I move amendment No. 1:—
To delete all words after the word "expedient" and substitute the following words:—
"that a Commission be set up to consider and make recommendations for the selection of a Seanad.
That the Commission be nominated by the Government after consultation with the Leaders of the Opposition Parties.
That the Commission consist of nine persons of whom not more than four shall be members of the Oireachtas."
As one of those responsible for the original motion, which was to the effect that the Government be asked to appoint a committee to make suggestions with regard to a different system of electing the Seanad, I should like to say that that motion was accepted by representatives of all Parties in the House and was accepted by the Government. The next step is the Government's proposal to have 22 members, confined to the Dáil and the Seanad. I agree with the Taoiseach that if we are to build up this committee on a blend of mathematics and politics you could not possibly have a committee that would be mathematically fair to every element represented in this House on a scale smaller than 22 members.
But those of us who have experience of committees, whether in the Dáil or outside, are aware of the fact that, if you want business done and if you want anything like agreement, the smaller the committee is the better and the more likely it is to succeed, even in a political House such as this. Some seven years ago, when the major Parties implementing the Constitution under which we now live wanted to appoint the first President—and surely that is about the hardest thing on which to aim at agreement, an appointment such as that—we did not look for 22. We got a committee of four and in the course of three or four hours there was agreement about it.
When the country was in the midst of a real emergency and when we wanted agreement with regard to various steps in connection with the Army, its recruitment and so on, and even with regard to the political questions which arose from time to time during the emergency, we did not try to cement mathematics and politics. We wanted to achieve something and, because the sincere intention was to achieve results, the committee in that case was particularly small. I think the number was nine. The Taoiseach knows as well as I know what will be the outcome of a committee of 22, strictly regimented, with everybody carrying a Party label going into the room. There will be at least half a dozen reports and the result of it all will be that the Government will do then what they could do without any committee, that is, merely frame their own proposals for the future Seanad and bring them here.
I have not tabled this amendment with a Party or political outlook. My idea is that, if we want to get results, the committee must be small, and the more and the greater the distance we depart from political regimentation, the more likely we are to get a Seanad with which we will all be pleased. Secondly, I do not want to see proposals made with regard to the future Second Chamber by political Parties only. In my amendment, I suggest a committee of nine and that not more than four of that number should come from the Dáil or Seanad—that the five others should be outsiders. We had a vocational organisation commission which went very thoroughly into all questions associated with vocationalism in this country. There were no political complications and they gave years to their work and made recommendations. Surely from that commission we could get two or three people interested in this particular question, that interest of theirs being in no way complicated or obscured by political Party affiliations.
It is with these ideas in mind that I propose a much smaller committee and the very minimum representation from Dáil Éireann. I should not be disturbed if the four from the Dáil came from the Government, or if they came from Clann na Talmhan or Labour Parties, or, perhaps best of all, if they came from Independent units here, but the other five should be outsiders. I suggest that it is at least a matter worth considering between Party leaders before committing ourselves to any particular figure, and, above all, before committing ourselves to having these proposals made exclusively by Senators or Deputies. I should like a good mixture, a kind of impartial breath of outside opinion. If there are outside opinions, if outside people are present, the committee, be it nine or 22, is less likely to work all the time along Party lines and Party furrows. I saw the effect of outsiders on committees appointed by the Government of which I was a member, and I urge strongly—I do not demand that the Government or anybody else should adhere rigidly to the figure or the scheme set down here—that the proposal should be postponed and that there should be a discussion between all Party leaders as to whether it is best to have this committee exclusively composed of members of the Dáil and Seanad or to have reasonable representation of people outside. That is, I think, a bigger thing than the question of numbers, but I definitely feel it is a mistake to confine this planning committee to political representatives, to members of the Dáil and Seanad.
In addition, if we hope to achieve results, to get proposals which would have the confidence of all, the personnel should go about their work in a spirit of harmony rather than in the spirit of so many troops from different belligerent armies entering a room, and the number should be small. The powers of the Seanad are very slight now and the possibilities of a Seanad interfering with or obstructing the plans or policy of Government are more or less entirely remote. Whether the figure is nine or 22, or less than nine, if there is any anxiety in the mind of Government with regard to majorities, let them have a majority on whatever committee is appointed whatever its size may be.
I appeal to the Taoiseach to have a committee which will not be entirely a regimented committee from Dáil and Seanad, to have some outsiders of experience who, perhaps, have given far more study to the building of State institutions than any of us within the Dáil or Seanad has ever given. If we open the door a little to outsiders of that type, we are more likely to get a Seanad which will fulfil its purpose and have the confidence of all. The State as a State is very young, and it is not to the credit of any of us that, in 20 years, we had twice to destroy the Seanad and look for some other type of Chamber. Surely our third attempt will be more fortunate than the previous two, but if we approach our third attempt on the basis of mathematically—arrived—at Party politicians going into a room in a sparring attitude, nothing can come of it that will be any more lasting than what went before.
