Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Apr 1929

Vol. 12 No. 1

Public Business. - Constitution (Amendment No. 15) Bill, 1928—Second Stage.

Question proposed—"That the Bill be read a Second Time."

Mr. O'Farrell

So far as the Seanad is concerned, there is nothing in this Bill to get very excited about. It merely seeks to legalise, in a cramped and nervous form, with many apologies from the Minister who introduced it, what is accepted as the normal constitutional practice in practically all modern Parliaments. By this measure the President of the Executive Council may, if the Dáil definitely approves of his action, include in his Cabinet one member of the Seanad. As introduced, the Bill gave him that permissive power in the case of all members of the Executive Council, with three exceptions. It was one of the recommendations of the Joint Committee, and this is the only case in which any of their recommendations have been departed from. Some of them were passed in face of very determined opposition, and one of them, the most important of all, was a recommendation which was carried by a majority of only one, the effect of it being to alter the whole method of election to this House.

In introducing this measure in the Dáil, the President described the recommendation as a peculiar one, and indicated right away his opinion that, although he was introducing the Bill as recommended by the Committee, nevertheless he would be inclined to amend it in Committee, which he afterwards did. I look upon the proposal not as a privilege conferred upon the Seanad so much as a constitutional concession to the Dáil. No President in the future will include in his Cabinet a member of the Seanad unless he believes that by so doing he will improve his Cabinet, and even then he must have the definite approval of the other House. There is nothing very novel or very revolutionary in this. In practically all modern Parliaments, particularly in countries where the Parliamentary tradition is very much more developed than it is here, and where the democratic tradition is at least as good, Governments draw on their second Chambers for Ministers of State with very little reservation. But in actual practice, as the President was careful to remind the Dáil, the power which the Bill confers is likely to be only a very theoretical power for quite a long time to come.

The President

Twenty years, I think I said.

Mr. O'Farrell

The President said: "I do not think it is at all likely within the next twenty years, even if this Bill were passed into law, that any more than one—possibly not even one—member of the Seanad would be either nominated or accepted by the Dáil as a member of the Executive." That is quite natural; every Deputy carries in his little attaché case a Minister's baton, and if his craft instinct is sufficiently well developed he will resent competition from outside. He would be a President of more than normal courage who would dare to come to this House for a Minister, however brilliant, while he had a dozen urgent candidates at his elbow, all ready and willing to sacrifice themselves on the Ministerial altar. Therefore the Seanad need take only a very mild interest in this amendment to the Constitution. It merely takes a short and a halting step towards bringing the constitutional theory of our Parliament into line with what is the constitutional practice in practically all modern Parliaments. Ultra-democrats need have no fear as to the result, because the protectionist policy of the Dáil will ensure that members of this House are not likely to be unduly troubled with offers of Ministerial portfolios.

I was sorry, however, that an innocuous measure of this kind should have given rise, in the course of discussions elsewhere, to an absolute orgy of nonsense and of foolish abuse of the members of this House by people who should know better. I regret that for the sake of the good name of our country and the dignity of our Parliamentary institutions. The Seanad itself will, of course, lose no sleep over displays of that kind, but those who value the prestige of the Oireachtas will certainly pray that no distinguished foreigner will be curious enough to read some of those debates. If he does he will certainly form a deplorably low estimate of the sense of proportion, the statesmanship, and the courtesy of some of our prominent politicians. In a measure of this kind there are principles only involved, and legislators who wish to be taken seriously —some of whom are, I believe, members of a Shadow Cabinet—should not disclose their own shortcomings by indulging in foolish and futile abuse of the members of the other Chamber of the Oireachtas. One example of that type of discussion was shown by a very prominent Deputy, who said: "Is there a single member of the Seanad whose inclusion in the Executive Council would justify the cost of printing this Bill? I cannot think of one. Of course, I am now excluding from consideration the six just men to whom I already had occasion to make reference, like the cities in Bible history." I find, for the first time, that a lady elected to the Seanad becomes a man after she is elected. That statement is, I think, most unkind to Senator Moore, who, I understand, came within the magic circle, but who was not included in this magic six.

The President

They must know him better than the others.

Mr. O'Farrell

But the most serious charge of all, in my opinion —and I am sure the Deputy realised it was a serious charge when he made it—was when he said: "There is not a single one of the remaining fifty-four capable, in my opinion, of acting as a member of the Dáil, much less as a member of the Executive Council." He must have known that it was a serious charge to say that no member of this House was capable of being a member of the Dáil or he would not have made it. Statements of that kind by people who desire to be taken seriously, who pose as potential Ministers, show a decidedly low standard of what is expected from responsible Parliamentarians. Even in the case of a Parliamentarian with both eyes on the gallery there is a sufficient opportunity to speak strongly and to speak effectively without indulging in the type of statement which tends to bring our Parliamentary institutions into contempt.

A few of the speeches made against the Bill were, in actual fact, the strongest possible arguments in support of it, and showed the desirability, in certain circumstances, of extending considerably the scope of the Bill, if certain loquacious people are ever translated from shadows into real live Ministers of State. I understand that in Germany the Graf-Zeppelin is supposed to have the biggest gas-bag in the world, but after reading some of the speeches made against this Bill, as a Scotchman would say, "I hae ma doots."

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, April 24th.