I desire to oppose the amendment. I think it is a mistake to say that it is requisite for the purpose of fulfilling the provisions of Article 33 of the Constitution.
Article 30 states:—
Seanad Eireann shall be composed of citizens who shall be proposed on the grounds that they have done honour to the Nation by reason of useful public service or that, because of special qualifications or attainments, they represent important aspects of the Nation's life.
Article 33 undoubtedly says:—
The method of proposal and selection for nomination shall be decided by Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann respectively, with special reference to the necessity for arranging for the representation of important interests and institutions in the country.
But this does not propose to make any provision in respect of the rule or proposal to provide for this special class of representation that is supposed to be contained in Article 33. The motion is a general motion of rules confining the powers of Deputies. The amendment expresses the aspiration that Deputies should have regard to what is alleged to be the intention of the Constitution. If it is desired to include in these rules something to fulfil the latter part of Article 33, some change would have to be made in the form of these proposed rules, something additional to the rules, so as to provide for special representation of important interests and institutions. If that is the intention, this amendment does not fulfil the intention, but it might be held to throw an obligation on someone, probably the returning officer, to rule out any individual who might be selected, on the grounds that the nominator had not had regard to important interests and institutions. That would be an obligation placed upon the returning officer entirely beyond reason, to ask him to be a judge upon either the character or the qualifications of the person nominated, or alternatively the motives of the nominator, whether in making the nomination he had in fact had regard to special interests or institutions. For these reasons alone, I think that the amendment is not justified and cannot be held to fulfil the requirements of Article 33 or of Article 30. But I wanted to add a little to that, in view of certain ideas which seem to prevail regarding the constitution of the Seanad.
I quoted Article 30, saying that the Seanad shall be composed of citizens who shall be proposed on the grounds that they have done honour to the nation by reason of useful public service, or that because of special qualifications or attainments, they represent important aspects of the nation's life. It is being held in some quarters that that imposes an obligation upon Deputies, in making these selections, to think only of persons having particular associations, having had antecedents of a peculiar kind, having had a peculiar class of education, or, possibly, having had a greater share than normal of the good things of this earth. Nobody who has read this Constitution with care, and certainly no one who was present in the Provisional Parliament which discussed it, can have any doubt that it was intended in this Article that any good citizen who had done useful service for the nation is qualified for representation in the Seanad, provided he fulfils the other obligation regarding age. There is no provision in the Constitution which imposes upon us an obligation to think in particular directions in making selections to the Seanad. "People who have done honour to the nation by reason of useful public service." All useful public service does honour to the nation, and I hope we shall some day arrive at the general view that only doing useful service will bring honour to the nation. We must not allow it to go out that the Seanad is to be a select preserve of a particular type of citizen, but that it is open to all citizens who have done honour to the nation by reason of useful public service. I say that the amendment is not a fulfilment but rather a restriction of the rights of Deputies, and the obligation upon Deputies in respect to Article 30, and that it would impose a responsibility upon the Returning Officer to inquire into the qualifications of persons nominated, or to inquire into the motives of the proposer or seconder.