I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), line 9, to delete the word "Minister" and insert the word "Taoiseach".
If the Minister were going to accept amendment No. 4, I should not move this at all. This amendment is proposed for the purpose of simplifying the very elaborate machinery in the Bill. This first amendment proposes to have notice given to the Taoiseach instead of to the Minister. The second amendment in my name proposes to give power to the Taoiseach to appoint the person direct and substitutes simple appointment by the Taoiseach— subject to the qualification in amendment No. 3 that he should have regard to the knowledge, practical experience and other qualifications of the deceased, resigned or disqualified member—for what I regard as the almost fantastic machinery which the Bill contains. I am not proposing the amendment with the view that vacancies in the Seanad should be filled by the Prime Minister for the time being: I propose it simply because I think it is a better scheme than that in the Bill. This House purports to be a vocational House, but it is in no degree and to no extent whatever a vocational House. The members were elected by a very complicated and very creaking machinery and it is proposed in the following Section 6 of the Bill that vacancies shall be filled by a machinery rather similar.
Under the scheme which the Bill itself contains, three names will eventually make their way to the Taoiseach and he will then appoint the one whom he thinks fit. In other words, in spite of all the elaborate machinery in the Bill, the process is not a process of election at all, but a process of appointment by the Taoiseach. I think it would be better to give him that power direct. I have not gone to the trouble of finding out the chances of an individual who was put upon one of these vocational panels, but the chance would be very small. The chances in this case will be great, because one person out of three must be selected. Therefore, there will be considerable activity in putting all this machinery into operation and getting the three names, but it seems to me that, seeing that the Taoiseach is going to appoint, in any event, it would be much simpler and fairer if the amendment I have on the Order Paper were accepted.
I should like to set Senator Quirke's mind at rest, and say that I am not speaking with reference to the present Taoiseach or the present Government, but that I am talking about any Taoiseach to whom the three names may be presented. It is only human that he should select from the three names the person who appears most suitable to himself. Thus, you may easily have a position in which a Senator who had a particular association in the Seanad and in the country will have substituted for him another Senator who may belong to the same profession, or a like profession, but entirely of a different point of view with regard to public policy. If the amendment were accepted, the Taoiseach, publicly and on his own responsibility, would have to appoint a person to fill the vacancy, and in doing so would be obliged to take into consideration the knowledge, practical experience, and other qualifications of the deceased member. This would simplify the procedure in the Bill and would make it more straightforward, more honest and more realistic, and I believe it would produce better results in the end.