections to the Seanad and, of course, it would be entirely improper to discuss it under such circumstances. Now, at the end of nearly four years, I move the motion that we should have some system of electing a Seanad other than the existing one and that a committee be appointed to make recommendations.
Now, under the Constitution we are bound to have some form of vocational Seanad, and I think that in dealing with the Seanad, having passed the Constitution—passed it by the House and passed it by the people—we should at least try to carry out the desires and expressions of that Constitution in the spirit as well as in the letter. Anyone examining for half a moment our present Seanad will see at a glance that the vocational side of the present Seanad is a mere sham and humbug— just a false dummy in the window. We have a Seanad far more politically concentrated than is this Dáil itself. We go through the farce of asking bodies— so-called vocational organisations—to nominate a couple of members for the Seanad; and what vocational bodies will have the right to nominate is decided by a purely political court on a majority of votes: a body drawn here from this Assembly, voting along political lines and deciding that this body will have the right to nominate and that another will not.
Leaving that aside, however, as one of the evils inherent in the very scheme itself, and assuming that these so-called vocational bodies put forward their nominees, they then step out of the picture, and the electorate called on to elect or defeat those nominees are the most politically-minded electorate that it would be possible to get in this country—the Deputies of this House, every one of them elected on a political ticket, and practically every one of them subject to a Party Whip and Party discipline.
That is half of the electorate that is asked to vote for the election or defeat of the nominees of these so-called vocational organisations that are thrown into the political arena. The rest of the electorate consists of seven members from each county council; and the Government, through the mouth of the Taoiseach and through the mouths of every one of his important Ministers, have insisted that every little town commissioner in Ireland will be elected on his political affiliations, carrying his political flag, and that anybody who does not carry the political flag of Fianna Fáil is to be annihilated from the public life of this country or from holding a seat on any public board. So seven members of each council, elected according to the Government's desire as rabid politicians, are the collegiate that are called on to elect to this Second House of Parliament—to select so many men who have done honour to the nation. Each of those electors is given a voting strength of a thousand votes, and any candidate for election is told: "There is the electorate, from Donegal to Cork, from Dublin to Mayo. Get your seven individuals, by any means you can, who will vote for you as a Senator, and then you are a Senator", and the means adopted by not a few, but many, in the public estimation, were such as to pull down in dirt and discredit the Parliament of this country.
The Taoiseach does not live so very far above the clouds that he is unaware of the motives that stimulate me and others in putting down that particular motion. It was put down at a time when there was no election; when an election was sufficiently far off to have this matter approached by all in a spirit of doing the best we could for the good name of the State. It was put down, not after one Seanad election, but after two or three thoroughly discreditable Seanad elections, when it could not be beyond the knowledge of any Deputy in this House, or anybody outside the House who had any respect for the good name of the country, that something had to be done to rectify the matter and to adopt some other machinery of election. Since then, of course, we have had cases in court, and in connection with the cases in court nobody would be foolish enough to think that any but a very tiny fraction of the number of cases of bribery and corruption could possibly be brought before our courts.
If a man buys a vote and another sells it, that is not done in the public market square; it is done in private. Where is the evidence to come from, or where is the information to come from? Neither of those people is going to tell on the other. I say in all honesty as a person having a close, active and intimate association with Seanad elections, having discussed the matter with members of the Taoiseach's Party, that it with members of other Parties, that it is within the knowledge of every one of us who takes an interest in Seanad elections that there was most discreditable buying and selling of votes. Human nature would not be what it is if you did not have that kind of activity, where you devise a scheme that persons can get a seat in the Seanad if they can get six or seven or even less votes throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. Surely it should be obvious from the very day the scheme was devised that, at least, it invited that kind of activity. I merely ask other Deputies, and particularly, the Taoiseach, if they have lived so far away from the affairs of this country that they are not very well aware of the discreditable activities that take place in the course of Seanad elections. The Taoiseach's own Party directors have lost votes; they know how votes are lost, and they know how preferences come back on regimented orders, after the first has gone elsewhere, and they know the reason why.
If we cannot elect another House by any other system than the present one, then I would be inclined to say, bad and all as it was, we were better off with a single Chamber than to have the other House built up, to a great extent, on bribery and breaches of the law. What respect could anybody have for a Parliament legislating for a State where that Parliament is built up on corruption, bribery and illegal practices? I do not pose as a person anyway expert or knowledgeable in Constitution building. I do not put myself forward as a person anyway competent even to make suggestions as to how a Second House should be elected or constituted, but I venture to say that any system devised by the most shallow-minded could not be worse than the present system, or be so wide open to corruption and bribery. If the idea of electing a Seanad is to make the mathematical processes involved in the election so difficult, that they cannot be followed by the average man or woman, then I say the present system meets with complete success. The greatest experts have been puzzled in the course of the Seanad count.
Leaving aside the question of election, when you have such a farce as a Senator being elected by his own vote, and no other vote, and another candidate at the same election polling more than eight and being eliminated, whilst the man who polled only one vote is honest enough to say that it was his belief that it was his own vote, then people begin to understand the kind of freak House we have established. Eleven members are nominated by one man, the head of a political Party, and 43 are elected by the type of electorate I pointed out. With all these avenues of corruption there, you had in the course of the election one man being elected by one vote, and another man who had eight being eliminated towards the end of the hunt as well as a number of people with quotas.
If I were to make any suggestion, I would certainly say that in this year of 1945, if we are to recognise vocational bodies or vocational organisation, and if we are sincere in the desire for a vocational Seanad, the least we should do is to allow authorised vocational bodies the right to elect Senators—not the right of pitchforking in nominated Senators by that form of electorate. Every one of the vocational bodies in the course of time has got wise. In the earlier Seanad elections they nominated presidents or their most prominent men, who were representative of particular vocational organisations. They saw with a political electorate that their nominees could not get a single vote and then they changed their tactics. What did we find in recent elections? They go down the ranks of these organisations and find some member strongly and actively identified with one of the larger political Parties. They nominate that man because he can get votes, not as a vocational representative, but as a representative of a political Party, and when he goes to the Seanad he does not go to represent any vocational organisation but to carry the political flag and to represent the political Party that elected him.
Then there is this political court that decides what is a vocational organisation. I venture to say, speaking with no particular professional sense or favours that the oldest and most highly organised vocational assembly in any western European country is the medical association where you can carry no bogus members, where State law has laid it down that a man must have a diploma before he is on the register, where members are knit closely into an organisation that looks after ethics, discipline, conduct and post-graduate training. There you get such an organisation thrown out by a political court as not having the right to nominate, while mushroom political organisations are recognised as nominators.
It should not be necessary to argue whether it is a good or a bad Seanad, whether it is a vocational Seanad or otherwise. All that should be necessary in a House of representative people, each one having more or less general knowledge of the whole country and a peculiar knowledge of his own constituents would be to ask them honestly to search their own minds as to the activities that are the accompaniment of every Seanad election and the amount of corruption, bribery and illegality. That is the kind of weapon that has been forged to break down the morale of the representatives of the people. The temptation is there and it has grown with every single Seanad election from the first to the fourth, until, finally, we have reached the point that a man who is straightforward and honourable with regard to his vote, who has a regard for it, is regarded as a man who does not appreciate the asset that is put into his hand, while the man who "cashes in", who uses his cheque-book, is regarded as a businessman. That is the kind of demoralisation we are spreading throughout the country. That is the way we are sapping the honour of the public men of the country. The Taoiseach must know that we have reached a position where money passes not only for the Seanad vote but for the election of the seven men on the councils who are to have votes for the Seanad. That is happening in a State where, practically 20 years ago, the Parliament made up its mind that all activities of public representatives that might even be suspect of being open to bribery or of tempting men to depart from the course of honour by a financial inducement should be set aside through the medium of the Public Appointments Committee. Later on, in the Taoiseach's own time as head of Government, practically all powers were taken from the various councils and one of the arguments used was that there was a certain amount of petty corruption in connection with contracts, appointments and other things. Having ensured that there would be no opening or avenue by which any of our public men on local boards could be tempted by a bribe when it came to the making of an appointment or by which the morale of any public man could be sapped when it came to the making of a contract, we destroyed our Second House and then reconstituted it and, in doing that, manufactured in concentrated form, at a very high figure, avenues of corruption, opportunities for bribery and scope for breaking down the morale of public men up and down the country. And we have the audacity to call that a vocational Seanad!
The Taoiseach may reply on the argumentative line. He may take up that quibbling line: if we all know so much, why do we not come forward with the information; why are there not more cases in the courts? In the privacy of his own Party rooms, will he put that question? Will he take individual Deputies of his own Party in private and ask them, one by one, if the statements I am making are not facts and are not very generally known? The man in the street, the man in the council, the elector up and down the country know very well what happens in connection with Seanad elections. I am prepared to subscribe to any form of Seanad which may be evolved—even from the ranks of the Government Party—that will close up the avenues of corruption. I should rather see the Taoiseach and his Party leaders meet in camera and nominate the whole Seanad than continue to pretend to have respect for a Seanad elected and constituted as the present one is.
I am not moving this motion on the eve of a general election. There is time to take counsel, at least to get together a committee of well-intentioned people, representative of every Party in the House, and put the question to them whether our present system is not associated with, and wide-open to, corruption. If the answer is "Yes", surely, in the interests of the good name of the country, we should have a House built along purer lines. Surely, if we have any respect for the future of the country and if we know that there is a demoralising factor at work —a factor forged by ourselves and operating periodically to break down the morale of public men, already very much undermined—it is the duty of every one of us, irrespective of where we sit in this House, to do whatever we can to check the growth of that cancer. The demand made in this motion is merely that a committee look into the whole matter and that suggestions or recommendations made by that committee be considered by the Government before the next Seanad election.
There is an amendment to this motion asking that the committee be restricted to recommending a Seanad constituted on purely vocational lines. I have no objection whatever to that amendment. It is, more or less, in conformity with the Constitution. It would put into practice the words and ideas expressed in the Constitution. How exactly it would be done is not covered by the amendment. Some group has to be got together to make recommendations. A start has to be made somewhere.
If this motion be rejected by the Government, as one election follows another, the very echoes of our footsteps through this building will be accusing us of having, for political reasons, corrupted the whole public life of the country from top to bottom. I urge on the Taoiseach that I am not talking along political lines. If the Taoiseach thinks that I am having a tilt at his own Party when I refer to bribery and that sort of thing, I may say that people who have supported this Party have engaged as freely in that practice as anybody else. So far as I can see, it does not depend on a man's political affiliations; it depends on his bank account. If that is big enough, it does not matter whether he is Fianna Fáil or a supporter of any other Party, he will use that bank account in the best way he can when it comes to the election. Every one of us knows that that is true.
I formally second the motion.
I move the amendment on the Order Paper:—
To delete all words after the word "recommendations" and substitute the following:—"for the election of a Seanad on truly vocational lines."
Our object in putting down this amendment was effectively to ensure that the deliberations of the committee proposed under the motion would be narrowed down to recommending a truly vocational Seanad. We had no criticism of the motion to offer in putting down the amendment. We entirely approve of the motion. We simply seek to supplement it by ensuring that, in the reform proposed, we shall have a Seanad which will be worthy of the country. It would be possible, under the terms of the motion in the names of Deputies O'Higgins and McGilligan, for the committee to recommend a Seanad which would not be vocational. It might, possibly, recommend a very good and useful type of Seanad which would not be vocational. But, in the best interests of the country and in order to secure representation for large sections of the community who have not an adequate voice in this House, we seek to ensure by our amendment that the second House shall be elected on different lines from those on which this House is elected— that it shall be elected not on the basis of geographical divisions of the country, as this House is, but on the basis of vocational divisions.
I am in complete agreement with everything that has been said by Deputy O'Higgins in regard to the present system of electing the Seanad. It is a deplorable system and one which must stand condemned in the eyes of every right-thinking person. Vocational organisations have the right to nominate a certain number of candidates but they have no right to elect them. The right to elect is confined to members of the Dáil and certain members of the county councils. Even if we were to accept that, we should still have to admit that the machinery of election provided at present is open to the most serious abuse.
What system could be more open to abuse than a system by which the voting paper is sent to the individual elector in the country at least 14 days before it is necessary to return it? There you have a position in which a man, perhaps in very poor circumstances, finds himself in possession of a ballot paper. He finds that he has 14 days in which to fill that paper. At any time within that 14 days, he may be called upon by a candidate or an agent of the candidate who will, for a financial consideration, request that the paper be filled in in his presence. Even if we were to discard all idea of sweeping reform of the present system of electing the Seanad, at least we should abolish that system by which the ballot paper is left in the hands of an elector for over two weeks. That could be easily eliminated from the present procedure by providing that the voting should take place on a certain day. For example, in regard to Deputies, the voting could take place here in Leinster House and in regard to members of the county council the voting could take place in the council chamber in each county on one particular day. All danger of bribery and corruption would, to a considerable extent at any rate, be eliminated, but that has not been done.
I do not want a small or minor reform in regard to the election of the Seanad. I am suggesting and our Party is suggesting, in agreement with the chief Opposition Party, that there should be a far-reaching reform, a reform based on a system of some direct vocational representation. The Vocational Organisation Commission recommended the organisation of the various sections of our people into vocational groups with a central council for each vocation. They also recommended that those central councils of each vocation should elect a general supreme assembly, representative of all the various vocations. Would not that general vocational assembly be the natural Seanad or Second Chamber for this State?
It is, I must say, somewhat distasteful to have to speak in this House in this manner in regard to the election of a Second Chamber. We know that in the Second Chamber at the present time, and perhaps ever since it was established, we have many of the most worthy members of society, many of the ablest public representatives. We do not wish to cast any reflection on these people but I think that the very system by which the election to the Seanad is carried out casts a reflection upon every able and honourable man who seeks election to the Seanad. The very fact that the system is open to abuse, the very fact that, as Deputy Dr. O'Higgins has pointed out, there have been abuses, does definitely cast a slur upon every member of the Second Chamber, and every member of the Second Chamber feels, I am sure, conscious of that slur being cast upon him. Let us, therefore, while there is time—it is possible there may not be another Seanad election for a couple of years—take steps to reform the system of election. Let us set up a committee as recommended in this motion and, I suggest, without asking them to roam over all the various systems of election that can be conceived, to confine themselves to the election of the Seanad on vocational lines. The Committee investigating this matter would have, for their guidance, the very able and comprehensive report submitted by the Vocational Organisation Commission. I am sure the Taoiseach does not agree with his colleague, the Tánaiste, that that report was a slovenly document or that it contained any inaccuracies or misstatements. I think that that report would be of immense value to any committee set up to inquire into the best means of electing a Second Chamber.
It might be perhaps suggested, coming down to the machinery of election, that all citizens of this State should be registered according to their various occupations and that each citizen should have a vote for the Second Chamber as he has for this House. I do not think that such a system of election would commend itself generally. It would, of course, give you a Second Chamber that would be as representative and as democratic as this House, but it might give you a Second Chamber that would be perhaps too democratic. It might perhaps have a better claim to be regarded as the real representative body in this State instead of Dáil Eireann.
I do not think that such a system of election would be necessary. I think that a vocational commission would be inclined to suggest that each vocation set up its organisation, if it has not done so, and that the organisation representative of each vocation would elect directly its representatives to the Seanad. No useful purpose is served by the present system by which duly registered vocational bodies merely nominate their candidates and have them overthrown, when it comes to election, by the nominees of political Parties. I think there should be, and I believe there is, in this country general approval of the terms of the motion and, I am inclined to think also, of the terms of the amendment. I think the Taoiseach will have no difficulty in deciding upon acceptance of both the motion and the amendment.
I second the amendment because I think it is a most important addendum to the motion. Deputy Dr. O'Higgins has asked how that was going to be carried out. Our idea is that it is a matter for this committee to decide. While we may throw a big slur on the present method, it is something that has been tried out and, like many other things, has been found wanting and we believe that it would be well that a change were made. As far as vocationalism is concerned, in my opinion, the Seanad at the present moment is a dead letter. I know, as a member of a local body that takes part in selecting voters, what really happens. When the time comes to select voters, each Party meets, each political crowd meets. They decide who their men are. They decide how they will vote and to whom they will give their first, second and third votes, and so on. These votes are sent up to be counted and the result is that the seven men selected by each county council are definitely seven born politicians. Otherwise they would not be selected. Has the Taoiseach ever tried to find out how many men of independent view become Seanad voters? Not a single one in my opinion. I do not say that Fianna Fáil are to blame for that any more than Fine Gael or any more than we are. It is the game and each crowd plays it, with the result that the men that are elected are elected not because they are representatives of any particular vocation but because they are Party supporters. We vote for them because they are Clann na Talmhan supporters; Fianna Fáil vote for them because they are Fianna Fáil supporters; Fine Gael vote for them because they are Fine Gael supporters, and the Labour Party vote for them because they are Labour supporters. Undoubtedly, that is so. That happens in regard to the seven men selected by the various county councils.
What happens in regard to the votes of Deputies? The very same thing. Therefore as far as vocationalism in the Seanad is concerned, it is dead. It is my opinion that, no matter what association puts forward a candidate, the candidate is elected if he has a Party following to give him the required number of votes and, no matter how good a man may be, a Fine Gael voter will not give him a vote if he is not a Fine Gael supporter; Fianna Fáil will not vote for him if he is not a Fianna Fáil supporter and the same applies all over the House.
Therefore some method must be found if we are to have a vocational Second House. The present method certainly has proved a failure. Before a Seanad election takes place, a Deputy cannot walk down the steps of Leinster House without being surrounded by people he may have heard of before and people he never heard of before. Of course, these people waste their time because, if they knew the game, they would know that it is decided in the Party room who is who. I appeal therefore to the Taoiseach and to the Government to accept the motion. In any case, what harm will it do to set up such a committee? Certainly, I know it would be very hard to find a way out of the present method. The idea of going before the country and having the Seanad elected on the same lines as the Dáil is elected would be nearly impossible to implement but some method other than the present one must be found.
I do not wish to say anything here about the people who are in the Second House. Some of them very well deserve to be there, undoubtedly. Deputy Cogan said that some of the people there are a credit to the State. Undoubtedly they are but, at the same time, when a slur can be cast upon any section of the House it can generally be cast on all the House. Therefore, I would appeal to the Taoiseach to consider the setting up of this committee and to accept the amendment, to have the Seanad elected on truly vocational lines, because that was the intention in the Constitution. At the moment, vocationalism in the Seanad is dead. It is elected on purely Party lines.
I agree with Deputy Dr. O'Higgins also that very often vocational bodies, instead of selecting the man who probably would be the best representative, go down the field to find a man who has political associations of one kind or another and who for that reason would have a better chance of election. That does not help and such a method does not produce the Seanad that we expected or that the Constitution intended.
I desire to support the motion and, if necessary, would appeal to the Taoiseach to accept it because, I think, it is generally admitted throughout the country that the present system of electing the Seanad certainly has not the approval of the people and does not meet with the approval of the general body of supporters of any Party in this House. Personally I should prefer to revert to the old system of electing a Second Chamber by the vote of the people as a whole rather than that we should continue the existing system which undoubtedly leads to a good deal of abuse.
So far as corruption and bribery are concerned, corruption and bribery in the case of election to the Seanad have been proved in the courts of this country. I have no hesitation in stating that that might have been proved in many other cases if people had the courage to come forward and produce the evidence that was in their possession. The striking thing about the convictions that took place in the courts was that the agents of the candidates, who were known not to be men of money, were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment whereas the gentlemen who provided the money appeared to have escaped. One of the principal prosecution witnesses in connection with the court case admitted on cross-examination—this was published in the papers—that he himself did not adhere to the method of election—the election is supposed to be carried out in secret—and that he handed in his own voting paper to his own Party headquarters. That in itself, as far as I know, was illegal. It was admitted in court and no action appears to have been taken.
I want to say, with Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, that charges of corruption and bribery are not being thrown across the House, as far as I am concerned, against Fianna Fáil supporters because, if I made such a charge, I, personally, could not prove it. I am sorry to have to admit that from my own intimate knowledge of the method of selection and election, and particularly the method of election, in connection with the Seanad, such charges could be thrown against the people who themselves have been elected to local authorities and who are voters and who pretended to be supporters of the Labour Party. The charge could be made against supporters of this Party. There is not any doubt about that, and if I am satisfied that such a charge could be made, although it might not be proved in a court of law, but that there are any grounds for believing that such a charge could be correctly made against supporters of the Labour Party, as a Labour Deputy of this House, I am prepared to support the motion and to advocate some other system of election to the Seanad.
Deputy Donnellan, I think, was correct when he said that the biggest gathering to be found in Leinster House is after the first meeting of a Dáil. It consists mainly of defeated candidates of every Party in the country who come here for the first meeting of the new Dáil for the purpose of canvassing Deputies to get on the panel of candidates for the Seanad election. Some of these people, owing to their political influence, are put on the panel of candidates by every Party—Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour and Clann na Talmhan. That can be proved by the list of defeated candidates at the last general election, who were nominated for the Seanad by every Party in this House. Some of those who were defeated candidates at the Dáil election were also defeated at the Seanad election because they were not able, by peaceful persuasion at any rate, to get sufficient of their own Party supporters in this House and on the local authorities to return them as members of the Seanad.
The Taoiseach knows, and no one knows it better than he does, that candidates of his own Party who were defeated at the Dáil election were subsequently defeated at the Seanad election after being nominated by the Party. He himself put some of these persons into the Seanad amongst the 11 persons he has the right as the Head of the Government to nominate. They had three chances, and at least they got in on the third occasion. They went before the people of the country and were turned down. They were put up by the Party managers and nominated for the Seanad, but they were defeated by the votes of their own colleagues in this House and their supporters on the local authorities. Then the Taoiseach comes along for the third time and nominates some of these people, including some distinguished members of his own Party and, in particular, a very distinguished lady. There is something wrong when that kind of thing goes on, not alone in the Fianna Fáil Party but every other Party. We could not have a worse system than the existing one. So far as I know the views of the people of the country, particularly my own supporters, they would support any other kind of system than the existing system. Any other kind of system would produce better results and better members of the Seanad.
The Taoiseach could, if he wished, have secured the election of the Head of the State on the last occasion with the consent of the representatives of all Parties in this House, but he preferred—and I do not criticise him for doing it—to have the Head of the State elected by the vote of the people. Deputies were elected by the votes of the people, and nobody can say that anybody in this House has sufficient money at his disposal or the backing of any bank manager to get sufficient money to buy a position in this House. The same can be said for the Head of the State, who was elected in the most democratic way by the people to the important position which he has the great honour to occupy at the present moment. If we cannot find a better system of election for the Second Chamber, then we should go back to the system that is good enough for electing the Head of the State and the members of this House without any charge of bribery or corruption being made against them.
I should like to say a few words in support of the motion. I think it is universally agreed, after the experience of the last three or four Seanad elections, particularly the last two elections, that the system of election should be changed. If further proof were required of that it was furnished by the fact that subsequent to the last Seanad election a prosecution was instituted and a person was convicted. It will, possibly, be argued that, because no evidence of corruption has been produced, there are no grounds for accepting or passing this motion. Whatever truth or validity that argument had prior to the institution of the prosecution within the last 12 months, it no longer holds. Although it may be argued that only one or two people were involved in that prosecution, it nevertheless proved clearly that, so far as these people were concerned, bribery was the motive and bribes were accepted by these people for their votes in the election. But, irrespective of the actual case which was brought to light, there were very strong rumours which were not confined to one political Party.
I have discussed this matter with a number of people who are interested in different Parties and they have nearly all agreed that the present system is not suitable. Even people who are more intimately associated with a political Party than others are at one in their condemnation of this system, not alone from the point of view of the Seanad not being vocational except in name, but because it leaves the whole election to the Seanad wide open to corruption. Not only has it resulted in one prosecution and conviction but there is nobody associated with any Party in this House who is not entirely convinced that, while it may not be true of every Senator or even of a majority, at any rate a number of Senators or people on their behalf approached Seanad electors and offered them certain sums of money as a consideration for their votes.
Leaving that aside entirely, I think Deputies must agree that the Seanad as at present constituted is not a truly vocational one or is not vocational in any respect except in name. I shall give one example which is possibly the strongest that can be given in support of that argument. On one occasion Dr. Douglas Hyde was a candidate for the Seanad and did not receive a single vote. He had not the good fortune like another candidate for the Seanad to be a voter himself and therefore could not vote for himself. Subsequently he was nominated by the Taoiseach as a member of the Seanad and after that he was an agreed nomination, at any rate by a majority of this House, for the Presidency. He has been referred to on numerous occasions by different political personages as a widely cultured man who rendered great service to the national language and who was eminently suited for the position to which he was nominated. That is proof at any rate that Deputies consider that if he was fit to be unanimously selected by them as President he was fit to be selected and would have performed his duties satisfactorily as a Senator. That is only one instance, but it is the most striking instance of the non-vocational character of the Seanad.
It is not a very pleasant duty to name people who have received no votes in the Seanad elections. But numerous bodies such as the Royal Society of Antiquaries, the Royal Dublin Society, the Medical Council, the Dental Council, and some other vocational bodies who have no political affiliations nominated their president or secretary or some other prominent member as candidates for the Seanad.
On practically every occasion, their candidates received no votes. There may be two explanations for that. One is that the candidates had not sufficient political influence to secure support from a large body of political opinion, namely, either a political Party in the House or members of the county councils. On the other hand, I think it is true to say that the majority of county councillors have never heard of certain of these bodies. They may have heard the name of the Royal Society of Antiquaries or of the Dental Board or the Medical Association, or may have read of them in the papers; but there are some bodies of which they have never heard, or if they did, they have not had any contact with or knowledge of the individuals.
It is in no way a test of a person's right to represent those bodies or institutions as a vocational representative that county councillors or even Deputies should be aware of the particular qualifications of those people. It is not a councillor's duty or a Deputy's duty to ascertain who are or are not distinguished people in a particular profession. It may be that it would be useful knowledge to him, but it is not portion of his public work and it does not come into the ordinary course of his duties as a public representative. To say the least of it, it means putting an extra tax on his energies—in many cases, on the already over-taxed energies of some of these public representatives.
As one election succeeds another, we have seen that these bodies have ceased to bother about the election. A few of them have decided that, if they have a person who has political affiliations, he is the best person to nominate. Others of them have not even bothered to nominate, except in cases where it was obligatory on them to do so, under the Seanad Electoral Act. Time and time again, people who were eminent in their own spheres have had the humiliation of finding themselves at the bottom of the poll with no votes and finding some person who has no particular qualifications elected, possibly in the same panel, from a body which, through some slender qualification, finds itself a nominating body.
In connection with the whole system of election, I might add that I sat some time ago on an appeal committee, which was drawn from all Parties in this House. It was obvious, after a very short time that, despite the energy, the accuracy and care with which the returning officer performed his duties in endeavouring to ascertain if a particular body or a particular class of vocational organisation or institution or professional organisation or trade was represented, a certain stage was reached when a body which claimed that it was entitled to representation and entitled to nominate candidates for a particular administrative or cultural panel, found that another body, entirely distinct, represented or claimed to represent a similar section. The returning officer was faced with a difficulty in some cases and, while one might agree or disagree with him, no one questioned the sincerity with which he endeavoured to discharge his duty. It was obvious on that committee—I only sat on it on two occasions, the two occasions on which these appeals were heard—that political persuasion and political feelings were the guiding principles of the majority of the Deputies.
One of the appeals was from the Irish Secondary Teachers' Organisation, and a prominent member of the Fianna Fáil Party came to the conclusion that if this were not an attack on the returning officer—which, of course, it was not, as it is in the Statute that appeals are to be dealt with in this manner—at any rate it was a question of some political tenet which the Fianna Fáil supporters held. They opposed it and succeeded because the majority of the Fianna Fáil Deputies supported him. Subsequently, the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Association's application was heard and it was argued very ably by counsel on their behalf—and I think some of their members gave evidence—but on this occasion the licensed grocers and vintners had sufficient influence with some Fianna Fáil Deputies to influence their vote in favour of their particular application and the appeal was upheld. It may be that I was judging harshly the action of some of the Deputies on that committee, but it definitely appeared that it was political affiliation and not the merits or demerits that was considered. It was argued beyond yea or nay in favour of both of these bodies, but certainly in favour of the licensed grocers and vintners, that they were entitled to representation, that they previously had representation and that no new body had since come on as representing that particular section.
Only for the fact that this association, which has a wide membership and considerable influence, was able to secure a majority of the members of the appeal committee, their appeal would not have been upheld. Irrespective of that aspect of the question, which is possibly a technical aspect, it is well known that a limited franchise gives opportunities for corruption. Long ago, when rotten boroughs existed in this country, those boroughs were widely attacked and widely condemned, on behalf of the people, as allowing landlords and people associated with British politics to influence and dominate the representation. An influential landlord or personage could secure, by the operation of his control, the election or return of a particular candidate. I am sure most Deputies have read how Lord So-and-So or Mr. So-and-So "had the power to return two members to Parliament."
That is the way Gladstone first got into Parliament.
We are not concerned with Gladstone. The position here is that eight votes or less could return a Senator to the Seanad. We have it proved in one particular case that corruption existed and it is reasonable to assume, from the rumours, that it has existed on other occasions. While this resolution does not state what particular type of Seanad should be elected, it gives members of the House an opportunity, in view of the recent publication of the Vocational Commission Report, to test the sincerity of the Government in having established that commission to consider the whole vocational question. There is now an opportunity to test that sincerity, in supporting this resolution and in requesting that a committee be set up to consider and make recommendations on the subject.
I most heartily approve the proposal:
"That the Dáil disapproves of the present method of electing the Seanad and calls for the appointment of a committee to make recommendations on the subject."
I have not had the advantage of hearing Deputy Cogan or Deputy Donnellan explain their amendment:
"for the election of a Seanad on truly vocational lines."
The Deputy should have been here.
Maybe I should or maybe I should not. I am waiting for people to explain to me the meaning of "vocational lines" for a long time and every man I ask gives me a different explanation. However, my particular concern is to abolish the rotten system that obtains at present. There is no use in being mealy-mouthed about it: the truth of it is that the elected Senators have amongst them at present a number who have bought their seats. That is notorious. Now, a thing may be notorious and still be incapable of proof. It is extremely difficult to prove that corruption of that kind takes place, because it is usually conducted with great discretion and with great care. But the fact is that the vast majority of Deputies of this House believe, with a belief that amounts to certainty, that a number of seats in the Seanad were bought and sold. I used to think originally that the proviso, giving to the Taoiseach the right to nominate six members——
Eleven members.
——eleven persons, had virtue in it, in that he might be trusted to choose a group of persons of distinction and with independent minds, who might not commend themselves to any popular vote. I must say that the first time he exercised that prerogative he exercised it reasonably decently, but the last time he exercised it he put into the Seanad 11 individuals, the majority of whom were all hardened old political hacks. That is the plain truth. Of course, it is not considered expedient to say that kind of thing, but that is the truth. There were two or three alibis examined from stem to stern to ensure that they would be quite harmless. Speaking generally, you had a clutch of duds who could get neither into the Seanad nor into any other sane body in Europe by the free votes of anybody.
I think that action on the part of the Taoiseach was one of the most regrettable incidents that has taken place in this country for a long time. I have never had any illusions about the Taoiseach. He is a hardened old warrior, up to all the tricks of the trade, always with a bland, pious exterior; every man may falter, every Homer may nod, but the Taoiseach is always the paragon of all the virtues, desiring to rule the country, as Mr. M. J. MacManus said in that great classic of his, The Life of de Valera, in an atmosphere of Olympian calm and detachment. But when it came to providing 11 jobs for the boys, the Olympian calm vanished like snow in the summer sun; the old practitioner took the bit between his teeth and then an astonishing assortment paraded into Seanad Eireann as 11 persons of the highest distinction, meriting preferment as Senators of the State on their records of public service. Go bhfoirfidh Dia orainn!
If that was the best he could pick on throughout the whole country, then we have gone pretty low; but, of course, it was not, the truth being that once the political camp followers of the Fianna Fáil Party discovered there was £360 a year going for nothing, pressure sufficiently strong to force the Taoiseach into what appeared to be, on the surface at any rate, a political blunder, was brought to bear upon him. I would prefer to think these old hacks were thrust upon him. If they were his own choosing, then he is even less suitable for the position he occupies than I thought he was. I deplore instances of that kind, not so much for the actual damage they do in any given case as for the apparent justification they give to those undemocratic elements in our community who spend a great part of their time sneering at politicians and representing to our people that anyone in politics is in it for what he can get out of it. We saw the astonishing scene to-day of a Deputy of this House from County Mayo——
That has nothing to do with the Seanad.
But it has to do with jobbery.
This is not a motion on jobbery.
With the greatest possible respect, to your straight-seeing eye the jobbery may not be manifest, but I want to say that the 11 appointments by the Taoiseach to the Seanad were the father and mother of jobbery. Never in my recollection has any more shameless deed of jobbery been done than the installation of those 11 Senators. I do not want to take each individual name and read the history of the appointment; I will take them in globo and I say that they were an invitation by the Taoiseach to every individual in this State who had the appointment of a public officer under his control to be influenced by no consideration of suitability or fitness, but merely by the assurance that they would function consistently and reliably as the political hacks of the Party to which the appointing officer belonged.
And they are sent for on occasions when they are not acting according to the Whip.
It surprises me that any single one of them has that much independence in him that it is necessary to send for him. I would imagine them all standing on the door mat, asking what were they to do, whenever there was anything to be done. Usually all they have to do is to trot faithfully in after Senator Quirke; wherever he goes, they go. And to give the devil his due, they have been pretty dutiful, except when they did not turn up at all. They have trotted into the Lobby like men, when called upon to do so. It is that kind of transaction which I think corrupts our public life infinitely more than the similarity between the electors of the Seanad and the rotten boroughs to which Deputy Cosgrave referred so trenchantly during his observations.
When Deputy Cosgrave was talking about the rotten boroughs, I thought it right to interject that it might be well to remember that the landlords and persons who controlled the boroughs in those days could, on occasion, throw up a person like Gladstone, could confer a pocket borough on a man like Gladstone. You may agree or disagree with Gladstone, but this at least must be said that, as a public man, he was a credit to the public life to which he belonged, and it was because I considered that you might find men with a deep sense of responsibility, into whose hands you might safely commit the powers of the patron of a rotten borough, that I felt there was something to be said for leaving in the hands of the Taoiseach rights very closely analogous to those exercised by the patrons of the old rotten boroughs by nominating a number of persons to the Legislature.
I compare to-day the action of the Taoiseach in nominating his 11 with the action of the old Duke of Portland who, I think, was the man who conferred a rotten borough seat on William Ewart Gladstone. I would have expected from the head of a democratic assembly a deep sense of public duty; I would not have expected it from the late Duke of Portland. Compare the actions of the two men and let us ask ourselves is the autocrat of to-day superior to the aristocrat of yesterday. I doubt it, and I regret it.
I very well remember, because this House may forget, that we had a committee here over which the Taoiseach presided, to draw up the terms upon which the Seanad were to be elected, long ago. The Taoiseach and I were both members of that body, and I think Deputy McGilligan was also a member. It was one of the richest experiences I ever had in my life, because I had the extraordinary privilege of watching the Taoiseach's mind at work, which was really a most entertaining experience. I also had the extraordinary experience of observing his receptivity to suggestions from other people. He was just as receptive as the duck's back is to water. He extended his mind very much as the duck would its feathers to the water tap and patiently stood there while the water fell upon his feathers, shook it all off and then went on to do precisely what he had intended to do. As usual, nobody could be more genial, courteous or considerate. He listened to everything most patiently, but you might just as well be throwing peas at the moon.
One of his particular foibles was that we must give votes to members of the local authorities and spread the voting power out over the people. I think, if my memory serves me well, I said to him on that occasion: "What do you think will happen when the county council has chosen its eight electors?""What do you think will happen?" he said. "They will consider the merits of the various candidates and vote accordingly." I said: "I do not think anything of the kind will happen. I think he honest ones will be run ragged and the dishonest ones will conduct an auction and the longer the system obtains the more the dishonest ones will clamour to get on the electors' panel," and so it has turned out to be.
I beg the House to remember this, whatever side Deputies sit upon: the present ingenious plan for electing Senators is the brain-child of Taoiseach de Valera. He worked it out and certainly it has to be seen to be believed. I often thank God since, when I saw what he was capable of producing single-handed, that he has been surrounded by a highly-trained Civil Service ever since he was let loose on this country as Taoiseach, because if he had produced many devices of this kind, I do not know where we would all be— in Grangegorman, I suppose.
I believe that, when evolving that plan, he honestly believed it would work. He really believed that this astonishing electoral college which he provides would at least assemble in spirit and choose the fathers of the nation, adverting to nothing but their merits. At least, I believed he believed that until I saw his 11 nominations to the last Seanad, and then I felt a serious apprehension that he had managed to fool even me, and that all this appearance of lofty and Olympian detachment which Mr. M.J. MacManus is so strong upon was merely a screen behind which he was hatching a plan to ensure that the electors drawn from the county councils would have a coercive voice in the choice of Senators and that the Fianna Fáil organisation would be strong enough to grab the local authorities, and that, in the heel of the hunt, instead of nominating 11, he would be nominating about 32. That may have been what was in his mind, and, if it was, for the time being in any case, he fooled me. I thought he was just being silly. I was quite unable to make any impression on his preconceived determination to present the nation with this particular plan.
Now this House is asking him to set up another committee to choose a different form of election for Senators. It is a foolish man who would predict what reply the Taoiseach would make to any proposal, but I think I can prophesy this: if the Taoiseach can think of a form of Parliamentary committee which he can absolutely control, we will get it; but if he comes to the conclusion that a committee of this House might devise a system of electing a Seanad through which he could not see his way clearly to retain the control of the majority of the Senators, we will not get it. What I want to put the House on their guard against is that if he gets up at the end of this debate all sweet reasonableness, look for the nigger in the wood-pile because there will be one there. He has no intention of losing his grip on the Seanad, so long as he can hold it, and by patronage and the judicious use of what we will call political methods, for want of a better word, he will retain such control of this House as will guarantee him the right to control every other legislative instrument in the country.
I suppose one ought to approach a motion of this kind with something more constructive than an attack upon the existing system. I do not think the existing system requires to be dwelt on further. It stinks. It is, of course, open to the official Opposition to confine itself to saying: "We want a committee and there we will canvass alternative proposals." I do not belong to the official Opposition and therefore when I intervene at all, I ought to give some indication to the House of what I think would be a more satisfactory method of electing Senators. First, what function has a Seanad to discharge? I think the primary function of a Seanad is to give the Legislature time for second thoughts. Its very existence very often deters Dáil Eireann from precipitate decisions which it might take were there not a second chamber there to review the decisions of the Dáil. In the last analysis I think it is a great mistake to set up in the Seanad an alternative power to Dáil Eireann. The Dáil, representing all the people, ought to be the ultimate authority in the civil sphere.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.
Can we get any idea when the debate on this motion will be resumed, or does anybody know?
I could not say definitely.
The House is meeting to-morrow?
The Dáil is meeting to-morrow.
And the only public business is the Rent Restrictions Bill?
I do not know exactly what will be the business.
There is no other business on the Order Paper.
I am not in charge. An Tánaiste is in charge of the order of business.
Is there any possibility of the Dáil being adjourned when the Second Stage of the Rent Restrictions Bill is concluded?
I do not think so. I think the Dáil will sit until 9 o'clock.
We will go into Private Members' time when the Second Stage has been completed?
It is a matter for the Government to decide what business will be taken.
In so far as there is no other business, if the Rent Restrictions Bill is completed by 5 o'clock, I presume we will then go into Private Members' time.
I cannot say.
Perhaps the Taoiseach would be good enough to communicate with the Opposition, and with myself, as I am in possession; and let us know if it is intended to resume to-morrow?
If Government business is completed before 9 o'clock to-morrow, I take it this debate will be resumed.
All we want to know is what you intend to do.
I cannot say anything further.
The Whips can arrange it.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 11th October, 1945.