I move:—
That Seanad Éireann is of opinion that the Government should introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Seanad Electoral Law Commission.
Perhaps I should first say one or two words about the background to this Commission. The Commission was appointed by the Government after a debate in the Dáil which took place on 20th November, 27th November and 4th December, 1957, reported in Volume 164 of the Dáil Debates, column 835 and what follows. The motion was fairly direct. It was simply this: "That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that Seanad Éireann as it is at present constituted should be abolished." Some pretty hard things were said about Seanad Éireann in that debate. I think it is unnecessary for me to repeat them. But I shall mention some of the more constructive things that were said.
First of all, the proposer of the motion, Deputy Noel Browne, did say in connection with the vocational organisation of the Second Chamber: "In the vocational bodies, there must be a fund of experience and a special knowledge which would be of great value to us here in formulating legislation, amending legislation and perfecting legislation." The difficulty as he saw it was how to find a way to enlist this valuable help to the legislature.
In the course of the debate, Deputy O'Donnell praised the Seanad to some extent and pointed out that Fine Gael had always been on the side of the Seanad. Later, Deputy McGilligan justified, as he thought and as I think, the expenditure of some £50,000 a year which he reckoned was the cost of the Seanad to the country. Then towards the end of the debate, the then Taoiseach, Mr. de Valera, spoke. I quote Volume 164, column 1454-5. He was speaking about his aims in 1937 in the new Constitution:
My hope at that time was that, after a period, we would be sufficiently organised vocationally in the country, and that the panels which were indicated in the Constitution would be such, that the members for these panels could be elected directly by vocational bodies. I still have a hope that that day may come, that it will be possible, after we are organised sufficiently, to allow the vocational bodies to elect members for these panels directly. I thought that, in the meantime—and there I have been completely disappointed—the method of nomination would so limit the number of persons who would be going up for election that, in fact, no matter what the electorate was, as the panels from which the electorate had to select would be definitely of a vocational character, the electorate would not matter very much. In that I was disappointed, because the tendency has been for the bodies which have the right to nominate the panels to have regard to the electorate in selecting people to represent vocational groups. They look forward to having persons elected by the electing body, and since these electing bodies comprise members of the Dáil, the county councils and so on, since the electorate is of a political character——
With great deference, I challenge the use of the word "political" in that sense; and I shall challenge this later on
——the names are thought of rather from the political Party angle than the purely vocational one. It is that that has prevented the aim I had in the Constitution from being achieved.
He went on to say that he would agree to appoint a commission. On the basis of that, Deputy Browne withdrew his motion and the debate ended. The Commission was set up shortly afterwards. Obviously this debate reflected a good deal of public discussion in the country for the past 15 years. As such, it deserves both the respect due to a debate in the other House and as voicing widespread public opinion. I think we should keep that in mind clearly in our debate this evening.
The Commission was appointed on 8th May, 1958 and concluded its work on 26th February, 1959. Here I should emphasise the terms of reference of the Commission. It will save some unnecessary argumentation this evening, if we keep this closely in mind. The terms of reference of the Commission were these: to make recommendations regarding any legislative changes within the provision of Article 18 and 19 of the Constitution which the Commission would consider desirable. Now, those were the terms: "within the framework of the Constitution," and although we need not restrict the debate to those terms this evening, in discussing what the Commission did, it is important that they should not be criticised for going outside the terms of the Constitution because in fact they were not entitled to do so.
In the Report, there was a very large measure of agreement, although it was a varied and representative body. There were only two dissentients,—one was Deputy Corish who represented the Labour point of view, that the Republic did not need a second Chamber—and the other, a point, by Major de Valera I shall refer to later. The Report is complex in detail. It would be quite impossible to go into the numerical abstrusities underlying it in our debate this evening. I think we may get somewhere if we confine ourselves mainly to general principles and to the one chief recommendation.
Let me first say something about the general principles which are involved. First of all, we are committed in the Report of the Commission to maintaining a second Chamber. We know that one of our political Parties does not believe that a second Chamber is desirable. But I would appeal to the members of that Party who are in the House to join the debate on these terms—I think it is a fair proposition—to join on the formula that as long as Seanad Éireann remains with us, it should be made as effective as possible for the purpose of promoting good legislation, of influencing public opinion and for the general welfare of the country. While we have it, let us try to make it as good as it can be. I do not suppose that anybody, the Labour Party or others, would object to that principle.
Now we come to the first difficult question. Supposing we are to continue to have a second Chamber, what is the best kind of second Chamber? It has been much discussed since 1922 and there has been plenty of disagreement, and I imagine there will be some disagreement this evening, but it is fairly widely agreed that the Seanad should not be a kind of second edition of the Dáil. It should be different not merely in the persons but in the system of election, and a good many people have held the view that it should not be directly controlled by the political Parties.
Here we come to a crux, and I am well aware of it. I should like to emphasise my own views—shared I think by a good many people—on the political Party system. It can be a beneficial system; it is the only workable system at present in many countries. It can do harm and it can do good. Like any machine, it is morally neutral: it depends on how it is driven. Like a motor car on the roads, sometimes driven recklessly and badly and sometimes driven well. Therefore, I hope that members of the Parties will not take it that because I am an Independent, I am hostile to the political Parties. I am not. Our country has been reasonably well governed by them for a very long time.
I should like to say that I recognise in this House, for example, how often it is that the Party members keep a quorum in the House. Sometimes the Seanad could not continue, unless the devoted and loyal Party members stayed on until 10.30 or 11 p.m. when many of the less closely involved members tend to go home. I just wonder whether there might not be a risk that sometimes the House would not be kept if the Party system were not there to keep it. So I am simply trying to show that the Party system has a very valuable function in the Seanad. What I argue is this: it is not the only desirable system; it is not the only conceivable system of electing House of this kind. I am arguing, as many have done, that there is room for independence and room for something like vocationalism.
Before I return to the Report, may I say something else? I most deeply deplore the misuse of the word "political" by the highest in the land to the lowest in the land. It is constantly used in this House as a term of abuse or depreciation. People get up and say: "I am not being political." My reaction to that is to feel inclined to get up and say: "If you are not being political, go out of this House."' This is a political body in the noble sense of that word, as well as perhaps in the ignoble sense, and it is really most deplorable for the young people of this country that they hear experienced politicians talking of being political as if necessarily it was a bad thing. Once again: politics may be good, bad or indifferent, but at its best, it is the noble art, the kingly art.
Just a few minutes ago, my colleague, Senator O'Brien, reminded me of how Cardinal Newman had praised training for politics, how Cardinal Newman had reminded his hearers that the chief object of a liberal education in Greece was to produce a nobly political man. So it offends me when I hear that noble word constantly being abused. We ought to discriminate between politics in the general sense, good or bad, Party politics in the general sense, good or bad, and independent politicians in the general sense, good or bad, and not degrade that noble word.
Here I should like to quote Deputy Major de Valera's addendum to the Report. He insists very rightly—this is on page 25 of the Report—that the Seanad must be a political body or else it simply does not deserve to exist. He is afraid if the Parties go, sectional interests may increase. I hope to meet that point of view in a moment or two, but I think we all welcome his insistence that we must all be politicians here. Our job is to make this House as good a political body as we can and the question is: how can we do it?
If it is entirely a replica of Dáil Éireann, with different people but thinking in the same way and voting in much the same way, it will not, I think, deserve its place in the nation. Many people have held, and the then Taoiseach emphasised this in the debate in the Dáil, that the best thing to do is to give the vocational system of organisation a chance. I should say it has had some chance already. We have in the Seanad men of vocational background who are serving the purposes of the Seanad well. But there are a good many people in the country who feel that we need to increase that element to increase the vocational slant, so to speak. Here I imagine a good many people would say: "You are wrong; vocationalism is not the answer." Well, I wait to hear those views expressed later in the debate. For the moment will the House allow me to go on the assumption that vocationalism may be the answer? What then?
I now turn to the text of the Report. First of all, I should like to point out that we members of the Commission heard plenty of views on the matter. On page 29, and the following pages, will be found a list of some 34 different recommendations for the reformation of the Seanad. These were considered well and carefully. Yet an almost unanimous recommendation emerged. The essential page in this report is page 27—"Summary of Principal Recommendations". I do not think I am doing the report an injustice if I say that what really matters in it is this: the recommendation that 23 members of the changed Seanad should be both nominated and elected by the vocational bodies. In other words, 23 seats will be assured to the vocational panels.
At the moment there is no such assurance, since the first choices of the vocational bodies may not be elected at all. In some cases, some very worthwhile vocational bodies have put forward very worthy people and those candidates have not received even one or two votes. But, under the proposed system, if it comes in, certainly 23 will be both nominated and elected. Really that is what we should debate to-night. That is the essential thing. Would it be better for this Seanad that 23 of us should come directly elected from the vocational bodies instead of being simply nominated by them and elected by the Seanad, Dáil Éireann and the county councils?
There is one major objection to this which was raised by Deputy Corish on page 24. This is what he says:
The franchise is still limited; the method of nomination rests on an unsatisfactory so-called vocational basis and the power of nomination by the Taoiseach is perpetuated in the new proposals.
We shall leave the second matter out of the count. I do not propose to dwell on that but I would say the Report of the Commission makes a very good effort to make the electorate from the vocational bodies a genuinely comprehensive electorate. There will be no question of Senators being elected by one or two small bodies. We have done our very best to do that and the recommendations are in the Report.
Secondly, I would like to emphasise what appears in the middle of page 23, which states
These changes...
that is, the recommended changes——
...represent a stage, rather than the completion, of a process of evolution towards a Second Chamber composed predominantly of persons who have attained positions of distinction, if not eminence, in their vocations or occupations and we would like to record the wish that after a trial period...
and this is very important——
...the development of the Seanad should be further reviewed to see if any further advance along these lines would be of advantage in the administration of the State.
At this point, I do not think I should go into details. I simply suggest that if we accept this basic recommendation that 23 members of the Seanad should in future be both nominated and elected by the vocational bodies, it will be an improvement. There will be 23 members nominated and elected vocationally. There will be six University members who may be taken as, perhaps, vocational. That makes 29 vocational members in a sense. There will be 11 of the Taoiseach's nominees, and the remainder remain pretty well under the control of the political Parties. So, to put it crudely, there will be 31 under the direct control of the political Parties and 29 under the direct control of the vocational bodies.
That is a compromise. It is neither one thing nor the other. But I do suggest it is a reasonable compromise. It is a compromise that was agreed to by a very distinguished list of thoughtful people, both political and vocational, and I recommend it to the Seanad. As a matter of principle, I suggest it is worth while at least to try the effect of increasing the vocational element in the Seanad in the hope of improving its political effectiveness. It is worth while.
I suggest, then, that the Report of the Seanad Electoral Law Commission supplies a reasonably good basis for legislation towards that end. I repeat with emphasis that some of the detailed recommendations will probably have to be changed in the Bill that will come before Parliament, I hope, fairly soon.
It is no use this evening discussing minor points. They can be left for emendation in the course of legislation. In fact, if we give approval to this Report this evening, and if the Government decide to bring it before the Houses of the Oireachtas, the Oireachtas may still reject the whole proposal. We are not committing ourselves to very much this evening. But at least the whole problem will be widely ventilated in the Oireachtas. If, on the other hand, we reject this motion this evening and if the Government do not bring the proposals of the Commission in one form or another before the Oireachtas, I can see no hope of change or improvement in the Seanad for certainly 20 years to come. This is our chance for good or for evil, and I think it is worth trying.
Finally, I want to make one aspect of the matter quite clear. In my belief, we have had a succession of Seanad which have been worthy of respect. That is my considered opinion based on my experience of the Seanad since 1948. We already have a valuable amount of vocationalism in the Seanad. But all human institutions are capable of improvement. Here in this Report, as I see it, there is a definite and promising plan for our improvement. I hope the Seanad will show both magnanimity —and it does need some magnanimity to face one's own improvement bravely and frankly—and wisdom in meeting the challenges and opportunities embodied in the Report. I look forward to hearing the debate with the greatest interest.