Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Nov 1957

Vol. 164 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - Abolition of Seanad—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that Seanad Éireann as it is at present constituted should be abolished. (Deputies Dr. Browne and McQuillan.)

Dr. Browne

During the discussion on the last occasion, in referring to a number of propositions for a scheme of election of a Seanad, I mentioned a number of possible ways in which a desirable and effective Seanad could be elected. I mentioned one after the other, largely in order to dismiss them as impracticable. During the course of the enumeration, I mentioned the suggestion that the Seanad could be picked by lot. That, as I said at the time, struck me as being one of the best suggestions that had been put forward. I also felt that it was a very poor and a very undesirable suggestion if it had been made seriously, and going back through the debates it is clear that the proposition was made seriously. I was unable to give the reference at that time to the Taoiseach and I would like to remedy that defect now.

This question arose, as I say, out of the proposition that a Seanad should be elected by lot, a Seanad which would be composed of distinguished persons, artists, writers, poets and politicians who would finish their active life in politics, persons who had grown old in the service of the State in one way or another. I attributed this proposition to the Taoiseach and the reference, I would like to tell him, is column 1852, Volume 52, of the Official Debates of the 25th May, 1934. The Taoiseach, then the President of the Executive Council, said:—

"I think Deputy MacDermot on a former occasion suggested that we should get it by lot."

That is, a Seanad of distinguished persons and old persons.

"I do not think that people are satisfied to get things in that way, but I do believe with Deputy MacDermot that a system of lot is much more likely to secure the type of Seanad we have in mind when we are thinking of this ideal Seanad, than any of the ordinary systems of election or selection."

Then at column 1855 of the same Volume he went on to say:—

"The system of lot then comes along. I have given, perhaps, as much thought to this matter as any member of the House. Thinking over all the various alternatives I have seen put up, or that would suggest themselves to me, I honestly believe that if you did want a Second House, the system of lot would be the best you could get. If you could, for instance, have some sort of modern equivalent of the ancient censor where you would have certain people who had achieved certain offices, certain positions, entered on a panel and agreement as to the type of office that would qualify for admission to the panel, and if periodically you put the names on the panel into a hat, and picked them out, you would probably get a better Seanad than you would get by any system of nomination. If we do believe that a Second Chamber is necessary, or that it is advisable to have these wise people to apply a check when a democracy is running riot, some such system as that would be more likely to achieve the results we have in mind. But, again, is it worth all the fuss?... Do you think that these people are going to be less affected by political prejudice than the ordinary person who is elected?...

Then you come to the question: is it wise to have this sort of power or control resting altogether in the hands of people who are spent? They are spent people, people whose energies are gone. We ought to ask ourselves this question: what is the best type of Legislature? What is the best type of Government? Is it government by spent powers or is it government by active minds and active people who want to achieve something, who want to make this world somewhat better...."

He concluded:

"This is a world of conflicts. So it seems to me, at any rate.... I doubt very much whether, if government is in such hands, in the stress of modern times our country would be likely to fare as well as when we have government by people who are active, and when the controlling forces are in the hands other than those of the old."

I should like to dismiss as a serious proposition the idea that you could choose or should choose a Seanad by lot. It seems to me, therefore, after all the examination, that one is left with no reasonable or satisfactory alternative but to come to the conclusion that the Seanad is a body which should be abolished. All of us who have respect for the whole democratic ideal are, I am sure, very loath to touch on or in any way reduce the machinery of democratic government. Consequently, we are possibly slow to interfere with what we have come to accept over the years as a satisfactory system of bicameral government. I believe that it has been proved in the event that we have no need for this system of bicameral government and that in suggesting that it should be abolished we are moving along the path towards democracy, true democracy, that is, government through the expressed will of the people in its elected representatives.

We have in our own time seen the last vestiges of privileged rule of this kind being changed in the last 30 years, the removal of the anomaly of university franchise, the extension of adult franchise, woman suffrage. All these small gains, real and definite gains towards the establishment of true democracy, have been made without any noticeable weakness or vitiation in any way of the whole democratic process. These are a direct sequel, in my view, to the taking away of the hereditary rights of government, stemming right back to the old discredited idea of the divine right of kings. I would urge therefore that we have no alternative to accepting a unicameral system of Government.

I should like to support that point of view with a quotation from Deputy Lemass as reported in Volume 51 of the Official Report. He was speaking on a proposal for the removal of the Seanad. I agree completely with what he said. He said:: "We are going to make democracy triumphant." It had been suggested there might be a dictatorship as a result of the removal of the Seanad. To this Deputy Lemass said: "If there is going to be a dictatorship it will be by a majority of the Irish people. It is about time that the Irish people become masters in their own country." Supporters applauded that and he concluded: "This is a Bill that makes them masters."

He went on, at column 1874 of the same volume: : "The pretence that is a wall or bulwark for democratic institutions is puerile." That was in 1934. It is as true to-day as it was then. Many contributions were made by speakers on both sides of the House at that time. The curious thing to-day is the near-unanimity with which speakers on both sides of the House forecast the problem that we are dealing with to-day. Very definitely the Opposition Speakers—Deputies Costello, McGilligan and various others —said in 1937 that we could not provide for a satisfactory Seanad, that any Seanad elected under the Constitution and according to the rules drawn up would be a political Seanad —a political mirror image of this House.

I do not think any objective examination of the operation of the Seanad to-day could leave us in doubt that it has confirmed all their worst fears. It is an over-elaborate, complicated, useless, futile and pretentious body. I do not think it makes any real pretentions to be a non-political body. As a result of the action of the electoral system the vocational bodies have been practically completely driven out of representation by the activities of the various political Parties. All political Parties are to blame in this respect. The Seanad is there and the leaders of the Parties manipulate the Seanad to suit their own ends. It is in the interests of the whole idea of democracy and of democratic Government that the pernicious, corroded, devitalising influence of the Seanad, and in particular of the Seanad election process, should be removed from the arena of public life in this country.

I do not think there is any doubt in most people's minds that it has brought democracy into disrepute in the eyes of the public and even in the eyes of our own people here. I am not to be taken as saying that there are not some fine Senators. Personally I have no objection to any of them at all. There are some men who would grace and add lustre to any deliberative Assembly. However, they are the exceptions. We know that the general run is that the Party leaders decide, following the general elections, who shall be the Senators. In many cases persons who have been before the public, who have put their viewpoint to the public, who have offered themselves to the public for election to this House and have been rejected by the public are the persons who are then put in by the back door to the Seanad.

In that way it seems flying in the face of the expressed public will and wish in regard to these particular people. It seems to me that the machine is now being operated largely by the Party bosses for their own special ends. The last Seanad cost £161,000. We can fairly say that over such a period that sum, or a fairly considerable portion of it, is divided nearly evenly between the Party leaders to be handed out in one form or another to the different helpers, henchmen, hangers-on and political rejects of one kind or another whom they decide to reward for their services at election time. That £161,000 is taxpayers' money and I think it is a gross misuse of that money to spend it in that way.

In particular, it seems clear that to give to a Taoiseach, any Taoiseach, the right of electing or nominating 11 Senators is a very dangerous power to put into the hands of any one man. I know the reason why it is done. It is in order to give him a majority in a House that could delay his legislation. I disagree completely with the powers of the Seanad to delay legislation even for 24 hours. I think it is a repudiation of the rights of this House. I think it tends to vitiate the whole democratic idea in public life because of the power that right to nominate Senators confers on an individual. I believe it is one of the factors that tends to weaken democracy if all of us in public life become beholden too much to any one individual. That individual, if we accept that domination, holds too much power over us and many may find it necessary to maintain silence in controversies, discussions and debates whether in Party, in public life or elsewhere, in order to merit approval and win reward or preferment of one kind or another. I think that is one of the important factors which corrupts, not only the individuals subject to that benevolence, but also the person who is in a position to hold out rewards for conformity, for silence.

Because of my dedicated belief in and adhesion to the whole idea of democracy I think that anything censoring discussion, debate or fair criticism in any way weakens, undermines, and finally must destroy the true fabric of democratic government in any society. The whole form of Seanad election has made too big a contribution to that enervation and disinterest in public life, to the seeming political amorality of many persons in public life, to be allowed to carry on.

I should like to hear somebody, ex-Ministers or Ministers, trying to make the case that they have any respect for the Seanad. One of the most notorious facts is the difficulty Senators find in getting a Minister to go in and listen to them on motions that have been put down for discussion and debates on legislation. Their difficulty is to get a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary to bother his head to go into the Seanad. On one occassion recently a Minister interrupted a Senator in the middle of his speech in order to make his own speech. I suspect that particular incident showed a disrespect for the individual Senator——

An Ceann Comhairle

We may not discuss the proceedings of the Seanad even on this motion.

Dr. Browne

I am concluding on that point but I think the main thing the incident showed was the contempt which the Minister had for the Seanad as a deliberative body.

"The Seanad is not indispensable." For that statement, for its certainty and correctness, I am indebted to the present Taoiseach. As far as I am aware during the time when the Seanad was abolished, some of the best legislation that has ever gone through this House was promoted and passed without any advice or delay, or any revision or contribution whatsoever from the Seanad. In deciding to abolish the Seanad we are not deciding to do something drastic and, even if we were, I think I should still advocate it. But we already know we can get along well without a Seanad and that there is no necessity to have one. I believe we cannot afford the luxury of a Seanad. It is an expensive pet to maintain. It can be dispensed with without harm to the whole democratic idea and nothing but good could come from its abolition. Because of the increased responsibility, the increased confidence which the people would place in it and the benefit which members would themselves derive, I think the stature of this House would be increased and that the whole community would benefit.

Like many others, I have given much thought to the idea of an alternative body to the Seanad, but I do not believe there is any necessity for a second deliberative public Assembly, and there is no reason why anybody should waste time trying to devise such an alternative. The only possible advantage I can see, the only thing that could add to our deliberations is to have whatever advice one can get from the vocational councils or the committees which have been nominated or elected from time to time. I have personal knowledge of the value of the National Health Council, of which I was a member for a time and in which very many interests were concerned. The trade unions were represented, the medical profession, the politicians, the nursing profession, persons interested in insurance questions, and public health officers of one kind or another.

We had many meetings which I personally found very stimulating and particularly interesting. We argued many points on controversial issues and, as a result of our discussions, considerations were forwarded to the Minister. Sometimes he accepted them and sometimes he did not. That is his right, but I felt it was a useful set up as long as it maintained that simple and straightforward function of considering and discussing without any powers at all, beyond the powers to recommend. Let me be quite clear on that. It should have no executive functions at all or any vocational groups.

It seems to me that it must be possible to establish committees such as a national health council for the Department of Health. These advisory committees for the different Government Departments would have the right to see legislation on its introduction to the House, make recommendations in regard to it and also see the same legislation after the Second Stage or the Committee Stage and make further recommendations.

I think there is no doubt at all that the vocational groups and the different vested interests have as much access as they need. Professions, trades or trade unions of one kind or another who because of their knowledge might have a special interest in legislation coming to the House, have a right to put their point of view before Government Departments. There is no curb on that right to advise or to recommend changes of one kind or another. I do not think it is at all necessary to maintain the expensive incubus of a Seanad in order to get that advice, either by memorandum submitted by the different bodies or through the advisory committees which I believe could do a useful job.

Certainly, that seems to me to get over the big disadvantage of the alleged value the Seanad can give in its advisory functions. At least, a council like the National Health Council has all the different persons directly associated with the problem of health at its disposal and, consequently, the advice is something worth listening to. As I said before, the advice of a Senator-engineer on a health problem is about as useless as the advice of a Senator-doctor on an engineering point. Consequently, it seems to me that the best value could be obtained for this House, in helping us to legislate as intelligently and as fairly as possible, by having elected committees of persons who would have a special interest in any legislation that might derive from a particular department.

I believe that any fair-minded Minister would be glad to have the advice of persons who might be prepared to act in an advisory capacity. I think that legislation might derive certain value from such advice. However, I do not think that we should have any inferiority complex about getting rid of the Seanad. It seems to me to be the last vestiges of the old idea of a hereditary Second House, a House of Lords. If we take proper precautions to establish pre-conditions to a democracy in our society we can well legislate here for the benefit, and in the best interests, of the people as a whole.

I must draw again upon the Taoiseach's statements in the past because, of course, the fate of our motion is largely dependent upon the attitude of the Taoiseach to that motion. Consequently, I feel that his point of view must be made quite clear so that if he has altered that point of view, which he has a perfect right to do if he wants to, we shall get the value of the opinions that he has and any new opinions he holds on the matter of a Seanad. But there is no doubt at all that in past years he had no hope that we would ever be able to create a Seanad, a Second House, which would give a body of any real value to us, no matter how hard he tried. That, of course, creates a very complicated problem but possibly he might not think so.

As far back as I can go, I find that in relation to any remarks made by him in regard to Senates he has been opposed to them. He has been very clearcut and strangely unequivocal in his condemnation of Senates right from 1928, as I quoted before, to 1934, when he abolished the Seanad. In Volume 51 column 1461 of the official Dáil Debates he said:—

"... I had hoped it might be possible to arrive at some form of Second House which would have distinctive characteristics of its own...

I feel that action has got to be taken. I, for one, have not been able to devise a solution, nor has any solution been offered, for the problem of a distinctive Second Chamber so constituted that one could depend upon an independent judgment on public affairs, on any public matters that would be submitted to them."

At column 1828 he said:

"There seems to us to be no valid reason why a considerable sum of money should be spent annually on a Second Chamber."

At column 1816 of the Dáil Debates of 24th May, 1934, he said:

"Therefore let us get rid of this farce, that there is any check like that. Let us forget about it and let the people forget that it is a check and let the people and us here concentrate on making the direct representative Assembly the type of Assembly it should be. Let us get the best we can and let us not be fooling ourselves with the idea that, if we have a Second Chamber, we are going to be better off."

He was right on every occasion. On 7th October, 1937, as reported at column 353 of the Official Report, the present Taoiseach said:

"I think on one occasion I said it was beyond the wit of man to construct a Seanad that would be really satisfactory. I did not even say an ideal Seanad, but a really satisfactory Seanad..."

Another very important statement, which I should like to develop later on, is to be found in Volume 52 of the Official Report. The present Taoiseach said it seemed to him that there is only one way of avoiding the dangers which the advocates of a Second House have in mind, and that is to educate our people politically and make them understand the consequences of their acts at election time. It is the obvious remark, with which I am in complete agreement. He said that he had spent a considerable time in considering the matter and asking himself how a Second Chamber could be constituted which would be really effective. He said he had examined any suggestions he came across in his work on the matter or from those whom he asked to consider it. He said he had seen no suggestion that, in his opinion, would warrant the expenditure of public moneys in putting it into execution.

At column 1814 of Volume 52 of the Official Report, he is reported as saying:—

"The Seanad we conjure up as an ideal is impossible of attainment or even approximate attainment."

I have not read out these quotations in order in any way to irritate the Taoiseach. I have read them out because I agree with practically every word he said on that occasion. He may still hold those views as firmly to-day as he did then. I only hope so because I think the logical act arising from that would be to do what he did in 1934, that is, abolish the Seanad. All those statements which I quoted were made in 1934.

Then again, in 1937, as reported in Volume 69, column 289 of the Official Report, when he was reconstituting the Seanad, the Taoiseach said:—

"...the arguments that I put forward here on previous occasions with regard to the Seanad still have their full weight."

Again he reiterated his views of 1934, as reported in the same column:

"When the Constitution was before the Dáil I made it quite clear that we were not the Party who believed that an ideal Seanad could be got. We believed that any Seanad that could be got was going to be very far indeed from the ideal, and we were far from favouring a Seanad which was going to be a reproduction of the primary House. To our mind a Seanad was going to be of very little use if we were going to have in the second branch of the Legislature exactly the same political controversies or antagonisms and the same political Party manæuvring as in the first House."

Of course, he was quite right. That is what has transpired. There is no substantial difference at all in the political make-up of the Dáil and the Seanad. So far as having any controversy at all in the Seanad is concerned, and it seems to me to be precious little, it comes along practically identical lines to those we find here.

Assuming that the Taoiseach will approach this motion in an objective way, I think he is faced with a curious dilemma. That is how it seems to me. I can go only on what I have read. He may be able to correct me if I have been wrong in any case. However, it seems to me he is faced with the odd dilemma of having been right in his statements over the years, in his fears over the years, in his analysis of the futility of the Seanad, in his analysis of the impossibility of getting an ideal Seanad, in his fears even to attempt an ideal or near-ideal Seanad. On the one hand, he has been shown to be right in all his forecasts and in all his prophecies—correct in so far as it has not been found possible to get even a near-ideal Seanad. As a result of all our best efforts, genuine and sincere efforts, no doubt, to get an ideal Seanad, it has been found to be impossible. That is the position on one side.

The Taoiseach has been right the whole way through. The only inexplicable thing is why, in the face of all that overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he still has continued to retain this futile incubus of a Second House which is nothing but a considerable expense on the country. I think it is fair to say that it is the Taoiseach's own creature. It seems to me from reading the debates that he gave a tremendous amount of attention, care and thought to the body which is now the Seanad, the electoral system whereby the present Seanad is constituted. Therefore, naturally, pride of parenthood may make it very difficult for him to be as objective about it as I should like him to be. However, it is possible that he will rise above whatever prejudices he may have in favour of the Seanad, in view of the fact that he went to so much trouble to try to create it or to create an ideal Seanad.

I think that if there were no other reasons—and there are even more compelling reasons—the financial or economic one seems to be a compelling reason for the abolition of the Seanad in these times when we are asking the people to economise, when the price of bread and the essentials of life has been increased, when we are curtailing our health services because of expense. It seems wrong that we should do so and still continue to pay out a considerable sum of money each year for the maintenance of this futile body. I have no illusions about the difficulties of creating the ideal unicameral system of Government, but I think it is possible to do so. It has been fairly shown by many speakers other than I, over the years, that the Second House is quite unnecessary.

I think the Taoiseach, the President of the Executive at the time, was right when he said that, in an attempt to get the democratic unicameral type of Government, it seemed to him that there was only one way of avoiding the dangers which advocates of the Second House had in mind and that was to educate our people politically and to make them understand the consequences of their acts at election time. Of course, that is the essence, it seems to me, of our problem. Assuming that the Taoiseach believed that, and I am sure he did believe that to be true, that education was so terribly important to the evolution of an intelligent democracy or to an effective democratic system of government— that is as true to-day as it was when it was said in 1934—from it arises the question why he took no steps to try to ensure that we did create in the Republic what would be a literate or properly educated democracy.

One of the greatest dangers to our whole system of democratic government, of course, is the fact that such a high percentage of our people, because of no fault of their own, find it very difficult indeed to judge the merits of the different political questions which come up for consideration from time to time, simply because of the fact that over 90 per cent. of them get little or no education whatsoever after the age of 14 years.

To me the whole story of the Seanad's life history since 1922, and particularly the Taoiseach's part in relation to it, is a most puzzling enigma. I have been unable to reconcile the extraordinarily clear-cut, unequivocal statements condemning this Second House with the curious action in retaining it over the years.

All political figures of any stature, no doubt, are considered in different ways by society. Many historians, in trying to consider this problem, will wonder at the curious attitude, the curiously capricious actions of the Taoiseach over the years. Perhaps, to help us to decide whether he really believes in the whole democratic system or idea of government, he could explain to those of us who know these things merely from reading why he did find it impossible at one time to accept the decision of the elected representatives of the Dáil in 1922, an attitude which led to the disastrous civil war, and then the curious decision to accept the democratic idea of coming into the Dáil and deliberating, discussing and debating, as he did——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is wandering far from the motion which deals with the abolition of the Seanad.

Dr. Browne

The second point is on the question of the Seanad itself. Could he tell us why it was he found it possible, in 1934, to abolish the Seanad and to give first-class reasons as to why he abolished it—and I agree with every one of them; I would have voted, if I were there at the time, with him for its abolition— but then again, curiously repeating his earlier volte-face in these very important matters, and deciding three or four years later, to accept the idea of the Seanad and its utility and, having regard to all the jeers and the ridicule that he poured on the people who believed in a Seanad—I do not—and all the arguments, reasonable arguments, some of them slightly unreasonable, how he came again completely to reverse his whole approach to the very important fundamental problem of the democratic idea of government? I must say I would be very glad if he could give us any explanation for what seemed to me at any rate to be a rather incomprehensible inconsistency with very complicated and damaging consequences in at least one instance.

In conclusion, I want to make it clear that the Labour Party supported the abolition of the Seanad. Deputy Norton at that time pointed out that it was the policy of the Labour Party as far back as 1922 and that they had made it clear that they were opposed to a Seanad. I would be interested to know whether that opinion still holds. Deputy Norton repeated his stand against the Seanad in 1937, when he told the President—column 312, Volume 69, Official Report:—

"I should personally prefer the President to have stood where he did some time ago when he abolished the Second House. No case whatever has been made in the meantime for the continuance of the Second House."

He pointed out that none of the disasters which were prophesied as inevitable when the Seanad was abolished had materialised. There seemed to be almost complete unanimity in the House not to establish a Second Chamber, or at least not to establish a particular type of Second Chamber, but the Bill went through all its stages and a Second Chamber was established. That is another curious enigma beyond my comprehension. Presumably the Opposition had no choice but, at the same time, the matter does need some explanation.

If the Taoiseach accepts this motion he will have the full support of the people. In the eyes of the people the Seanad is a completely discredited body. It is an unnecessary expense on the taxpayer and the people would be delighted if the Taoiseach were to repeat his action in 1934, when he looked into his own heart and found out what the people were thinking; they told him they did not want a Seanad then. I believe that if he were to repeat that action to-day he would get exactly the same answer. I do not know what he did in 1937 in order to find out whether or not the people wanted a Seanad. The Constitution was ratified and it included provision for a Seanad, but I do not think the people accepted the Constitution because there was provision for a Seanad in it. I think they accepted the Constitution in spite of the Seanad.

I believe there is no reason in the world why the Seanad should be retained. I believe the people would be completely behind the Government if it were decided to abolish the Seanad. I made it clear in my opening remarks that we were not anything like as radical as the Taoiseach in his youthful exuberance when he abolished the Seanad, and I should like to reassure him that, if he has any idea we would not support him in its abolition now, he would be entirely wrong in that belief. I said we wanted the Seanad abolished as at present constituted. That, as it happens, is the same wording which the Taoiseach used prior to his abolishing the Seanad, and it is, therefore, quite possible for him to abolish the Seanad under this motion. There is nothing one could do to the Seanad as at present constituted which would render its maintenance worthwhile in our present state of democratic development.

Mr. McQuillan

I second.

Mr. O'Donnell

I move:—

To delete all words after "opinion" and substitute: "that the existing method of selecting the members of Seanad Éireann should be amended."

We have listened for two hours to Deputy Dr. Browne giving his reasons why the Seanad should be abolished, and he concluded by saying that, were the Taoiseach to accept the motion and abolish the Seanad, he and the seconder of the motion would support him. Neither the Taoiseach nor this House can abolish the Seanad. Let us be clear about that. To abolish the Seanad we would have to have a referendum and amend the Constitution. That is the legal position, and Deputy Dr. Browne's two-hour speech on the abolition of the Seanad is, in my opinion, in no way appropriate to the motion before the House.

The Deputy quoted at considerable length from past pronouncements of the Taoiseach as to the reason we should not have a Second House. He referred to the volte face on the part of the Taoiseach in 1937. Now, we in Fine Gael have been consistent in this matter. All down the years we have believed in a Second House, but we do not think that the present method of electing or selecting the Seanad is a good one. We think it could be improved and that is the reason I have put down this amendment.

If there was a debate on the merits or demerits of a referendum, then we could go into the merits and demerits of a Second House but, as that is not the purpose of the motion, I do not think we should go into this matter at this stage. All I want to say is that we, in Fine Gael, believe in a Second House and the Taoiseach, after mature consideration, agrees with Fine Gael in that. This is one time in which the Taoiseach admits he was wrong, and we welcome that admission from him. It is not often we get such an admission from the Taoiseach and we welcome it therefore on the rare occasion on which we do get it.

As Minister for Local Government in the Cabinet of which I had the privilege of being a member, I had taken certain steps in relation to the Seanad. The Government considered the matter and certain steps to improve the method of election or selection were put forward. In theory, the method of selecting as adumbrated in the Constitution was a good one but, unfortunately, we have departed very much from the original idea and from the theory which the Dáil and the people approved. I shall give a recent example of what I mean.

No less than ten days ago there was a motion before Seanad Éireann:—

"That Seanad Éireann is of opinion that the Solicitors' Remuneration General Order, 1957, should be disallowed."

That motion came before the Seanad. It was moved by the Leader of the House and spoken to by the Minister for Justice. His speech occupies exactly two columns of the Official Report. Other speakers spoke against the motion and their speeches occupy over 100 columns. Apart from the Minister, not another speaker in the Seanad spoke in favour of the motion. Nevertheless, that motion was steam-rolled through the Seanad. Obviously there is something wrong in Senators becoming "Yes" and "No" men. On the opposition put forward there were good reasons why the Order should not be accepted but, with only one spokesman in favour, whose utterances occupied less than a page of the Official Report, these "Yes" men rolled into the Lobby in opposition.

If we could get back to a proper vocational method of election or selection to the Seanad, it would be a good thing. Deputy Dr. Browne gave a good example of his experience through the National Health Insurance Council. If organisations like that selected or elected members, we would be getting somewhere. We have non-political organisations which could elect representatives and which have sent to the Seanad Senators who contribute very usefully to the debates in that Assembly. But the present method of electing Senators needs drastic overhaul in my opinion and, as I have said, I, as Minister, took certain steps to advise my colleagues in the Government of methods whereby mush-needed improvements could be made. I note that the present Minister relinquishes the portfolio which he holds, but I hope his successor will consider and submit proposals to his colleagues for the amendment of the method of election.

I will not detain the House further on this matter. Deputy Browne spoke for two hours, but his entire speech was on the abolition of the Seanad. To abolish the Seanad, we must amend the Constitution by referendum and any contribution which I could make to a debate on whether we should have a referendum or otherwise is not appropriate to the present motion. I recommend to the House the acceptance of this amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

How long have we to go on this motion?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Since we are not in committee, the amendment will require a seconder.

Mr. McGilligan

I propose to second it. How long have we to go?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There are 55 minutes left.

Mr. McGilligan

How long will the Minister take to reply?

Mr. Smith

I understand the Taoiseach means to intervene.

Mr. McGilligan

How long will he take?

Mr. Smith

I have not the faintest idea.

Mr. McGilligan

I second the amendment. First of all, I desire to point out that the motion put down, and spoken to for so long and in such an immature way, would require amendment of the Constitution. I understand that amendment of the Constitution would cost about £250,000. I suggest there is a much less expensive way of rectifying whatever is found wrong with the Seanad than by the expenditure of such a sum for such a futile purpose.

Article 19 of the Constitution allows to be made effective the amendment which Deputy O'Donnell has mentioned, that there should be another method of electing the Seanad. Before I go on to talk about methods proposed before which might be considered again, I should like to point out there is a considerable amount of public mystification with regard to the waste alleged in connection with the Seanad. I heard the figure of £151,000 quoted. I understand the Seanad costs from about £30,000 to £38,000. I understand that if one-quarter of the administrative expenses which are down in the Vote for the Houses of the Oireachtas are attributable to the Seanad, the cost of the Seanad might rise to £50,000. That is the full amount that might be saved if the Seanad were abolished.

For some years, there has been disquiet regarding the Seanad. In 1934, it was abolished. In 1936, a commission was set up to inquire into a scheme for a Second House. In 1937, about this month 20 years ago, a parliamentary committee was set up to deal with this report. About ten years afterwards, another commission was established to consider the working of the Second House and to consider amendments, either in its election or system of work, which might be desirable.

Again, it is proper to get into the framework of this discussion the exact powers which the Seanad has. There has been a certain amount of hysteria with regard to the undemocratic character of the Second House. I prefer to take my stand with political philosophers right down the ages to the present day and also the practice of modern States. From the great Aristotle down to Edmund Burke and Esmien, a very celebrated French jurist, there has been a unanimity of opinion with regard to the necessity for a Second House. I take that view in comparison to what has been described as a place for political rejects who have been cast out from any Parties.

I take experience. When this was last discussed, I think the calculation was that there were about five States in Europe that had not a Second Chamber. Three of these were Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, the three Baltic States which were swallowed up by Russia. The fourth was Bulgaria, which also disappeared behind the Curtain. The only other one was Spain. I do not know whether Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Spain will be regarded in this House as the models we should found ourselves on rather than the rest of Europe. In America, the situation shows greater unanimity than in the situation years ago in Europe.

What is undemocratic about a Second House? What are the powers the present Seanad has? They have certain delaying powers with regard to legislation. They can delay a Money Bill for three weeks and they can delay a Bill that is not a Money Bill for three months. That is the beginning and end of their power with regard to legislation. They may initiate Bills other than Money Bills and other than Bills to amend the Constitution.

They have two or three other small powers, some of which may become of importance but only on critical occasions, which are not likely to arise very often. They play a part in the impeachment of the President, if that should ever come to happen. When war and invasion happen they have, with this House, the right of passing a resolution which brings about a national emergency. Under conditions established in the Constitution that right may be claimed. They exercised that right when the last Great War broke out, and such conditions can be brought to a finish only by a resolution saying the emergency is over. In that the Seanad must play a part.

Those are powers which are very rarely exercised—the impeachment of the President, of which we have no example, and the declaration of a national emergency, of which we have one example. Outside of that, the Seanad have a useful power given to them as a way of saying that a minority could assert within a certain reserved limit a particular right with regard to legislation. An Article of the Constitution empowers a majority of the Seanad and one-third of the members of this House to request that legislation should be sent by the President to the people for a referendum, on the ground that the legislation is of such national importance that the will of the people should be taken into account on it.

Those are pretty nearly all the powers the Seanad have. They also have a power—perhaps I should have mentioned it earlier—in relation to the removal from office of a judge. If a judge is to be removed from office on grounds of stated misbehaviour or incapacity, he can be removed only upon resolutions passed by both Houses, calling for his removal. The resolutions must be established to the satisfaction of both this House and the Seanad. The same thing applies when the Comptroller and Auditor-General has to be removed. He goes out also, on a vote declaring him to be guilty either of stated misbehaviour or incapacity. That vote has to be passed by both this House and the Seanad.

Having enumerated those points— and those are all the points that could be said with regard to the Seanad— I want to ask what is undemocratic in allowing a body, if it were appropriately constituted, to take part on these rare occasions in the exceptional matters I have mentioned, and to have the power to delay Money Bills for three weeks and ordinary legislation for three months.

I consider there should be a Seanad. I have always maintained that attitude with the members of the Party to which I belong. We have exercised ourselves from time to time in trying to secure that there would be something in the nature of vocational representation in respect of the Seanad, and the Constitution contemplated that there could be a change over from the ordinary system of election to the system of vocational representation.

Article 19 of the Constitution allows —in respect of those who come from the panels in the ordinary method of election—43 in number—a substitution to be made of those who might be elected by direct election by vocational or functional groups, associations or councils. That is provided for in the Constitution and it is along those lines that we previously had tried to move to get an amendment of the situation in regard to the Seanad and that is what is on foot in respect of this amendment, which Deputy O'Donnell has moved.

There have been many efforts. The panel system was achieved by the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act, 1937. There have been attempts often to get a change in the position. The attempts go along four lines. There is the situation in which at the present moment people are elected on this system of panels—five panels representing different interests. There has been introduced into that the other complication of the two sub-panels—the panel which is nominated by the nominating bodies and the panel set up by members of the Oireachtas. There have been efforts made to establish in respect of these sub-panels two things. One is that there should be either a minimum number of people chosen from each set of sub-panels or else there should be a fixed number to be taken from each of the sub-panels. There has also been the suggestion, and I think the better one, that the nominating bodies alone should nominate for their own particular panel. The fourth and best of all these suggestions is that the nominating bodies should elect those who are nominated on the sub-panel where they are allowed to make the nominations. Any of these suggestions can be adopted, still keeping inside the Constitution and quite in accordance with Article 19 of that document.

In 1937 a committee was set up to consider this matter. I was asked by my own people to put forward suggestions. I put forward suggestions for having the panels replaced by vocational councils. Some of those panel groups were not easy of replacement by a functional council, but an effort was made. It is not necessary to have an ideal scheme of functional councils in order to have a correct replacement made from the present system of election. We succeeded to some extent, but where the scheme broke down was that in those days the agriculturists of the country were not organised and the best that could be suggested at the time, in 1937, was that there should be a new register made of all landholders, whoever was registered proprietor of any farm lands, that those people should be entered on a special register and they should elect the 11 people to come from the Agricultural Panel. The farming community is better organised now. There are many organised bodies of farmers, and these people could be regarded as the organised agricultural body and they could represent the functional council and could give us the full representation by substituting for those who would come from the Agricultural Panel.

It was easy enough to deal with Labour in those days—except that it was said that not merely organised Labour but unorganised Labour should be represented. There was a scheme for that. There was a scheme for the Cultural and Educational Panel. It was quite easy to get bodies of that type to function.

With regard to Industry, and those groups allied with industry in the Constitutional panel system, it was easy enough again to get a group who could be regarded as those who would not merely nominate but would elect to the Seanad.

The one which caused a considerable amount of difficulty was the last of these panels, that which deals with Administration and certain social matters. Even there, although no one could say it was an ideal scheme, it was found possible to get groups which, after a bit, would have grown and multiplied and made additions to themselves; and one could have got a very good functional representation even through that rather vague group mentioned as No. 5 in the panel system.

In 1937 that scheme was proposed and in the committee of 15 a particular resolution, that I myself backed, secured a majority. We carried it by eight to seven. An attempt was made by the then Government supporters to have that reversed, but whatever was then proposed was beaten by the same majority; it got only seven votes to eight cast against it. At that point, we were in this difficulty, that the end of the Session was coming near. The committee met for one of its final sessions, I think, about the 4th November, 1937. It had been agreed by all Parties that the legislation with regard to the Seanad had to be got through before the Christmas Recess of that year. In this situation, there was such divergence of opinion that it was agreed that nothing could come from the committee. Therefore, the committee reported back that it had come to a standstill. But if it had come to a standstill, the last vote taken was one in favour of the proposal which the Party that I belonged to had put up. Our own views with regard to how a permanent Seanad should be constituted were left over for later consideration.

The present Tánaiste, then Minister for Industry and Commerce, said he would take on himself the responsibility of putting up proposals for a different type of Seanad from that which we had proposed. But in the rush of the times, he simply wrote a letter to the chairman of the committee to say that he no longer desired to carry on this task he had taken on himself, that he did not propose to put in any scheme for a new type of Seanad; and he added that he did not think that, then or at any other time, would it be possible to have people so grouped along functional or vocational lines as to form a proper background for a new type of Seanad. On that note—and it was only on that note— there was reluctant acceptance of the proposals which eventually emerged and which are the legal background to the Constitutional provisions of Article 18. I say it was with great reluctance these matters were accepted.

I heard the Labour Party mentioned here to-night. Deputy Norton, as far as I remember, had something like 30 or 40 amendments to the scheme proposed, which is now the panel electoral system. However, time was pressing —it was agreed the legislation had to be through before the year 1937 came to an end—and with a considerable amount of hesitation, and with no one really liking it, the particular scheme which still stands now, was evolved.

I want to say that it was accepted because of the rush of the time and it was accepted because in those days it could not be said that it was possible to get all the panels filled by direct vote of various functional groups. Some of them could have been so filled and some of them were quite ideally situated to act as proper nominating bodies and electoral colleges; but there were certain groups about which that claim could not be made. Deputy Lemass, the Tánaiste, took the attitude that it was not possible then, and he did not think it would be possible for many years, to have this country developed along functional lines, so that a Seanad could be voted for in this way.

I believe that the situation has changed very considerably. The group which causes most trouble, when trying to get a scheme of functional representation, is the farmers' group. They are organised in different sections, but certainly they are so well organised that one possibly can get four or five groups who could, by an amalgamation, give us, either by separate schemes or as one group, the 11 people who nowadays are elected to the Seanad from the panels representing agriculture.

I say we are now surely at the time when it is possible at least to make some change in the Seanad. It might be wrong to depart from a purely elected Seanad as far as the 43 members are concerned and go off to a functionally representative group; but it is possible, as they are already divided along the two sub-panels, to have an approach made to get some sort of vocational or functional Seanad. The nominating bodies sub-panel, say, could be elected. Let there be some minimum or maximum associated with the members who are elected in the panel system and let those on the nominating bodies sub-panel, nominated by certain nominating bodies, be elected by the nominating bodies or elected by some group of a functional type equivalent to the nominating body we now have.

I think the time has come for some change in the Seanad, thought up in haste—the whole scheme was very confused and not properly understood— and only accepted on account of the emergency which had arisen towards the end of the year 1937.

Debate adjourned.