I move the Second Reading of the Constitution (Amendment No. 8) Bill, 1928. The object of the Bill is to reduce the age of Senators from 35 years to 30 years. In view of Deputy Ryan's statement last night that the average age of a man in this country is only 44 years I think it an argument for providing for 14 years' service by a man in the Seanad.
IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT No. 8) BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.
took the Chair.
Apparently the only argument which the President has to advance in support of this Bill is one which was supplied by a speaker on this side of the House. I thought that when the Government were introducing a Bill into the Dáil to reduce the qualifying age for election to the Seanad from 35 to 30 years that they would tell us exactly why they were doing so. I am astonished to know that, apparently, they had no reason for doing it until they heard the speech of Deputy Ryan yesterday, although the Bill has been on the Order Paper for weeks. I thought the President would tell us what advantage is going to accrue to the State or what advantage is going to accrue to the people by reducing the age for the Seanad from 35 to 30 years.
Will any advantage accrue to the State because of it? Is it going to ensure that we will get better laws? Is it going to ensure that the Seanad will cost less, or is it merely intended to provide that those elected will be likely to live through their entire period of office, and thus avoid unnecessary by-elections for the Seanad? I wonder if the Government really considered the question at all before introducing the Bill. I wonder did they sit down and ask themselves first, if there should be a qualifying age for the Seanad at all. If there is to be a qualifying age for Senators, there must be some reason for it. If it is intended that only "grave and reverend seigneurs" shall occupy the Upper Chamber, that would be some argument to advance for fixing the age limit under which a person would not be eligible for election. But this Bill proposes to reduce the age limit and not to increase it. It is proposing that persons over 30, instead of over 35 shall be eligible for election. I wonder what is the average age of Deputies. I would not like to make an investigation.
Some of them are not over 30.
I think you will find that the average age amongst all parties is just over thirty. In the Cumann na nGaedheal Party it is much higher, because, after all, that is the party that would naturally attract those suffering from senile decay, whereas young and vigorous men would be attracted by the policy of Fianna Fáil. But the fact remains that if you fix a limit of 30 years in respect of the Seanad you are going to have in the Seanad exactly the same class of people that you have in the Dáil. Do you want that? Is it going to help in the government of the State that there should be a Second Chamber that will be merely a duplication of this one, elected in a different manner no doubt, but composed of people in no way different to those elected to the Dáil? I am not one of those who consider that there should be no age limit fixed in respect of the Seanad. I think there should. But I am arguing that it would be better to have no age limit than to have an age limit of thirty. My opinion is that if you wish to have a useful institution in your Second Chamber you should decide that only those should be elected as Senators who are under six or over sixty.
Is the Deputy speaking to his amendment or to the Bill? Would he move his amendment now?
The trouble in connection with this matter is that we have been allowed to roam over all the amendments and the Bills in other discussions. If you will indicate, sir, which amendment you would prefer me to speak to, I have no objection.
I want to be clear whether the Deputy is moving his own amendment. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 are in order.
I move Amendment 1 —To delete the word "now" and to add at the end of the motion "this day twelve months." I think that a Bill of this serious nature would require much longer deliberation than has been given to it, and that Deputies opposed to hasty legislation, to taking steps in the dark, and matters of that kind, should support this amendment. After it has been deliberated upon for a period of twelve months throughout the country Deputies would be able to give much greater attention to the consequences of it, with much greater knowledge of what the consequences are likely to be. I was arguing, however, that it is a nonsensical procedure to fix the age limit at 30, because 30 is the average age. It would mean that those elected to the Seanad would be in no way different to those elected to the Dáil. Of course, I am prepared to admit that there are other qualifications for election to the Seanad which do not exist in respect to election to the Dáil. As I pointed out yesterday, the Constitution provides that only those can be elected to the Senate who have done honour to the nation. That does not apply to those elected to the Dáil. Whether you have done honour or dishonour to the nation or not, you are eligible to be elected to the Dáil, but you must have done something that is definitely of honour to the nation before you are eligible for election to the Senate. I indicated then that that section of the Constitution was capable of very wide interpretation; that a person who became a member of Fianna Fáil could be held to have done honour to the nation and would, in consequence, be eligible for election as a Senator, provided he is over 30.
There should undoubtedly be an age limit for election to the Seanad, but if the age limit which I am suggesting is not adopted, the best alternative is that you have no age limit at all, and leave it a free scramble for everybody. The age limit I suggest quite seriously is under six or over sixty, and I am going to advance very strong arguments in favour of that suggestion. First of all, a person under six would be unable to read the "Irish Times." It would be very useful if we had in the Second Chamber people who do not read the "Irish Times." It would mean that there would be more variety in the debates. It might mean that there would, even occasionally, be disagreement there, if there were in it some people who had not reached that age and whose political opinions were not formed by the leading article writers of that paper. Some people thought I was joking yesterday when I mentioned about Senators walking in there with attache cases carrying back numbers of the "Irish Times." I was not joking. As a matter of fact, I was informed of an incident that happened. I thought it was good enough for "Dublin Opinion," and I told the editor of that paper about it. A particular Senator who was going to board a train at Dundalk marched along the platform, looking very pompous, and carrying a large attache case. Those who gazed upon him thought that the attache case contained all the concentrated wisdom of that man's labour for years past; all the documents with which he was going to astound the Seanad when some discussion or another took place. Unfortunately, as he was stepping into the railway carriage the case fell open, and the only thing in it fell out—a copy of the "Irish Times." The only paper he thought necessary to bring with him when going in to that Assembly for the purpose of deliberating on the nation's business was that day's issue of the "Irish Times." I notice some Senators bring back numbers as well.
As I said, one considerable advantage about having young people in the Seanad would be, in the first place, that they would not be influenced by the "Irish Times," because they would not be able to read it. Secondly, they would be able to bring fresh minds to bear upon the Bills before them. They would, of course, be free from any of the bitterness which recent events might have created, and they would be able to judge every question as a fresh question, uninfluenced by considerations of anything that happened before, or precedents which had to be maintained. I think it would enliven the proceedings very much, particularly if we also saw that the ushers would attend to those Senators under six by providing feeding bottles occasionally to keep them quiet when they squeal. But the other proposition is much more likely to secure support in this House— that instead of reducing the age limit from 35 to 30, we should advance it to 60. I ask Deputies to consider what the Seanad would look like if every Senator was over 60. The respect that everybody has for age might even act in such a manner as to produce respect for that Assembly—it is not likely, but it might. People over 60 would have found the "Irish Times" out by this. In any case they would not be stampeded into rash and impetuous action by the articles which one reads occasionally in that paper. They would be likely to act more slowly when the Government loses its head, as it does periodically, and wants to take impetuous action that might have serious consequences. We could rely upon that House of grave and elderly seigneurs to apply the brake. That is what the Seanad is for. If the Seanad is not an institute for applying the brake to hasty legislation it is useless. If it were composed of people over 60, it would be the most effective brake possible. In fact, a difficulty might be to get them to do anything. It might be that we would have to reconsider the situation afterwards in order to get any Bill passed.
The attitude of Deputies on these benches towards the Seanad is well known to the House or should be. If there is to be a Seanad, we want it to be a harmless Seanad. When I say harmless, I do not mean an absolutely powerless Seanad, but a Seanad so constituted that the amount of harm which it will be able to do to the interests of the Irish people will be reduced to a minimum, because we believe that any Seanad acting under this Constitution at present cannot be but harmful. Is it likely that the Seanad will be made more or less harmless by a proposition such as is contained in this Bill?
I think it will be admitted, generally, that by reducing the age limit from thirty-five to thirty you are likely to get a Seanad that will be more anxious to do things just for the sake of doing things than a body of older men would be. After all it is the prerogative of youth, I suppose, to be always anxious to do something, to be impetuous, to be altogether of that type that inactivity does not agree with and to whom nothing is so objectionable because it is inactivity. They are anxious to do something for the sake of doing something whether it is good or bad. By reducing the age limit we increase the possibility of having a Seanad that will always be embarking on rash ventures. The Government may consider that a Seanad composed of younger men are likely to be less submissive to themselves and that on some outstanding occasion they might take the audacious course of opposing the Government. But that is not likely in view of the methods of election and the provisions made in the variety of Bills just passed, but it is more likely with a body of younger men than with a body of older men. Therefore, from the point of view of the Cumann na nGaedheal this Bill is unwise and is a further example of hasty and ill-considered legislation. If the Government had given this matter five minutes' consideration they would not have introduced this Bill at all.
It is your leader's proposal!
There you are again putting the wrong tail on the wrong dog, and that is a thing of which we have had previous experience in this country. I do not want to go back into anything that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will rule out of order. We often had reference to the oath and to a certain document which was not the Treaty.
We have it here in black and white.
That is another example of the same kind. The proposal to reduce the age limit from thirty-five to thirty was in respect of a very different Seanad altogether from what you are setting up, a Seanad constituted in a different manner and with different powers. That Seanad might be of some use, whereas your institution never can be of any use. If the President is prepared to adopt the proposals of the leader of this Party in all matters concerned with the Seanad there might be some sense in his remark, but what he does is that he takes his proposal in respect of one matter and he tries to fix that on to his own proposal.
This is the second child your Party has disowned in this Report.
Not at all. Again the President is trying to do the same thing. There was only one child in the Report, and then you proceeded to amputate it, and then, when we refuse to accept a hand or a foot because you wanted to keep the rest of the body, I do not think that could be fairly objected to. There was only one proposition we had in our minds. We said there should be no Seanad; that it was wasteful and useless. But we said if there is to be a Seanad it should be a Seanad subservient in every respect to this Dáil, and so clearly in the grip of the Dáil that it could not squeak without our permission.
There was not a word about that.
There was no motion about what? If we could not get a Seanad absolutely subservient to this Dáil, we wanted to clip its wings on every occasion and to reduce its power. We have not been able to carry out our proposals. That Committee was, of course, a reproduction in miniature of the Dáil, the Party with a majority here had a majority there, but it was worse in this Committee because we had representatives there that we have not here. The Seanad was represented there, and the Seanad representatives composed half the Committee, with the result that our representatives were a very small minority. The propositions carried in that Committee were carried by a majority vote. If the President is prepared, as he has admitted that there is some wisdom in this proposition, to agree that there may be wisdom in any other proposition put forward by us, and if he is willing to leave the thing in our hands to draft a Constitution for the Seanad, then I promise him that we will produce a body very different from that which now exists and much more likely to be of utility in the State.
I maintain, therefore, that this Bill was not considered by the Government at all before they introduced it. The President looked down the Reports of the Committee, and ordered the draftsman to draft the Bills on that basis. They were in a hurry to get them and they had to be flung into the Dáil so that the Dáil would be frightened at so many measures to be passed before the Recess and would put them through without being considered. If they had considered this Bill and the consequences that were likely to flow from this Bill to their own party it would not have been introduced here.
If we had thought about the number of speeches that would be made about it!
Yes, if he had thought about the number of speeches that would be made about it it would not be here, but the fact remains that not one single argument has been made in favour of it. Not even the President, who can generally find an argument for everything, has been able to stand up and justify this Bill. He has not attempted to tell us why there should be an age limit for election to the Seanad and if there should be an age limit why there should be this particular age limit. He just drew upon the argument put forward by Deputy Ryan yesterday and relied upon that. His contention was that in insurance experience he discovered that the average life of an individual is forty-four years of age, and, as he pointed out, if the age limit remained at thirty-five it was unlikely that the average Senator would live for the entire period of his office. Has the President considered the full implications of that argument and its relation to the proposals contained in this Bill? A Senator of the minimum age, elected if this Bill is to become law, will hold office for nine years. If he is anxious to seek re-election, at the end of the nine years, he knows that on the average he is not likely to survive for the full period. Therefore, he will be content with the nine years that he has got and not bother about re-election. And consequently even the slight inducement which exists to that Senator to keep up a pretence of looking after the work of the Seanad will be removed. Those elected will say: "That is a status and allowance for the period of nine years and I need not worry any further. At the end of nine years I shall go out of office and there is no use going forward again for I will not live for the following nine years." The result of Deputy Ryan's argument is really to increase the strength of the argument I have advanced in favour of the under six and over sixty proposition, because if under six is decided upon we will know that Senators who do their duty can be elected again and again, and in that way can be rewarded, while if it is over sixty we will know that those who have got that far have got past the fence of forty-four and may live for the entire period.
It being 9 o'clock the debate stood adjourned. (Mr. Lemass.)