Return as to Work of Seanad: Motion.

Mr. Duffy

I move:

That the Clerk of the Seanad be and is hereby authorised to compile and issue, in respect of the year 1945, a return or returns showing:—

1. the number of days on which the Seanad sat for the transaction of public business;

2. the number of attendances made by each member of the House;

3. the number of Bills which were—

(a) submitted to the House, and

(b) passed or accepted by the House;

4. the number of Bills amended in the Seanad, and

(a) the number of such amendments inserted in each Bill, and

(b) the number of such amendments accepted by the Dáil;

5. the number of divisions taken in the House and in Committee of the whole House;

6. the number of divisions in which each member participated and the number of divisions in which each member failed to participate;

7. the number of motions debated, distinguishing between—

(a) Government motions, and

(b) Members' motions;

8. the number of occasions on which each member participated by formal speech in debate, and the total number of columns of the Official Debates occupied by the speeches of each member.

I do not think that this motion requires very much explanation. It seems to me that its purpose should be quite clear. The purpose behind the motion is simply to have made up, officially, by the officers of this House, a return of the proceedings and transactions of the House. There is nothing unusual in that except that, of course, I should say that such returns have not been made up, so far as I know, in any official manner in this House heretofore. I have a recollection, however, that on occasions material much similar to what is asked for here was used and has been used in public in relation to the transactions of this House. I think it is true to say that individual members of this House are constructing this information for themselves and using it outside, and I feel that if that is to be done, it should be done officially and should be presented to the House by the officers of the House—the Clerk of the Seanad, and so on. It is the practice in many legislative assemblies to have a return each year of the work done. That was the practice of the Dáil up to the emergency—not quite in the form which this motion seeks, but in a more elaborate form. I have here a copy of the Order Paper of Dáil Eireann for 8th February, 1939, and it contains no less than six motions, moved by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The first motion asks that there should be laid before the Dáil a return showing with reference to 1938, the number of days on which the House sat, and so forth, also referring to the number of hours devoted to different business, such as the Estimates for Public Services, and so on. It really runs into two pages of the official return of Dáil Eireann. My point is that a motion similar to this was moved year after year in that House, until about 1940. So far as I know, an almost similar motion has been moved during the last four or five years, and I understand that the practice was only dropped as a result of the emergency conditions, but that I do not know. However, the common practice in legislative assemblies is to ask for a return of the business transacted during the year and how the various decisions were reached.

The House will remember that on the last day we met members of this House were appointed to the Joint Committee on Privileges. It seems to me that that Committee should ask for some information as to how the business of the House was transacted, and I want to say that my primary purpose in asking for this motion to be taken to-night is to ensure that the return shall be made by the House itself, and that we should not have to wait for the Joint Committee to do so. Of course, such a return as this is very easily compiled. I have not heard any objection, from those in a position to judge, that there will be any difficulty in compiling the information. As a matter of fact, any member of the House can compile the information for himself, if he spends the necessary time on it, but we are not prepared to accept a return compiled by a member of the House, possibly, for his own benefit. It seems to me to be obvious that if this thing is to be done at all, it should be done in a proper manner and with official sanction. I see that there is an amendment on the Order Paper to this motion. I have no objection to the amendment, but I do not think it is related to the motion at all. I have no objection to the amendment being taken, but I want to draw attention to the fact that this is a proposal to get information as to the work done, and nothing else. I do not want to occupy the time of the House discussing a matter like this. The motion has been on the Order Paper, I think, almost two months. It should be clearly understood, and I think its implications are known. I want to emphasise, however, that I have no personal interest in having this return made. I could easily compile such a return for myself. I simply want to ensure that if such a return is to be made and used, it should be a return made officially and to the order of this House.

Mr. Sweetman

Perhaps the Senator would explain what he means by a "formal speech", in paragraph 8 of his motion? Is it intended by that subparagraph of the motion that the Clerk of the Seanad should differentiate between the sense and the nonsense?

Mr. Kyle

I formally second the motion.

Mr. Foran

I move the amendment standing in my name:

In paragraph 4 of the motion to insert a new paragraph (c) as follows:

Perhaps it might be as well if, at this stage, we were to adopt the suggestion of the mover of the motion; that he himself would compile this return. It would seem to me that that would solve the whole difficulty.

Acting-Chairman

Is the amendment being seconded? It cannot be debated until it is seconded.

Mr. M. Hayes

It cannot be debated, but it can be alluded to in the discussion.

Sir John Keane

May I speak on the motion?

Acting-Chairman

Seeing that there is not a seconder the amendment lapses. Senator Sir John Keane.

Sir John Keane

I do not think that one can logically object to the motion. It is obviously statistical, with the object of getting a record of the business done by this House, but it has a certain amount of danger in it, I think. It is not a danger which is liable to affect me because I think that my record is fairly good, but there are a certain number of members who may feel themselves being pillioried. The return may show that a certain number of members have taken a formal part in the proceedings of the House, and that some have attended very badly, but whether it is a good thing to encourage members to talk whether they have anything useful to say or not is another matter.

I would much rather have the House act spontaneously. If members have something to say let them come here, and if they have nothing to say, let them stay away. That is much more satisfactory. I would have doubts as to the effect of this motion, whether it will produce artificial behaviour, or artificial conduct on the part of certain members. Such conduct would not improve the conduct of our business; it might, indeed, hold up the proceedings of the House to an unwarrantable extent.

Mr. M. Hayes

It seems to me that two things ought to be said at once about this motion. A motion for a return with regard to the proceedings of the House should be discussed, at the outset, in the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. The best way to deal with this motion is to ask the Committee of Procedure and Privileges to consider whether an annual return should be made about these or similar matters and, if so, what form such an annual return should take, and what matters it should contain: that is number one.

As to number two, it seems to me that Senator Duffy is labouring under a misapprehension that you can apply the statistical method to determining the value of a Parliamentary Assembly, because, very emphatically, you cannot. Statistics are proverbially difficult to handle, and it is quite easy to draw a wrong conclusion from a certain set of figures. Statistics about a House of Parliament such as this can be entirely misleading.

It is not possible, as Senator Sweetman has already indicated by way of a question, to determine what is required. We are asked to set down the number of occasions on which each member participated by formal speech in debate. You can indicate the number of times that a man or woman intervened in formal debate, but there is no method of finding whether he talked sense or nonsense, or the extent of his irrelevancy. You have no means of determining at all, by way of statistical return, what kind of member of the House he is.

That can be determined only by his fellow members, and by the electors, if they took any interest in that particular type of thing. Presumably, they do not. I do not understand why Senator Duffy objects to members of the House keeping their own figures. I think they are quite entitled to do it, but they are difficult figures to apply. For example, No. 1 is easily ascertainable. So are numbers 3, 4, 5 and 6, if people troubled about them, and number 7 is not very difficult. Number 8 appears to me to be not worth the trouble at all. It would only indicate that certain people sit in their seats and never speak about anything, perhaps because silence is golden, and possibly because ignorance is bliss.

All that is very difficult to determine and certainly the Clerk of the Seanad, competent as he is, could not possibly evaluate either the eloquence or the silence. I think number 8, therefore, should not be adopted at all. Similarly the question arises of the number of attendances of members of the House. I had considerable experience of endeavouring to form a plan for that in the Dáil, and the answer is that it cannot be done because you cannot determine what an attendance is. A person can turn in, make his bow and go off immediately and be recorded as attending, or, as has happened in this House, a person can get a petrol voucher certified by the Clerk of the Seanad for the purpose of attending the Seanad, rush in at 8.30 and intervene in an ignorant manner in a Debate, in order to have his name recorded in the Official Debates. Whether he is less reprehensible or more reprehensible than those who simply come in and go out or those who say nothing, it is not for me to say, and no return will indicate. It appears to me that the motion is based upon what I might call a misapprehension. The argument that if you have a certain amount of statistics you can determine the value of a Parliamentary Assembly is quite understandable but quite unsound.

For that reason we ought not to adopt a motion of this kind in the House, but we ought to let the Committee of Procedure and Privileges consider what steps it can take about a return, perhaps at the same time considering what steps it can take to remedy what are abuses. I speak with considerable Parliamentary experience and with the most profound pessimism, in saying that I do not think the committee can evolve any system. The whole Parliamentary idea is based on the notion that if you become a member of Parliament and do not do your work, you will be thrown out, but the experience is that the more work you do the most danger you are in of being thrown out. I am not complaining about that, but that is a fact which everybody knows.

The amendment which Senator Foran moved, but for which there was no seconder, belongs to the type which is absolutely valueless. A Senator may be quite right to withdraw an amendment after proposing it with the intention of bringing it at another stage and to have that information available without notes and comments capable of being understood by everybody is completely useless. My suggestion is that we should not adopt the view that by getting a certain number of figures, we can determine the value of any contributions to the Debates that members of the House make. We cannot.

The House should agree that the matter should be brought before the Committee of Privileges by the Cathaoirleach so that the question of a return should be considered, leaving the committee free to suggest a return and to suggest what form it will take. For that reason, if the motion is put to the House, I would be against it and I suggest that the proper way to deal with it is to send it to the Committee of Procedure of Privileges.

Mr. Counihan

When I see motions about the Seanad I become very sceptical whether they are genuine. I remember on a previous occasion that the Labour Party in this House voted for the abolition of the Seanad and I wondered when I saw the motion in the name of Senator Duffy whether his object was to discredit the House or to improve it.

I am still not quite confident that I am prepared to give Senator Duffy the benefit of the doubt, and to say that his object was to improve this House. I think he has certainly some grounds for trying to make improvements, when we consider that a number of Senators, who went to considerable trouble and expense to be elected to this House, come in to sign the roll, who are still drawing allowances for expenses and other remuneration but who have but once attended. There is ground for some action to be taken there. That class of people are drawing money under false pretences. For that reason, I think Senator Duffy has some justification for putting down the motion. I appeal to him to adopt the suggestion of Senator Hayes, and to bring the matter up at the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. If he does that I am sure that something can be done to remedy the grievance under which he thinks the House is suffering owing to the non-attendance of many Senators.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Tá sé chomh maith agam a rá nach maith liom an tairgsin seo. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aon údar ar fiú trácht air leis. Le tamall rinneas iarracht a fháil amach ó Sheanadóirí cén cuspóir a bhí leis an tairgsin ach theip orm an t-eolas seo d'fháil. Bhíos ag súil go bhfuigheadh muid léargas nó treoir éigin ón Seanadóir Ó Dubhthaigh féin anseo tráthnóna ach theip air an léargas nó an treoir sin a thabhairt dúinn. Tá súil agam nach gcuirfear an tairgsin ar bhótáil. Ba mhaith liom iarraidh ar moltóir an tairgseana é a tharraingt siar.

Like Senator Hayes I want to say that I dislike the whole tone of this motion. On many occasions I tried to find out from various Senators what might be the reason why the motion was put down and nobody seemed to have an idea. As we listened to Senator Duffy to-day I think we all expected to hear some reason why he put down the motion or what purpose he sought to serve. We listened in vain. The motion seems to me to have been conceived without due thought. The number of days the Seanad sat is very easily obtainable. I am sure it is only a few Senators who do not keep the Order Paper for reference. The motion asks for the number of attendances made by each member of the House. What exactly constitutes an attendance? What purpose is to be served by the publication of such information? Will we ask the Clerk of the Seanad when compiling the information to say at what hours members turned in and at what hours they retired? Otherwise there is no point in setting out the number of times that Senators attended. I speak as one who has been pretty attentive to my responsibilities, in the matter of attendance in particular, and it is a question whether we should ask the Clerk of the Seanad to distinguish between people who live convenient to this House and people who live a very great distance from it.

Again, should we ask the Clerk of the Seanad to find out from members who have not attended as regularly as they might, whether there were any special circumstances that prevented their attendance, as one would expect them to attend. Unless one goes into all that kind of detail it would be unfair to the House to publish information of this kind. The Committee of Procedure and Privileges might decide that a table of one kind or other might be issued, but anybody who had experience of statistics, or the handling of statistics, would be very slow to use any such table. Dealing with the number of Bills submitted to the House, surely every Bill has identification. Every Bill when dealt with in the House receives a number and date. One has only to look at the volume for the year to know the number of Bills that were submitted to the House.

Mr. Duffy

Surely that is not a fact?

Liam O Buachalla

I suppose a Bill might be submitted in the year 1945 but it might not be passed until 1946?

Mr. Duffy

Bills do not have a number.

Liam O Buachalla

I think I said that they have identification which would guide those interested and that they are numbered consecutively. It is easy to find out the number of Bills which have passed through the Final Stage in this House and been accepted by the Dáil. Do we not refer to the Acts by their number and the year?

Mr. Hayes

The Acts are numbered.

Liam O Buachalla

I believe I said that the Bills had identification. If I used the word "number" I am sure I corrected myself by using the word "identification". The motion also asks for the number of amendments inserted in Bills and the number of such amendments accepted by the Dáil. The number of amendments that might be put down in this House on occasions are very numerous. To the Bill we had before us to-day there were between 70 and 80 amendments, so that one would want to know what reason a Senator had for putting down a particular amendment. How often are amendments put down for the deliberate purpose of altering a Bill? How often are amendments put down because a Senator has a bona fide doubt as to the meaning of a particular section or a particular word and, having heard an explanation, is prepared to withdraw? If the information is to be of any value some details on the lines I suggest would have to be included. Senators can realise that if a table or a report is to be of any value a mass of information would be required.

At the same time it can be realised how utterly impossible it would be to deal with such a table with any degree of satisfaction. The motion also asks for the number of divisions taken in the House and in Committee of the whole House. One might as well suggest, when seeking that information, that the Clerk should show on what side a Senator voted, "Tá" or "Níl". Surely that would be very important information. Merely to ask for the number of divisions taken in the House, and to expect people to gauge from that the value a Senator rendered to the community by taking part in the division, does not make sense.

A request regarding the number of occasions on which each member participated in debate is, I think, the least commendable portion of the motion. It also asks for the number of occasions on which Senators participated by formal speech. Would we ask the Clerk of the Seanad to decide how much of the speeches delivered here were read from manuscript?

The whole idea inherent in this motion, as I think Senator Hayes mentioned, is that the privileges of the House should be abused. If the number of columns filled by a Senator in the Official Reports is to be taken as a criterion of that person's value in the House, what is to prevent a member taking up any dossier with which he may be presented and proceeding to read it, or endeavouring to base a speech upon it, and, in that way, fill up columns and columns of the Official Reports. The public then are to judge by the number of columns filled the value of that member's services to the House and to the community.

Again, whether members should on every occasion, or on any particular occasion, get up and speak in the House is very questionable. There are 60 members of the House. The sitting lasts each day about five hours. If every member is to stand and hold forth on every conceivable topic that comes before the House, how is the business of the Seanad to be done. If members of the Dáil, who number 130 or 140, were to be judged by the number of speeches they make, and the length of those speeches, the whole procedure of Parliament would be reduced to chaos. Much more might be said against the motion.

This House has a number of very distinguished members. I agree that we do not see some of them very often, but I do not think that that makes them less valuable members of the House. On a few occasions I have met some of them in the Lobby, and their views were well worth canvassing. I am sure that they are not without making their views known to their fellow members. To ask the Seanad to say that, because a member does not stand up and hold forth on every conceivable topic, thus filling columns and columns of the Official Report, he must be taken as a person unfitted for membership of the House, is to ask too much of a responsible body. I hope that we shall not be asked to vote on this motion, that it will be gracefully withdrawn, especially in view of the suggestion made that the Committee of Procedure and Privileges might be asked to consider whether a report on some of the matters raised in this motion might not be presented periodically.

Mr. Douglas

I do not think that this is a matter we should debate at any great length. I agree with the suggestion made by Senator Hayes, and supported by Senator Buckley, that this matter should be considered by the Committee of Procedure and Privileges.

Professor Magennis

Why?

Mr. Douglas

Because I consider that, before any attempt is made to get out statistics, we should have the carefully-considered opinion of a meeting at which officials would be present and would inform us as to what was done in the past. To the best of my recollection, figures which were got out in the past tended to be misleading.

I do not think that the members, taken as a whole, give as much time or care to the business of the House as they might. If anybody could suggest a statistical method which would ensure a better average attendance—I do not care twopence how often Senators speak—I should be in favour of it. I have a certain amount of sympathy with Senator Duffy in endeavouring to find a suitable form of resolution. I could, just as easily as Senator Buckley, criticise this motion in detail. I cannot support the motion as it stands because I do not think that the preparation of such statistics as are proposed would achieve anything. They might be used by certain newspapers to create a false impression. There is no question of party politics in regards to this motion. One Party is just as good or as bad as another. I should be in favour of sending the matter to the Committee of Procedure and Privileges to see if it could find any form of statistics which would be of value. Frankly, I am sceptical as to that but I am not prepared to say that no returns would be of value. We could easily deal with this motion humorously. I should not assume, as Senator Buckley did, that the proposer thought that long speeches were meritorious. Senator Buckley assumed that, if a member had so many columns of the Official Report under his name, it would be of merit. I am not so sure that he would not be regarded as a person who was wasting public money by taking up so much space in the reports. I think that any kind of general statistics would be certain to be misused.

Mr. Summerfield

I am of opinion that this motion should never have seen the light. It is undignified and unworthy of the position which this House ought to occupy in the esteem of the community. I am puzzled as to how it came to be put down. If this yardstick of value—the length and frequency of speeches—were to have the effect of shortening speeches which, during the year I have been in the House, it was an ordeal to listen to, it would achieve the only good purpose it is possible for it to achieve. Here, quotations and interjections find their way into the Official Reports. At this stage, after many members have spoken, I can merely repeat what has been indicated. If there is to be a return as to speakers on every Bill and every amendment, I can see no meaning in that requirement in the motion that every member is expected to say something, no matter how stupid, on every topic.

In doing that, we should stultify ourselves and the Seanad would lose any value it has in the Parliamentary life of the country. I feel strongly on this matter and, as the newest member of the House, I have the temerity to say that this motion should not have been put down. It would not be creditable to a golf club and it would not be creditable to the Seanad. I hope that it will be decently buried.

Mr. Hearne

I have no sympathy with persons who are elected to this House and who take their duties lightly. Such persons are a menace to the democratic institutions of the country. Having said that, I can see no way by which this motion could achieve the object which, I am sure, the mover has in mind—that is, to have a better attendance and to have an accurate record regarding the matters set out in the motion. One of my objections to the motion is in respect of the requirement as to the number of attendances. I can see no way by which we could decide what is an attendance in the House. I understand that there is at present a return of attendances and that a member is recorded as attending if he turns up five minutes before the adjournment. That, I understand, is the practice. I do not know whether it is just or unjust to a number of members of the House. In some cases, it is not just. I do not know what is meant by the words "formal speech" in the motion. Is that to be determined by one sentence——

Mr. Douglas

Are you making a formal speech now?

Mr. Hearne

I do not know. It is very difficult to decide. These are two objections which I can see no way of remedying. If the motion were carried with those two requirements, it would be defective. Accordingly, I oppose it.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I think there might be some advantage from this motion from the point of view of those of us who, for our sins, have to try to consider the new method of selecting what may be called the Panel Members. We might get some statistics out of the returns prepared under this motion which would be useful, and for that reason, and practically for that reason alone, I support the motion.

Mr. Patrick O'Reilly

One previous speaker referred to the difference in attendance made by a person, say, living in Dublin and a person living in Donegal. Certainly if there is to be a list of attendances there should be some indication as to the relative difficulty of Senators in making such attendances. There is a certain plan followed in making out the cost of living figures. Certain items of food being much more largely used than others are weighted; and I imagine, if a list of attendances is to be compiled, there should be a system of weights attached to the attendances of members according to the distance which they have to travel to the Seanad here. In fact it might be necessary to prescribe certain travel zones and make the rates vary according to these zones. There is also the question of the person who makes a five minutes' attendance. The attendance would have to be weighted accordingly and there would be all sorts of difficulties.

In justice to Senator Duffy, I should like to say that he is aiming at something which is very important, namely to secure a better average attendance in this House. I think for that reason we should be grateful to him for having called attention to the matter. Whether the particular plan he suggests is the best way to secure that result is another question. As regards the question of "formal speech", some difficulty might arise in the interpretation of the meaning of the word "formal". I take it that when a Senator is proposing a motion, he makes a formal speech in support of that motion; but if when other motions are under discussion he interjects a remark or makes a brief contribution of some kind, that would not be a formal speech. I would support the suggestion made by Senator Hayes that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges for general consideration and, in that event, perhaps Senator Duffy would see his way to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Foran

I should like to be clear on the procedure. Would that not require an amendment to the motion?

An Cathaoirleach

If the Senator withdraws the motion, the matter can be brought before the Committee of Procedure and Privileges afterwards.

Liam Ó Buachalla

There is no formal motion necessary to enable that to be done. It can be raised at the Committee.

Mr. Hayes

I could ask the committee to consider it myself, but I suggest that the Cathaoirleach should ask them, since it has been the occasion of discussion in this House, to consider it.

Mr. Duffy

The motion at least has done one thing. It has enabled a number of people to say what they do not know about motions. It seems to me that the motion is perfectly clear. Members may not like it but that is another question. There is very little room I think to start talking about what is a formal speech. Surely that must be fairly clear to everybody. If a person makes a speech, he is entitled to ask to have that recorded as a speech, but if a person interjects a remark, even though it may be an intelligent remark, he is not making a formal speech. As to the question of attendance, there are two observations that might be made about it. Do we not know that there is a number of people who never attend here? Do we not know that they are very anxious to get into the Seanad, but equally anxious to keep away from it, once they get their names on the list? As to the actual attendances, in the Parliament of the Six Counties in Belfast a Senator is paid per attendance. They must have some method there of determining what is an attendance, because they pay per attendance and not otherwise. Surely, if they can discover in Belfast what constitutes an attendance in Parliament we can also find some way of finding what is an attendance.

I am afraid there are some people, like my friend, Senator Counihan, who are always suspicious of everything they see on the Order Paper particularly when it comes from this quarter of the House. The Senator need not be so suspicious. I informed the House at the very start that the information which I seek is actually being compiled by members of the House and is being used outside the House. I was shown by a member of the House a record he had made of the performances of his colleagues. If that is being done, and is going to be used against some of us or all of us, it should be done officially. Actually it seems to me that no matter what we do, we cannot prevent some information being collected regarding the way in which this House does its work in view of the fact that a committee has been appointed to consider methods of elections in this House. This point arises. As I happen to be a member of the committee, probably the easiest way I can get the information for such a committee is to ask for it.

I cannot see what is the meaning of this bashfulness on the part of certain members. It may be argued that some of the lists, if compiled in a statistical form, would not supply the information sought. That is probably true but at least there should be no difficulty in getting a return showing the number of days on which the House sat. It has been proposed in Dáil Éireann that a return of that character should be prepared in respect of that House. A motion was moved by the previous Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann asking for a return showing the number of days on which that House sat, the kind of business transacted, etc. It further seems to me that these are matters of which we should have some record, so that over a period of years one can see to what extent the Seanad has been engaged in the performance of public business, the number of Bills submitted to the House, and the number passed or accepted by the House. Is there any difficulty in showing that, or is there any objection to showing it? Dáil Éireann has asked for a similar return in regard to that House. What is this bashfulness to which we are so subject when we are afraid to ask for this return? Again the return would show the number of divisions taken in the House.

Senator Ó Buachalla asks why we should not go further and show side by side the returns from the Tá and Níl Lobbies. I have no objection to that if anybody wishes to have it. I accept the view, of course, that these tables will not measure up accurately or even approximately the value of the work done or the value of the contributions made by individual members. That is obvious. I am under no illusions about that. I never thought you could get tables showing the values of the work done, of the number of amendments submitted, of the number of speeches made, and so on. All those are of relative value. But the tables would at least show those who are interested in the form of Parliamentary organisation we have here, with two Houses, the extent to which the Second House is used. I am hoping too that, if we had statistical information as to how members use the House, it would be a good thing for the House itself, because one day the question will arise as to whether we need a Second House or whether we do not. It occurred to my mind very forcibly one night last week. We debated a certain motion for an hour. The motion was put. A number of people said "Tá" and a number said "Níl". The motion was declared lost, and a division was challenged. If it had been declared the other way, there would not have been sufficient people on the other side to challenge a division. When the division took place, 12 people voted on one side, and 15 on the other—27 people out of a House of 60 were present to vote on an important matter affecting the public interest.

Mr. Counihan

Does not that compare very favourably with divisions in the Dáil?

Mr. Duffy

I am not discussing the Dáil. I am not defending the Dáil. I do not think the Dáil does its job if only half the members are present.

An Cathaoirleach

We are not dealing with the Dáil on this motion and should not.

Mr. Duffy

I am not discussing the Dáil. I refuse to discuss the Dáil. I am discussing this House, and calling attention to the fact that, when a division was challenged, less than half the members were present. That is a serious matter. More serious still is the fact that during the whole time when that particular motion was being debated there were only seven people present, and after the division the number was again reduced to seven. It will be seen, therefore, that of the twenty-seven people who voted twenty did not know why they were voting on one side or the other. I think that is a serious matter. I think it will tell materially against the continuance of a second Chamber if members of that Chamber, who are alleged to be non-party and to be elected purely on a vocational basis, simply come into the House and march into one lobby or the other just as the Whips order them. Surely that is a matter which must concern every member of this House. If this return were to display the need for more attention being given to the business of this House by its members, I think it would have achieved its purpose.

I agree with those who have commented on certain shortcomings of the motion, and I do not desire to divide the House on it. I am prepared to fall in entirely with the suggestion of Senator Hayes, who, I think, agrees that there ought to be a return. What form that return should take is another matter. I am prepared that it should be decided by the Committee of Procedure and Privileges, and if they would in their wisdom submit a report it might be considered at a later stage by this House. On this assumption, I am prepared to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Business suspended at 6.15 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 6 Feb 1946