Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 1940

Vol. 24 No. 23

Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) (Bye-Elections) Bill, 1940—Committee and final Stages.

Bill considered in Committee.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 5.

(1) Whenever a vacancy occurs in the membership of Seanad Eireann, the Clerk of Seanad Eireann shall, on the direction of Seanad Eireann, send to the Minister notice (in this Act referred to as notice of a vacancy) in writing of such vacancy.

Mr. M. Hayes

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.

Mr. Robinson

Although this Bill provides that three names must be put forward, there is no reason to suppose that that necessarily will happen. It is quite conceivable that two persons might be selected fairly easily, but there may be a tie for the third and there seems to be no machinery by which a decision can be forced regarding the third—unless two names are put into a hat and one is drawn out, which probably would not be a very good plan. This might cause adjournment after adjournment and there may be no progress until someone would be unable to cast a vote through being sick or for some other reason. There is nothing in the Bill to show how a decision can be forced in a position like that.

Cathaoirleach

That will arise on a later section.

Mr. Douglas

I believe that what Senator Robinson says is substantially correct. In spite of the provision in Section 18, that if you have not got three you start all over again, there is no limit provided as to the number of times which you can start all over again, and yet the Taoiseach will never get the chance of choosing between two. There will never be a vacancy filled unless by some means or other he receives three names from which to select. At least, that is my reading of it. Personally, I would prefer a system of co-option, but I cannot help feeling that a person like the Taoiseach would find himself in a rather unsatisfactory position when faced with the responsibility of choosing one person from three names put forward, all of sufficient importance to represent panels chosen by representative bodies. It would be far better to go the whole way and let this body nominate one person. There may be some justification for having the same principle as that on which the House was elected, though I am not saying it would be identical. It would not, nor is the appointment by the Taoiseach from three names identical, either.

I cannot help feeling that if you must have the principle that a person has to be chosen by the Prime Minister, it would be far better to give him complete authority. As far as the fundamental difference is concerned, it is not very great. Experience has shown that the number of vacancies for what we might call the normal period between elections is not very great and it is not going to make any vital difference. Where possible, it is desirable to improve the Seanad or, at any rate, not in any way to lessen its capacity, by co-option. The filling of a vacancy of this kind quite frequently provides an opportunity to introduce somebody well known to the public who would not be likely to go forward under the system provided here. I would much prefer the amendment to the scheme in the Bill, but if it is not possible to amend it, and if you must have the system of the Bill, then the Committee, that must meet, should take responsibility for its action.

Mr. M. Hayes

Might I be permitted to put another point which I omitted when speaking previously? In order to frame this amendment I looked up Article 18 of the Constitution dealing with Seanad Eireann. It says:—

"Seanad Eireann shall be composed of 60 members, of whom 11 shall be nominated members and 49 shall be elected members."

Now, Sir, this provision by which the Taoiseach appoints one out of three is in no circumstances an election. I wonder if any consideration has been given to that legal or Constitutional point of view? The Bill proposes the appointment by the Taoiseach of one person out of three. I know that subsequently in the same Article of the Constitution there is a proviso dealing with the filling of casual vacancies. Section 10, paragraph 3 of the Article says:—

"Casual vacancies in the number of the elected members of Seanad Eireann shall be filled in the manner provided by law."

I wonder can the law provide that elected members shall not be elected?

Mr. Ruttledge

I had better deal with that point first. The constitutional aspects of this matter have been considered and it is felt that the method proposed here can be considered an election. Certainly, if the Senator thinks that the method I am proposing in this Bill is unconstitutional, then his own amendment is doubly unconstitutional.

Mr. M. Hayes

I quite agree.

Mr. Ruttledge

I feel that this is an election. These nominating bodies select three persons. The picking out of one of these selected or elected members is certainly a method of election.

Mr. M. Hayes

That is very thin, surely.

Mr. Ruttledge

It is a method of election, the selection of three people whose names are to be put before the Taoiseach.

Mr. M. Hayes

It is only etymologically an election. It is a choice.

Mr. Ruttledge

Certainly to give the Taoiseach power to select straight away one person in addition to the power he already has of selecting 11 others would be outside the Constitution altogether. Perhaps I might deal at this stage with the point raised by Senator Robinson. It arises, I think, out of Section 14 of the Bill and although we have not reached that section yet, I might as well deal with the matter now. Section 14, paragraph (h), says:

Every question which shall arise at or in relation to the taking of the poll shall be decided by the Seanad returning officer and his decision on any such question shall be final and unappealable.

Mr. Robinson

Does that mean that he selects one of two people if the deadlock which I mentioned should arise?

Mr. Ruttledge

He can do that if there is no other method of dealing with it. He has to submit three names to the Taoiseach. To come to the amendment itself, the whole case made against the section is that the machinery is very cumbersome. As against that, it may be pointed out that these vacancies arise very seldom and the machinery is in existence already. It has been set up under the Principal Act and it is there available. Since it has been set up under the Principal Act, as a natural consequence it should be utilised for the filling of casual vacancies. When a person who is a member of the Seanad dies, resigns or is disqualified, these nominating bodies should certainly have a say in the selection of a person to take his place. I think it may safely be assumed that the nominating bodies will be able to select three persons representing the particular point of view which had been represented by the person deceased or the person who resigned or was disqualified. They stand for a point of view also and they will select persons whom they regard as qualified to represent that particular vocational point of view. They send forward three names and out of the three names so submitted the Taoiseach will make his selection. In that way they will be able to say that the person appointed is qualified to take the place of the person who previously represented them in the Seanad and that he represents their point of view. I do not think it right that power should be handed over to any Taoiseach to pick out whom he likes. The fact that the three names must come from the nominating bodies ensures that whoever is appointed ultimately will represent their point of view as did the previous Senator.

Mr. Douglas

Am I to take it that the Government point of view is that this is constitutional because it is an election? I look upon it as constitutional but I came to the conclusion that it was constitutional because the Constitution specifically says that the law should provide for the filling of casual vacancies. If you are, however, depending on the court to decide that this is an election, you are on extremely thin ice. I was perhaps guilty of saying that the method proposed in the Bill is cumbersome. I still think it is cumbersome but I do not think it is excessive, if you must have that system. On the whole it has been prepared with great care. Nothing that one can think of has been left out. If you must have an elaborate system of this kind, I find no fault with the machinery but I do not agree with the Minister when he says that all the machinery is there at present. The committee has to be set up. That committee is not there at present. It is quite one thing to have a nominating body to send forward the names of two persons who, they think, will be suitable Senators but I think it is giving away no secrets to say that quite a number of these bodies do not choose persons who are the most representative of their trade or profession. They choose two persons hoping that one may get votes from one political side and the other get votes from the other political side.

We certainly would be suffering under an illusion altogether if we were to think that the nominating bodies in all cases, or even, I think, in most cases, sat down simply to put forward the persons who were the best representatives of their particular professions. I am told, however, that there were one or two of these bodies who did so, that the results were nil, and that there has been a considerable grievance. I honestly believe that the setting up of a committee, with three representatives from each of these bodies which, collectively, on the rare occasions on which a vacancy may occur in the Seanad, will send forward three names, of whom the Taoiseach will choose one, will create more dissatisfaction amongst the nominating bodies, many of whom are not at all satisfied at the present time. From their point of view, it only means that they will have gone through a good deal of trouble and that the result, for the vast majority of them, will be just nothing at all.

Mr. O'Callaghan

It appears to me that the procedure set out in the Bill is quite all right, and the more one thinks of it the better it appears to be, or at least, the more I think of it, the better it appears to me. At first sight, I thought that it would be better for the nominating bodies to select their own men definitely and to eliminate any question of selection by the Taoiseach, but on thinking the matter over, it appeared to me that it might lead to overlapping if it were entirely left to the nominating bodies. Take such a section as the agricultural section, for instance. It might happen that there would be a vacancy in the agricultural section in the Seanad.

Mr. Baxter

What?

Mr. O'Callaghan

Well, it might happen.

Mr. Baxter

God forbid!

Mr. O'Callaghan

Well, we know that Senator Counihan represents the live-stock interests in the House here. I think the live-stock people have only one representative in this House, but it might happen that they would have two representatives, and then there is the possibility that a vacancy might occur in some other branch of the agricultural section, such as the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society or perhaps the Beet Growers' Association. They might lose a member in this House and then it could easily happen that the live-stock people would be able to get the third candidate as one of the three selected by the nominating body. It would then be very useful indeed that the Taoiseach should have the right to select a candidate from amongst the three, so as to prevent over-representation or overlapping in the way I have suggested, because it would be very unfair if the live-stock interests were to have three representatives in this House. For that reason I would be in favour of giving the Taoiseach the right to select one out of the three candidates. As I say, without that, there would be the danger of overlapping and one section might get too much representation in this House. If the Taoiseach did not have the right to make the final selection, it would be possible for one section, such as the beet growers, the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, or the live-stock people, to get excessive representation in the House, and that would be very undesirable.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I had not intended to take part in this debate, but it struck me, from what the Minister said, that in connection with this system he, perhaps, had in mind Article 18 of the Constitution. I should think—although I do not pretend to speak with any authority on the matter—that, inasmuch as that Article proposes, and does not put any limitation to, legislation for filling casual vacancies in the Seanad, Article 18 is a thing that we need not worry about. On the other hand, the system proposed by the Government seems to me merely to be trying, by a sort of side wind, to get around that Article.

I notice that in the discussion of this Bill everybody who spoke has put what seems to me to be a particular stress on the vocational side of this thing. Now, I object to that, because I believe that, although something could be done with regard to a vocational council, so far as this body is concerned, however, we are only misrepresenting vocationalism here. To begin with, and without meaning any offence to my Labour colleagues, the idea of having Labour as a vocation is perfectly absurd and is a complete negation of the whole idea of vocationalism. Then, when we consider the functions of the Seanad here, it must be remembered that we deal with every form of legislation here, and there is nothing in a man being a university professor, a farmer, or a carpenter, that particularly qualifies him for dealing with legislation that is directed towards the common good in general. It seems to me that the purpose of a vocational council would be to look after certain affairs if the Government took away from itself and gave to the council its arrogated functions with regard to the economic activities of the people in the country and allowed that council absolute power, subject, of course, to the State as a juridical entity in relation to economic functions. The fact, however, that a man is some kind of a specialist in economic production does not necessarily give him qualifications as a legislator. This body here has very limited powers, but these powers relate to all the legislation for the common good of the people. Consequently, I feel that this parade of the word "vocationalism" with regard to this body here is calculated to have a very bad effect on the whole idea of vocational organisation in this country. I only got up to speak because it is so irritating to hear this stress being put upon vocationalism in connection with a body such as this where vocationalism has no power whatever. To suggest that we here are a vocational body is to give a quite wrong idea of what vocationalism really is. The end aimed at by vocationalism is not attained by this body here, and this body is not a vocational body. Both from the point of view of the ordinary functions of the Seanad and that of vocationalism, the word is being used wrongly, and it seems to me that the simplest and most satisfactory method that we should consider for the filling of casual vacancies here would be that which would give us the best form of Seanad; that is, if there is no constitutional objection.

The Minister said that he did not think the power of nominating should be given to any Taoiseach. I say that it should be given to any Taoiseach because, if you cannot trust a Taoiseach for that purpose, you certainly cannot trust him to fulfil the functions of his office. I cannot argue very well about this because the Minister said, or suggested—or at least it could be read into what he said—that this method of the so-called vocational bodies nominating, and the Taoiseach selecting, gets around an awkwardness in the Constitution. I myself should think that there is no need to worry about that. Although I am not a lawyer, I should think that the next Article, which says that what this Bill aims at should be according to law, gives the Legislature an unrestricted scope for deciding what that law should be. I know that there is not much good in arguing about this if the Government has decided upon this form.

Mr. Ruttledge

I feel that we are fortified in two ways here: first, by what I have already said about an election, and then by Article 18, Section 10 (3), which says:—

"Casual vacancies in the number of the elected members of Seanad Eireann shall be filled in the manner provided by law."

This Bill provides how Seanad vacancies are to be filled. I do not want it to be inferred that, when I say that I would not leave the power to any Taoiseach, it could not be left, perhaps, in a Taoiseach's hands, but there are vocational bodies already there—the machinery is there—and I think it is only right that they should have some say in the selection of the persons to go forward. That leaves the Taoiseach above a certain amount of criticism and it gives these people a way in which they can find a suitable person to be selected from the group. I do not want to say anything more about it, Sir.

Mr. M. Hayes

The fact is that the vocational bodies have absolutely no say as to who will be elected to this House at a general election. Everybody knows that, and the Minister realises it just as much as I realise it. They have nothing to do with the election, and nobody has been elected to this House because of his vocational position in the country, and everybody knows it. Of course, I am sure Senator O'Donovan is mad to be allowed to say that he was elected just because he was a veterinary surgeon.

Mr. O'Donovan

Not at all, but does not this give an opportunity of selecting one of the three representatives of a panel or group, and therefore they have far greater power under this Bill than under the previous Act?

Mr. Fitzgerald

It is most regrettable, if so.

Mr. O'Donovan

I do not think it is regrettable. Of course, Senator Fitzgerald here to-day only repeated his Second Reading speech.

Mr. M. Hayes

Along with being a veterinary surgeon, Senator O'Donovan wants to be a chairman also, and they are very different things. What I was saying is that vocational bodies had nothing to do with election to this House. They put up a panel and the persons on that panel were put on it, not as a result of the vocational idea, but as a result of something which was purely political, which was meant to be political, and which has produced a political result. Senator O'Callaghan made a point which I think he will find completely solved if he votes for my amendment. He takes as an example the dreadful case in which the only representative of the Live Stock Association in this House might leave the House. I am entirely at one with Senator O'Callaghan in feeling that that would be a dreadful disaster. He wants to be sure that one representative of the live-stock industry would be nominated in his place.

Mr. O'Callaghan

No. What I do want to secure is that there will not be three members of the Irish Agricultural Organisation or three members of the Beet Growers' Association put on, and by giving the vote to the Taoiseach that possibility would be eliminated.

Mr. M. Hayes

I want to explain that, if I may. Let us take, for example, that a vacancy occurred, that the person who previously held the seat was a representative of the live-stock industry. Senator O'Callaghan says he would hate to see a beet grower appointed to that vacancy. Surely, under this particular scheme in the Bill, that might happen, but under my amendment it could not, because the Taoiseach would make the appointment direct and in making the appointment would be bound by this particular proviso in the law that, in making an appointment under the preceding sub-section, the Taoiseach shall have regard to the knowledge, practical experience and other qualifications of the deceased, resigned or disqualified member. So that, confronted with a vacancy which arose from the resignation, let us say, of a member of the Seanad who represented the beet growers, the Taoiseach, whoever he might be at the moment, would be practically bound to appoint a person with similar knowledge, practical experience and other qualifications.

Mr. O'Donovan

Not necessarily.

Mr. M. Hayes

That is the purpose of the amendment. I think, therefore, that Senator O'Callaghan's difficulty would be completely met by my amendment and would not be met by what is in the Bill.

Question put and declared lost.

Section 5 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.

Sections 6 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Douglas

I would like to ask the Minister a question with regard to sub-section (h). I understood from the speech of the Minister that under this sub-section the Seanad returning officer could do anything and that he could choose between two or three if there happened to be equal votes and that also, presumably, would be described by the Minister as an election. But when I look at paragraph (h) it appears that if there were not any votes at all he could put up three names according to the interpretation of the Minister, because there is nothing whatever to show that he can choose between two if they happen to be equal, but it does say that every question which shall arise shall be decided by the Seanad returning officer. If three or four names were proposed and the meeting refused to vote he could choose the three. I am extremely doubtful if the court would hold that "every question that arose at a poll" included the right to pick between two of the candidates and, with very great respect to the Minister, I doubt very much if "every question arising at a poll" could actually include that casting vote. I do not regard it as very serious.

Mr. Ruttledge

It will be for the returning officer to make his own rules. I understand that the reason why some provision such as the Senator suggests was not inserted was that we did not want to elaborate certain rules. It would tend to more confusion perhaps. A question like that is a matter for him to decide. He is presiding and it is for him to decide what method he is going to adopt. If there is a difficulty and if there is no likelihood of getting away from that position by further elections, I presume the returning officer has to make some regulation that will enable him to get out of that impasse.

Mr. Douglas

This matter arose at the First Constitution Committee, and we were advised that even in the case of a House of Parliament if a casting vote was not specificially provided for the chairman he would not have it. I doubt very much if the chairman can make rules to give himself a casting vote in an election or series of nominations.

Mr. Ruttledge

This is not giving him a casting vote. It is not a question of that at all, but of deciding whether they would cast lots or take them out of a hat. I think he would have power to decide that. It is not a question of giving him a casting vote.

Mr. M. Hayes

If there are not three names under 14, then you turn to 18 and start the whole machinery over again?

Mr. Ruttledge

That is so.

Mr. M. Hayes

And somebody said it was not elaborate.

Mr. Ruttledge

I did not say it was not elaborate. I said it certainly was not what it was represented as being here—difficult to follow. It may be detailed.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 15 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Douglas

I move amendment No. 4:—

After Section 27 to add a new section as follows:—

(1) Sections 5 to 27, inclusive, of this Act shall not come into effect until an order is made by the Minister and such order shall not be made before January 1st, 1943.

(2) Until an order is made by the Minister under the preceding sub-section vacancies in the membership of Seanad Eireann shall be filled by a vote of Seanad Eireann and whenever a vacancy occurs in the membership of Seanad Eireann the Cathaoirleach of Seanad Eireann shall at the next meeting of the Seanad give notice of the same. The Seanad shall thereupon fix a date at an interval of not less than three weeks for the holding of an election to fill the vacancy. The method of nomination and election shall be decided by Seanad Eireann.

During the Second Stage of this Bill I gave it as my view that there was a great deal to be said for the filling of casual vacancies by co-option. That was based on my experience in the Seanad over a considerable period, and I am still very definitely of the opinion that, in spite of all that may be said against this or any other Seanad, you will get commonsense agreement in 99 out of 100 cases that arise for co-option and you will get, as a rule, a good Senator. The Minister more or less stated—and there is no doubt about his attitude—that he did not favour that and that he would not accept an amendment to that effect, but it seems to me that, whatever may be said about that ultimately, there is a very strong case to be made for having a system of co-option at any rate during the present emergency, for a couple of years' time. It will avoid the setting up of this machinery during a time when everything more or less is upset. It will give a chance of trying how it works. The Bill would be passed into law under my amendment and after a period—and I do not mind shortening that period if it is thought better—the Government can bring in the whole scheme because they have decided either that the emergency is passed and that it is better to have the whole scheme or that the idea of co-option for vacancies has not worked satisfactorily in practice. The effect of my amendment really is that after a period of a little over two years the Government shall decide then whether they want this whole scheme brought in or whether they would allow co-option to continue, but during that period there would be co-option for vacancies.

There was sent to members of the Seanad Standing Orders of the previous Seanad which show that the practice and system adopted then seems to have met with pretty fair agreement. It is just possible that the first sub-section of my amendment would meet with more approval if it was worded to read "during the period of emergency, as stated in the Emergency Powers Act." That could be ended by an order of the Government or by an extension of this Bill. My idea is that it is obvious it will not want to bother setting up a new committee at present, as the Government is concerned with acute and urgent matters, and vacancies which might exist during this period could be promptly dealt with without setting up this machinery, while enabling the Government to have the principle which they, apparently, hold so dear, if they are still of that opinion. I am not at all sure that they would be if they saw co-option working in practice. I have not put down an amendment which would in effect reject the Bill and replace it by co-option, but I am proposing a system of co-option for a short period. I think there is very definite merit in a political Party having a system of co-option. I had first intended to put this down as an alternative to the Bill, but I came to the conclusion that that more or less was useless, as the Government would not agree, and if that is their mind still, I would rather have no Bill than an elaborate scheme.

Mr. Ruttledge

When I saw the amendment I did not know what the Senator had in mind. He proposes to put the operation of these sections back until January, 1943, or until an order is made by the Minister. I was wondering what circumstances and conditions would apply when that order was going to be put into operation. The Senator explained to-day that what he has in mind is the present emergency. I do not know that matters of this sort could be postponed in this way. If so, I suppose it would be as well to close down altogether. There are certain things that cannot be done in the present emergency, but people are not prevented carrying out an election of candidates for casual vacancies which very seldom arise in this House. There is only one vacancy at present. Unless we were unable to meet or that nominating bodies could not meet, or some circumstances like that arose, there would be no purpose whatever in postponing the operation of the Bill until the emergency was over. As conditions obtain these bodies are registered nominating bodies, and they have only to select representatives and vote. While they are in a position to do that, there is no case to be made for waiting until the emergency is over.

Mr. M. Hayes

Surely there is a case for the amendment on the merits, apart from the emergency, the same case as was made for the other amendment. Bye-elections take place in the Dáil for various reasons, one reason being, as indicated recently in the Dáil, to indicate the political position in the country. The Dáil is elected on a regional and political basis. This House is not elected on a regional basis, and there is no objection at all to giving this House power to fill vacancies. The amendment simply asks, since we are beginning with a new constitution, that we should have an experimental period for filling vacancies, by substituting for the machinery in the Bill which has already been declared to be elaborate, a simple proposal. I think what is now proposed would be a much better scheme. The least this House might be given is the power to fill casual vacancies amongst elected members, not those in the first instance nominated by the Taoiseach. The amendment would provide a simple method, and if it were accepted and inserted in the Bill, after a couple of vacancies had been filled if everything was done in a manner to which few people could take exception, then the other machinery would not come into operation at all.

There is a great deal to be said for following the procedure that was followed by the previous Seanad. It might be followed here, because people who sit together, even though they differ, get to know one another and to appreciate certain principles. This would produce a more satisfactory scheme for filling casual vacancies if this House were allowed to co-opt, as it would be bound to take into consideration the type of person who had left, or had died, and would fill vacancies with reference to his experience, practical knowledge, general qualifications and standing. The proposal here is not new. It worked admirably before. There was only one instance, I understand, where there was a difference about the filling of a casual vacancy. This proposal should be tried. We should be paying a compliment to ourselves by deciding to adopt this amendment instead of the machinery in the Bill. The amendment leaves the Minister his Bill, but simply asks him to make an experiment in the filling of a few vacancies to see what happens. If the experiment was made I believe it would be successful and would be a compliment to ourselves, and for that reason I think the amendment should be adopted.

Mr. Douglas

It is obvious that in my desire not to be an alarmist I failed to interpret the Minister's mind with regard to the emergency. If an emergency arose, what is proposed could be carried out, but we are making preparations, to put it mildly, for something which may not happen. I can easily see that in the provision for the Dáil sub-panel, and for sending out notices, time is required, and that that may prove extremely awkward if not impracticable in making a selection. When I spoke of a period of emergency and put down 1943, I had in mind that there was a very strong case for a simple method of filling vacancies. Without being an alarmist I can easily see a situation arising where it would be desirable to have as many members as possible of both Houses available, when it might not be possible to have full Houses. The nominating bodies in Dublin might be able to come together and carry out the machinery, but I can see difficulties in carrying out an election for the Dáil sub-panel. I have given up the idea of persuading the Minister against the Bill, but for a short period I think he might try the system of co-option which, it appears to me, would be extremely convenient. I had hoped that he would meet us in that respect. If 1943 seems too long I am willing to change the figures to 1942.

Question put: "That the new section be there added."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 26.

Tá

• Baxter, Patrick F.
• Butler, John.
• Campbell, Seán P.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Counihan, John J.
• Cummins, William.
• Douglas, James G.
• Doyle, Patrick.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Foran, Thomas.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Keane, Sir John.
• Lynch, Eamonn.
• McGee, James T.
• McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The
• Madden, David J.
• Parkinson, James J.
• Rowlette, Robert J.

Níl

• Byrne, Christopher M.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Goulding, Seán.
• Healy, Denis D.
• Honan, Thomas V.
• Johnston, James.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, Peter T.
• Kennedy, Margaret L.
• Lynch, Peter T.
• MacCabe, Dominick.
• McEllin, Seán.
• Mac Fhionnlaoich, Peadar
• (Cú Uladh).
• Magennis, William.
• O Buachalla, Liam.
• O'Callaghan, William.
• O'Donovan, Seán.
• O'Dwyer, Martin.
• O'Neill, Laurence.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Quirke, William.
• Ruane, Thomas.
• Stafford, Matthew.
• Tunney, James.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Douglas and Hayes; Níl: Senators Goulding and O'Donovan.

Question declared lost.

Amendment negatived.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Agreed: That the remaining Stages be taken to-day.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. M. Hayes

I should like to indicate my objection to this Bill. I said on the Second Reading that the notion that this was a vocational House, or that it was elected on a vocational basis, was false; that it was a fraud upon the people and that the Bill was elaborating machinery to maintain the fraud. The division that we have seen taken just now is a complete proof of that. I think the Bill should not pass, but I suppose we are powerless to keep it from passing. I propose, however, to vote against it.

Sir John Keane

I desire to support the Senator. I regard as a piece of gross, unimaginative pedantry, the whole structure of the Bill.

Mr. Quirke

I disagree with the statements made by the two Senators. I do not think the division which has been taken is any proof whatever of the truth of their statements. It is ridiculous that such statements should be made. The fact that a certain group on the other side stick together on all possible occasions is no indication that the House is not a vocational body. Even to-day, Senators voted with the official Opposition, Senators who disagree with them on every other possible thing that could be imagined. I think it is only right that somebody should voice resentment at the statements made by Senators Hayes and Sir John Keane.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I do not think Senator Quirke is correct and I am rather sorry for Senator O'Donovan. Senator Hayes has said that this is not a vocational body. It is not, and it should not be for the functions of this body. Senator Quirke tries to prove that Senator Hayes is wrong by assuming that what he has said is a reference to certain people in this House voting together. I do not see much harm in that. A law becomes a law here by virtue of a majority vote. There has been a lot of condemnation of Party Government, but, if you are going to have a Government responsible for the well-being of the country, it must have some assurance that it has a fairly loyal majority behind it. I see no objection to that.

As regards the pretence that this is a vocational body, although it hurts Senator O'Donovan's feelings to hear me reiterate, I intend to reiterate. I remember once a woman who had the name of being very beautiful. A man who did not like her was a draughtsman, and he drew a caricature of her, and it was hard to see her afterwards without seeing her in terms of the caricature. People are judging vocationalism by this Seanad, and that is a harmful thing because this Seanad is not vocational. Nevertheless, people look at the Seanad and say it is vocational, whether it is good or bad. Mind you, I am not saying anything against the Seanad. Does this body fulfil, or is it designed to fulfil, the functions that would be appropriate to a council or corporation? It does not. Is this body a vocational body representing various vocational functions in the country? It is not.

I gave one instance by reason of the fact that labour is represented here. Take it that you are engaged in a vocation that is, shall I say, objectivised, in the sense of a thing made or done. For instance, there are biscuits made in this country. All those who participate in the making of those useful things, biscuits, might be regarded as being in a corporation. The girl who wraps the biscuits up in paper, or puts them in tins, is only one part of it. The director of the company is another. Therefore, the moment that you segregate labour you indicate clearly that this is quite the opposite of a vocational body. I am not going to go into why the method of election for this body was decided upon. It may have been decided upon with the idea that it was a step towards vocationalism. To my mind it was a step away from vocationalism. I think that, after the experience the Government have had, the clear lesson they should have drawn was that you harm vocationalism by putting the mask of vocationalism on something which is not vocational. Senator Quirke says this is a vocational body, and thinks that the argument against its being a vocational body is that the people on this side of the House, or some portion of them, do not vote together with the people on that side of the House, but that has nothing whatever to do with it. It would, perhaps, be unfair to say that one votes otherwise than the way one believes to be for the public good, but I can conceive people on the other side saying that they might do more harm, and cause a disintegration in the general line of Government policy, if they were to vote against the Government, even though they might think that in relation to some particular point the Government's policy was wrong. I am not going to sit here and listen to people describing this as a vocational body. We are elected by a body of people who think in terms political, and it is quite right that it should be so until the society of people in this country are organised vocationally. When they are organised vocationally to the total of the vocational avocations of the people of the country——

Mr. Foran

Say in the Blue Shirts.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Blue Shirts organisation is not vocational to my mind. Neither, if I may say so——

Mr. Foran

The founder of it said it was.

Cathaoirleach

The matter is not relevant to this Bill.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Vocationalism is represented by the people, in their various avocations, earning their living, and in doing so producing a totality of good to be at the service of the people. On the point of vocationalism, as I see it, this Government up to the time of the war had, more than any other Government in Europe that was not already labelled totalitarian, extended the powers of Government over the lives of the people to a most unwarrantable degree, a degree definitely harmful to the purposes of vocationalism. In my opinion the Government should limit itself to its true functions. One of its true functions is that of a juridical entity: but, so far as the vocational functions of the people in the country are concerned, that they themselves would organise corporations which would be autonomous societies, and that in relation to what they were dealing with they would be able to arrange each corporation for itself. Those corporations would then regulate the relationships between one another, and where disagreements existed they would appeal for the arbitration of the State—the juridical entity. That is not the case with regard to this House. You may say that the girl who wraps up the biscuits should be represented here. Very well. An official has decided as to what bodies are eligible for representation here. I do not know what was the final decision, but I remember that in the case of the first Seanad election there was a question as to what made a man eligible to represent what was called vocational labour. Apart from the fact that the Labour Council itself is anti-vocational, the decision of the official exaggerated that and has multiplied it. I got up to speak on this because Senator Quirke, quite clearly, misunderstands our point of view.

Mr. M. Hayes

He understands it now I am sure.

Mr. Fitzgerald

A lot of people have got up to denounce Party-Government, but once a lot depends on a majority in the Legislature, then the Government, which has responsibility not merely for one aspect of policy but for the total policy, should have a fairly secure and steady majority until another Government takes its place. The Minister for Finance, speaking here last week, said that practically every one of us, while urging economy, was ready to propose additional expenditure. I do not want to pat myself on the back, but I do not remember any occasion on which I proposed additional expenditure. I may have proposed that money should be spent on one thing rather than on another, but I do not think I ever proposed additional expenditure simply. You may have the position in which more services are required. You get up and vote for them, but when more taxation is proposed to finance them you get up and vote against it. A situation of that kind would make government practically impossible and, as we know, government is absolutely necessary. If I may digress slightly, we have this wretched proportional representation system in this country, a system which is based on an absolute fallacy.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator is now digressing still further.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I have been trying to explain to Senator Quirke that he and his Party are quite right in not being too rigid in going into the matters of detail. Their general policy is to support the Government they were elected to support and to deviate from that only when they feel that by so acting they are serving the country better.

Mr. Quirke

May I say that I now understand why there is all this difference between Senator Hayes and Senator Fitzgerald?

Mr. M. Hayes

There is no difference.

Mr. O'Callaghan

I want to say that, in my opinion, this House is as near being a non-political body as any body that we have in the country. My view is that some of us would never have secured a seat in this House were it not for the fact that this is a semi-vocational body.

Mr. Tunney

I rise for the purpose of saying that I resent very much the remarks made by Senator Hayes. I think they were quite uncalled for. Speaking for myself, I want to say that I am quite free to vote for or against any measure that is put before the House. Generally speaking, I favour Government policy. The only time I feel inclined to vote against it is when I see that Government measures have the support of Senator Hayes and Senator Fitzgerald, because on such occasions I suspect I am wrong.

Mr. Douglas

I will not attempt to express any opinion on the method adopted by the last Senator in deciding how he should vote.

Mr. Tunney

It helps me to decide.

Mr. Douglas

I am certain the Senator's remark was intended to be humorous and not meant seriously. The reason I am speaking now is because I want to give my reasons for voting against the Final Stage of this Bill. Whether this House be semi-vocational, vocational or not vocational, I still do not believe that the system outlined in this Bill is the best way to get vacancies filled. I am further of the opinion that during the next six, seven or eight months it is quite undesirable to have elections under this system. If this Bill is rejected by the Seanad, it means that it can be passed over our heads, and that we will have no vacancies filled for the next few months. I suggest that would not be as great a calamity as that this House should decide it was entirely in favour of this system. The measure designed for filling vacancies in this House ought not to be simply a Party one. I do not understand Senator Quirke's resentment at all. He has often assured me that the members of this House were entirely free to vote as they thought fit and if we or the Minister succeeded in persuading 25 members that the system of co-option was bad, instead of showing resentment, he should be satisfied. If a majority of them were to accept responsibility for the details of the Bill they can accept that on the Final Stage. If I vote against it, there is no question of affecting the life or otherwise of the Government; it is only a question as to whether there are vacancies to be filled in the next five months. At any rate we can deal with this entirely on its merits without any regard to the life or otherwise of the Government. I do not agree with Senator Fitzgerald when he suggests that it is essential that in the Second Chamber the Government should always have a working majority. I cannot agree with that. I think his remarks would apply quite soundly to the Dáil, but they do not apply here at all. However, I do not think that is relevant. I just mentioned it because I do not want to be taken as holding that view.

Mr. Ruttledge

I do not want at this stage to make a Second Reading speech or to give any dissertation on the merits or demerits of some of the points made by the various Senators with regard to this measure or with regard to vocationalism. I want to say this, that certainly no fault can be found with the framers of the legislation of the Principal Act. They went out to provide a framework as far as possible and to secure here a framework of the machinery for a vocational Seanad. To some extent that has succeeded. Some Senators say that is not so. However, the very vacancy which exists arose from the framework of that Bill; in ordinary circumstances, the Senator whose death caused the vacancy would not have been here at all. Senator O'Callaghan could say too that but for that framework he and others could not have found their way here at all. They represent certain vocations in the country. As time goes on I think the framework of the Bill would succeed much better than it has in the past. In any case that Act is there. The machinery is there and all we are doing under this Bill is to provide for the casual vacancies that arise, but making a change in that from what obtains under the Principal Act with regard to the Seanad as a whole would be absolutely inconsistent.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 12.

Tá

• Byrne, Christopher M.
• Campbell, Seán P.
• Colbert, Michael. Concannon, Helena.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Cummins, William.
• Foran, Thomas.
• Goulding, Seán.
• Healy, Denis D.
• Honan, Thomas V.
• Johnston, James.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, Peter T.
• Kennedy, Margaret L.
• Lynch, Eamonn.
• Lynch, Peter T.
• MacCabe, Dominick.
• McEllin, Seán.
• Mac Fhionnlaoich, Peadar (Cú Uladh).
• Magennis, William.
• O Buachalla, Liam.
• O'Callaghan, William.
• O'Donovan, Seán.
• O'Dwyer, Martin.
• O'Neill, Laurence.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Quirke, William.
• Ruane, Thomas.
• Stafford, Matthew.
• Tunney, James.

Níl

• Baxter, Patrick F.
• Butler, John.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Counihan, John J.
• Douglas, James G.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Keane, Sir John.
• McGee, James T.
• Madden, David J.
• Parkinson, James J.
• Tierney, Michael.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Goulding and O'Donovan; Níl: Senators Baxter and Fitzgerald.

Question declared carried.