Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Jun 1940

Vol. 24 No. 20

Public Business. - Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) (Bye-Election) Bill, 1940—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill contains legislative provisions for filling a casual vacancy in Seanad Eireann which has been caused by the death, resignation or disqualification of a member who had been elected to the Seanad under the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act, 1937, or at a bye-election under this Act.

Article 18 of the Constitution requires that casual vacancies shall be filled in the manner provided by law. The Constitution fixes a maximum of eleven and a minimum of five members to be elected from any one panel at a general election. The Act of 1937 fixed the number to be elected from each panel—five from the cultural and educational panel, eleven from the agricultural panel, eleven from the labour panel, nine from the industrial and commercial panel, and seven from the administrative panel. It appears proper to maintain the constitution of the Seanad as between the different panels, by providing in this Bill that a candidate at a bye-election shall have the qualifications required at a general election in respect of the panel from which was elected the member whose death, disqualification or resignation was the cause of the vacancy.

In the Act of 1937 each panel is divided into two sections—the nominating bodies sub-panel, and the Dáil sub-panel, and candidates on the former sub-panel are nominated by the bodies registered for the time being on the register of nominating bodies which is revised every year; candidates on the latter sub-panel are nominated by members of Dáil Eireann. The same qualifications are required for each sub-panel of a panel. This sub-division of panels is continued in this Bill, so that a vacancy will be filled, as a nominating bodies vacancy, if the member was originally nominated by a nominating body, and as a Dáil vacancy if the member was nominated by members of Dáil Eireann.

The method of filling casual vacancies provided in this Bill approximates to the method at a general election as closely as is possible in the particular circumstances. At a general election each nominating body must make the prescribed number of nominations; for example, there are eight nominating bodies registered for the agricultural panel and at a general election each of these bodies must nominate two candidates—or 16 in all—of whom five will be elected. It is not proposed to require each nominating body to nominate two candidates for election to fill one casual vacancy. It is proposed to retain in a modified form this function of nominating bodies to nominate suitable and qualified persons from whom panel members are to be chosen. It is considered that this function of nominating could best be exercised by providing for a common meeting of the nominating bodies registered in respect of a panel. This meeting will be attended by three persons nominated by each nominating body, and a register will be established and maintained of the persons so appointed.

Whenever a vacancy occurs by reason of the death, disqualification or resignation of a member elected from a nominating bodies sub-panel, notice will be given, on direction of the Seanad, to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, who will issue, within 180 days, an order fixing dates. Each member of the particular standing committee will receive due notice of the time and place appointed for the holding of a meeting of the standing committee. If the meeting agree on three candidates, subject to the ruling on nominations, one of those candidates will be selected by the Taoiseach. If at the meeting more than three names are nominated a poll will be taken at an adjourned meeting. Where more than three candidates are nominated, each member may vote for one, two or three candidates. Each candidate must have the qualification of knowledge and practical experience of the interests and services to which the panel relates. At the conclusion of the counting the returning officer will set out the names of the candidates arranged according to the number of votes they each received at the poll.

The nominations will be examined at a sitting for the ruling on nominations which will be attended by the President of the High Court as Judicial Assessor. If, after this ruling on qualifications, three candidates stand nominated, a list of their names, in alphabetical order, and qualifications, will be sent to the Taoiseach, who will select therefrom one person to fill the vacancy. If less than three persons stand nominated, the proceedings must commence afresh.

Where the vacancy is to be filled as a Dáil sub-panel vacancy, a candidate must be nominated by a member of the Dáil and eight other members must assent to the nomination. Each nomination will be examined at a sitting to be held for that purpose. If there is only one nomination standing after the ruling, the returning officer will declare the person nominated to be elected. If there is more than one, the members of Dáil Eireann will vote by post. For the purpose of the voting, the rules in the principal Act will apply as at a general election.

For the filling of casual vacancies, it is not proposed to constitute, or revive, the special electorate constituted for the purpose of voting at a general election. There will be a separate election to fill each casual vacancy that arises. To fill more than one casual vacancy at a bye-election would involve the formulation of complicated rules——

Mr. Hayes

Complicated rules! Does the Minister suggest that there could be anything more complicated than what is contained in this Bill? I do not think it would be possible to get anything more complicated——

—— and a simple direct procedure is preferable. Should Dáil Eireann be dissolved, the proceedings to fill a casual vacancy will automatically cease.

Mr. Hayes

Talk about complicated rules! I find it very hard, Sir, to talk about this Bill. It reminds me of one of those Heath Robinson cartoons, where you have all kinds of contraptions, such as ropes, pulleys, ladders, and so on, for the purpose of doing a very simple thing. It baffles me how anybody—even the most hardened civil servant—could have come to this most extravagant conclusion. I think, however, that I know the reason for it. The purpose of the Bill is to fill casual vacancies in the Seanad. When they were passing the original Act, the original Act was, if I might be permitted to say so, in the nature of a fraud, and so is this Bill. The original Act purported to produce a vocational Seanad. I think it will be admitted that there is no body in the world that is less a vocational body than we are here. I think there can be no doubt about that. The difficulty that arises is that all this elaborate machinery is for the purpose of perpetuating that fraudulent appearance, giving nominating bodies the idea that they have some influence upon the type of person who can come into this House; but, in fact, of course, the decisions are made on an entirely different basis. There are two types of vacancy provided for in this Bill. It is a large Bill, containing 27 sections and 14 pages, which is inexcusable in the present state of scarcity of paper and scarcity of time which Ministers and others might be devoting to solving more difficult problems. A vacancy occurring on a nominating body sub-panel is dealt with under Section 2 of the Bill. It takes ten sections and six pages and, when all the machinery has been put into motion, in the end of all that, the Taoiseach himself, that is to say, the Prime Minister and the head of the majority Party in the Dáil, nominates the person to fill the vacancy. Why should not he do it directly?

Would you agree?

I am going to put down an amendment to that effect. Senator O'Donovan does not understand me yet. That is the difference between Senator O'Donovan and myself—I cannot make him understand me. Why does not he do it directly? A vacancy in the Dáil sub-panel is handed over to the Dáil to fill. The result is that if a vacancy occurs in this House by the death, resignation or disqualification of a particular member of this House, no matter what his political views, the majority Party in the Dáil have then handed over to them the filling of that casual vacancy. It is really the same thing as handing it over to the head of the majority Party in the Dáil for the time being. It is worse, in a way, because the head of the majority Party is very often a person of some responsibility but the majority Party working by itself does dreadful things. In other words, the Bill perpetuates what is in the Principal Act and it makes worse the power of the political Party in the Dáil over this House. The whole sum and substance, the whole purpose of the Principal Act, was to give the appearance of putting up a vocational Seanad but to have the result that this House would correspond exactly to the majority in the Dáil for the time being. That, of course, has worked out perfectly as far as this particular Seanad is concerned and will work out similarly in the future. This Bill continues that machinery and continues what I call the fraud.

It is impossible for me to understand why a much simpler Bill was not introduced, a Bill of five or six sections, which would provide that in the event of a vacancy arising from the death, disqualification or resignation of a Senator the Taoiseach shall appoint a suitable person to fill the vacancy. You could add to that section that in selecting the person to fill the vacancy the Taoiseach shall have regard to the standing, qualifications and other circumstances of the former occupant of the seat. That would surely produce at least as good a result as all this elaborate machinery and would probably produce a better result. I make Senator O'Donovan a present of it, that even the present Taoiseach would probably produce a better result. Looking at the matter generally, from the point of view of this House now and in future, with succeeding and different Governments, it would seem to me to be a much more intelligent procedure. It would eliminate the Seanad Returning Officer, the President of the High Court, the Clerk of the Seanad, the Clerk of the Dáil and heaven knows how many other high functionaries. It would eliminate all this paper, documents and files. It would be a simple process.

Another suggestion for filling a vacancy would be that the Seanad itself would fill it. Nothing is ever quite as good or quite as bad as those who framed it intended it to be. I do not think that this House is quite as bad as it was originally intended to be. In fact, I think it is a bit better. It is almost a miracle. After 60 people have met as members of this House for a year, less or more, after they have come to know one another, I think they could fill a casual vacancy in the Seanad more reasonably and more efficiently than this extravagant "Heath Robinson" machinery. I, therefore, intend to propose, by way of amendment, on the Committee Stage that after Section 5 a new section should be inserted, wiping out all the machinery and giving power to the Taoiseach to nominate a person to fill a casual vacancy, providing that he shall take into consideration the qualifications, standing and other circumstances of the former holder of that particular seat. I think that would give simpler and more effective machinery and, above all, would be a more honest and straightforward procedure.

I am just as much opposed to this Bill as Senator Hayes. I do not propose to vote against the Second Stage because I think an effort should be made to simplify and amend it. It was described to me just before I came in here as a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. I find it almost impossible to believe that the present Minister for Local Government thought this all out himself and conceived it in his own mind. He has always seemed to me to be a man who would go a much more direct way about getting a thing done. I am not prepared to give him credit for all the complicated machinery included here. I am not without hope that it may be possible, if this thing is freely examined and discussed, that this House which, after all, is very much concerned, may be able to put in by a measure of agreement a far simpler method. I am not without hope that the Minister may be pleased if that can be achieved.

Examination of this Bill in detail would require a rather long speech and a great deal of criticism could be made. I do not propose to inflict that long speech on the Seanad, but I would like to consider what it is that we want to achieve when there is a vacancy. It seems to me that the filling of a casual vacancy is not intended to have any political significance. Where you have a bye-election for the Dáil, and where you may possibly have any effect on the Government as a result of it, it may be of considerable political importance, but in a revising chamber such as this Seanad there is no need for and no advantage to be gained by having a political vote. First of all, we require a man or woman who is suitable, who will carefully examine legislation that comes here, who has enough knowledge to move amendments and to make suggestions, who has a reasonable measure of independence and, at the same time, who is, speaking in very general terms, of a similar outlook politically and otherwise, to the person who originally held the seat. It is not possible to achieve that with absolute certainty but it is possible, by means of complicated machinery, to make it practically certain that you will not achieve it. I honestly think that that would be the result of the machinery provided in this Bill.

The last thing I want to do is to have a discussion about the merits or demerits of the last Seanad. Some of us here were members and others were not but, for a period of its existence, it had power to co-opt. As a general rule, the members accepted the principle, that if a suitable person were put forward by those with whom the deceased or resigned Senator usually associated, he would be accepted. They did not change the class of person to be appointed. I think it did occur only once—I am speaking entirely from memory—but generally speaking there was no attempt to take any unfair advantage of the existence of a vacancy. If my understanding of the temper of this House is correct—and I have no reason whatever to think it will become worse; I think it will become better—I think there is a good deal of good feeling and understanding.

For my part, I am perfectly satisfied that if a person from those who usually sit on the opposite side of the House from myself were to have to resign there would be no opposition from this side of the House to co-opting a person of a similar political point of view. I further think that that would be reciprocated. When you come to smaller groups, such as the Labour Party, in the last Seanad it was always accepted that where a vacancy occurred amongst labour Senators it would be filled by a nominee of the Labour Party, provided he was a suitable person and even that provision was not pressed too far. There might be exception taken to certain individuals but not in any case to the fact that he should be a nominee of the Labour Party. I, therefore, think that you could not get any worse results by having co-option by the Seanad itself. Even if it did not work out as I suggest, with the Seanad constructed, as it must inevitably be, under the present electoral law, you could not get any worse results than those which will be got from this Bill, because it is so arranged that there is as near as possible a certainly that there will be a majority in the House corresponding to the majority in the Dáil.

If that is so and if the head of the particular Party which happened to be in office chose to exercise his powers in that direction, under this Bill, in the case of nominating bodies, it would be exercised by the head of the Party, and, in the case of other vacancies, by the Dáil which would have exactly the same majority. Therefore, I suggest to those who fear that under a co-option system there might not be the fairness we require, that there would be a very fair chance of getting it, and that, if it did happen, the result would not be any worse than what you will get from this elaborate machinery.

On the whole, I think I would prefer co-option, but I would certainly much prefer the suggestion made by Senator Hayes to the provisions in the Bill. The person who may for the time being fill the position of head of the Government may be actuated entirely by Party considerations, and, if he is, it is almost certain that the committee set up under Part II of the Bill will provide him with a chance, in the three names, of exercising his Party preference; but I am almost certain that the Taoiseach for the time being, particularly if there is the same kind of feeling as there has been for some time in this House—and I refer not only to the recent emergency—will recognise that it is desirable to select a person similar to some extent, at any rate, in his general outlook, knowledge and experience to the Senator who has had to leave, or who has died. I would prefer that system to the Bill.

Taking the Bill as it stands, it is, as was explained by the Minister, divided into two sections according to the two sub-panels, the nominating body sub-panel and the Dáil sub-panel. In the case of the Dáil, it simply provides for a majority vote, and you are far more likely to get a good selection by the Taoiseach than by a majority vote of the Dáil. I cannot see why, even if you must have this machinery, you could not have the same principle for Dáil vacancies as for nominating body vacancies. But when you come to examine the provisions in regard to nominating bodies, you find that a committee is set up. There is no likelihood at all that that committee, which consists of three members of each of a large number of nominating bodies for a particular panel, is likely to choose a person of similar outlook to that of the Senator who has resigned, or who has died. You are not referring it back to the same nominating body who nominated the Senator, but you are providing an elaborate committee.

Whoever designed this Bill must have spent considerable time thinking out every conceivable snag that might arise and they provided for the possibility that you will never get a Senator elected at all under that scheme, because, if this committee does not succeed in nominating three persons, under the Bill, it would be quite wrong to allow the Taoiseach to choose from two, or one, and, therefore, you must have a vacancy all over again. I do not know whether there is any limit to the number of vacancies that may be re-created under that system. It seems to me to be the position that if the nominating bodies committee provided here fails to procure three names, the sending of another message from the Seanad and the creation of another vacancy is intended to inspire it so that it can find three. I do not think it very likely that it would not find three of some kind or another, and, no matter how unsuitable these three are, the Taoiseach has the responsibility of choosing from these three.

I am pretty well certain there is that possibility of a farce, but if you leave it to the Taoiseach himself, he would get plenty of suggestions, and he would have no difficulty in finding a number of names because suggestions would certainly be made from persons who were in general political or other sympathy with the retired or deceased Senator. He would be in a position to choose someone acceptable and would be responsible. I think it would be a most unsatisfactory position to put the Taoiseach in to have to choose between three names sent forward more or less publicly by this body. It is not very clear whether they are to be disclosed or not, but a body of that size is not going to be secret unless there is some sort of secrecy pledge, and I am not suggesting that should be done. It seems to me that the more I look at the Bill the more there is to be said for a simplified system, and although I am not going to vote against the Second Reading, because I think it might be possible to amend it, I would sooner leave the thing as it is and not to bother about filling vacancies at all than to set up all this machinery.

While agreeing that the Bill is very complicated and that the previous Act is still more complicated, I do not think any Senator has a right to call any Act passed by the Oireachtas, because it was not passed by this Seanad——

We had no responsibility for it, anyway.

That is quite correct, but I still think that an important member of the Seanad has no right to call any Act of the Oireachtas a fraud. That was the word used by Senator Hayes. Senator Hayes may like to say things very strongly, but I do not know whether it is in order for a Senator to term an Act of the Oireachtas a fraud. I think Senator Hayes was a little sinister in some of his remarks.

Sinister? Is that in order?

What is the difference between something which is a fraud and something which is sinister?

I think the word "fraud" is far more——

A Senator

Sinister.

——libellous than "sinister".

There is nothing else for it. We shall have to learn Irish.

Senator Hayes also said that nomination by the Taoiseach would be far preferable to this complicated Bill. Even the present Taoiseach's selections would probably be better, he said. What I regard as sinister in that remark is the use of the expression "even the present Taoiseach's selections". I think the experience of the House is that no member could object to the nominations or appointments made by the present Taoiseach, and I do not see why he should say that even the present Taoiseach's nominations would be more acceptable.

May I, on a point of personal explanation, set the Senator's mind at ease on that point? I had not in my mind anything about the nominees of the Taoiseach in this House. I simply intended to say that the present Taoiseach, who, as is known, is a political opponent of mine, would make more suitable nominations, in my judgment, than you will get from this elaborate machinery. There was nothing sinister in the use of the word "even". I was alluding to the present Taoiseach who is obviously not a political friend of mine.

I accept the Senator's explanation. If the Senator were satisfied to put the "even" in front of himself instead of the Taoiseach, I should be quite satisfied. Even with all he has said, I would be careful where I would put the "even". Senator Hayes will admit that the fraud which was passed by the Dáil and perpetrated on the country, did produce a miracle in this House after all. It produced a Seanad which, sitting here now, is not apparently to his mind any better than what he had anticipated. If I might make a personal explanation—I think the Senator cannot object to the majority of this House having political opinions in favour of the Government that is in existence to-day. I do not see why he should.

I have no objection to that.

There is always the hope that you may convert them to something better.

It seemed to be in his mind that the country should have returned a House hostile to the Government.

No, Sir, that is not my view.

I am entitled to put that interpretation, at any rate, on what the Senator said. I think the expression "fraud" was entirely out of order. I think that the members which the electoral college or the country sent to the Seanad would not be anything better if the 60 members, or the proportion nominated by the nominating bodies, were sent entirely on professional or other recommendations and were not to have political opinions. Now, I think it is a bad thing not to have political opinions. Each individual is entitled to have his own political opinions and when we come in here we are entitled to hold them, and if Senator Hayes would like to listen instead of talking, I would tell him that I would not be in this Seanad—whether it would be an asset or otherwise—but for the fact that there were vocational nominations. I think I have already stated that on another occasion in the Seanad although, perhaps, the House might be better off. Complicated as it was and everyone agrees that it is desperately complicated, the Act ensured that everybody was not elected purely on a political nomination. To come to the question of co-option as against the system adopted in this Bill, that may be a way out of it. Senator Douglas has said already that it was adopted in the old Seanad but I think, in fact, that the previous Seanad was elected in somewhat a similar way to this.

Not at all.

I mean that this is the second Seanad elected under the system prescribed in the present legislation. All these clauses that I have read do seem very complicated and I think that Senator Douglas is correct in saying that the draftsman seemed to be trying to prevent any loophole whatsoever. I hope that if it does become law that all the loopholes will have been provided against. There is a vacancy in the Seanad at present in the cultural and educational panel. I do not think that there is any machinery for the selection of a substitute, in any professional body scarcely, to nominate a man to fill a vacancy of that kind. There are, I think, 16 nominating bodies on that vocational panel. Therefore, why should the one vocational body that happened to get their man elected to the Seanad be allowed to fill the vacancy when all the nominating bodies had nominees on the panel at the previous election? Whether there would be three, or two or one representative from each vocational body on that panel, I think that everybody should have a voice in nominating whatever number it is decided to send forward to the Taoiseach. The Bill specifies three and I think that will mean 48 persons will have to meet——

And sit around for an hour.

——to select three names which have to be "okayed" generally before they appear on the Taoiseach's table. It certainly is a very complicated and long system, but the other method of simply allowing the one body that nominated the original member to appoint a substitute would not meet the case.

I did not suggest that.

I know you did not, but somebody did suggest it. It would not be as good as giving each of the nominating bodies a voice in the selection, even if only one candidate is required and they nominate only one. That might shorten the procedure, but I think it is more effective than purely direct nomination where you would have room for greater criticism. I asked Senator Hayes if he would agree——

Agree to what?

That it would be better to have the nomination by the Taoiseach.

In fact, I am going to put down an amendment to that effect.

Perhaps that would remove the necessity for this Bill altogether.

And save money.

But I am sure you would find plenty of people, other than Senator Hayes, to criticise it.

Perhaps I had better deal with the subject of fraud to begin with. I would like to bring in some homely analogy to make it clear to Senator O'Donovan's mind, although I am aware that it might have the effect only of intensifying the fog. To explain this homely analogy—there may be a jam made of vegetable marrow, a few grains of wood and some colouring matter, and it could quite truthfully be described, perhaps, as possessing great dietetic qualities. If you buy it as such, it might be splendid, but if there is a label put on the pot with the inscription: "Raspberry jam, containing nothing but pure fruit," then that is a fraud. Senator Hayes, I understand, applied the word "fraud" on the ground that when this body was being set up there was an attempt made to represent it as a vocational body. It is no more a vocational body than the vegetable marrow, coloured red, is raspberry jam, and the word "fraud" applies in both cases. To come to the question of complications, it seems to me that they were introduced in the original Bill. The word "vocationalism" was going around the country and everybody thought that it was going to solve innumerable ills, but nobody, I suggest, knew how they were going to go about it. I thought that as there was a commission sitting at the moment it might have the effect of clarifying minds in general about it. The idea that got abroad was, that instead of having an ordinary Parliament consisting of a Dáil and Seanad, there should be vocational councils. As I understand the vocational idea, it is that the Government and Legislature should have withdrawn from it completely this elaborate control of, if you like, the economic life of the country, which is not the Government's business. Therefore, when you have society organised vocationally, you have a council representing those various vocational bodies, which looks after their affairs, and it does so because the Government should not be doing so. What was done in the case of this body—which is a second and revising House — was that certain bodies arbitrarily decided upon were given the power to nominate. That was all it amounted to: it really amounted to nothing. If this body had been a truly vocational body it should not have the functions which it now has.

Why does the Senator say "arbitrarily decided upon"?

I say "arbitrarily decided upon" as it cannot be otherwise until every productive man is properly organised into appropriate vocational bodies. If it is not done in that way, the decision in regard to the bodies which are to have the nominating powers is necessarily arbitrary. Then there was all the elaborate business of trying to give a "vocational" label to this body. If this were a vocational body, we should not be dealing with ordinary legislation, we should not be part of the Government. That is not the job of a vocational council. In a vocational council every productive activity in the country is represented, the members of it are chosen in relation to that productive activity and that only; whereas the members of a Government institution are chosen in relation to the common good, and the common good does not consist entirely in economic production. It does seem to me that the whole complicated business came from this futile attempt to put a "vocational" label upon this body. I strongly object to that. If this were a vocational body, it should not be dealing with Defence Bills, and so on. A man who is a good carpenter and who makes his living by it is a man who would be suitable for the organising of carpentry in this country, but it does not follow in the slightest degree that he is necessarily appropriate to deal with matters regarding the common good of the country, or that he has the gift of governing with prudence.

It does not follow, all the same, that he is incapable. I am afraid the Senator is getting a bit befogged.

And I am afraid that the Senator's native element is befogment. With all its faults, the first Seanad was a remarkably good one. If you compare anything with the abstract perfection, it will show its faults. As a human institution, the first Seanad of this State was extraordinarily good, and I do not expect to see any better body set up here. Half of that body was nominated and the other half was elected by the Dáil. The Senator has spoken as if we object to the majority of this House being part of one political Party. We do not object at all. I am being quite frank about it when I say I was very pleased with the proposal in the original legislation that the Taoiseach should have nomination power with regard to certain members of the Seanad, but the way that power was fulfilled was extraordinarily disappointing. When he had the power to nominate, he could have looked around the whole country and could have chosen—if the subjects would accept his nomination—men who, in his own judgment and knowledge, and according to the information obtained through the resources at his command, appeared to be the most eminently suitable. In relation to that power, I think his nominations were extraordinarily disappointing, and I have no hesitation in saying that. I do not say that they were necessarily the worst in the Seanad but, in view of the possible perfection that could have been obtained by that method, it was disappointing, though they are not at all too bad and no method is going to procure absolute perfection.

Remove another bit of the fog: tell us why.

Why what? I could be quite flattering to some of the Senators, but my own personal integrity will not allow me to tell any nominated member that no better man could have been chosen for the position. This House has nothing to do with vocationalism. If it had, it should not be dealing with ordinary legislation. I hope that I will see power taken away from the Government to butt in in the ordinary lives of the people. Most of the ordinary Bills which have been brought in should not have been brought in at all. This is what happens. The Dáil passes Bills through their five stages and then they come here for consideration. To put it in the shortest possible way, we have certain powers of delaying them and, if we have any bright suggestions, they can be put down and sent back to the Dáil for their assent.

What has come very well from Senator Hayes would not have the same significance if it were coming from the other side. We will assume that the Party in power in this country is supported because the policy of that Party has been governed by very great wisdom and prudence and we ask nothing better for the country. On the other hand, the fact that Senator Hayes is not a supporter of that Party indicates that he has grave doubts in his mind as to the policy which is best for the country. He says that, though the Party which operates its policy here has been consistently disappointing, he is prepared to accept nominations even from the head of that Party. I cannot see why there should be all these elaborate provisions. The humbug of this vocational method is now so abundantly clear to anybody with any power to think that we should try to get away from it. Here in this minor matter of filling vacancies, all we needed was simply nomination. The Taoiseach could nominate when a vacancy occurs and certain forces operate. When a member of this side of the House goes out of the Seanad, if the Taoiseach consistently nominates a notorious partisan of his own Party, that will be clear to the country; and, if his own integrity of mind does not urge him— or anybody subsequently in that position—to take other considerations into account, the feeling of public criticism will compel him.

This is in two parts: the Dáil nominates one part and there is an elaborate procedure for the other part. I could understand the Minister bringing in a Bill if he felt that there might be strong criticism of any suggestion that power to fill these vacancies should be taken over by the head of the majority Party in the Dáil. On this side of the House we do not expect perfection, and the proposal comes much better from this side of the House than it would come from the other side. We are prepared to have a much more simple method of nomination, as the whole matter is not very serious, and the future of the country is not going to depend on whether a particular vacancy is filled by A rather than by B. If the present system is going to be permanent, it is particularly desirable that the method of filling vacancies should be simplified. The Minister might have better suggestions to put forward than those made by this side of the House for nomination by the Taoiseach.

Mr. Hayes

Or co-option.

Or co-option. I do not know what good thing is aimed at in this elaborate Bill. I can quite see the Government might have hesitated to bring in the proposal we are now putting before them. I hope that as it comes from our side and as it relieves the Government of any dishonest criticism of their action, the proposal to do away with this complicated business and to have a perfectly simple system, will be accepted.

I hope the House will not lend itself to the solemn farce that seems to be embodied in this measure. I cannot imagine how it ever saw the light of day. I can only feel that some rather junior civil servant was given an essay in drafting, that he proceeded to see how complicated he could make the thing, and to what extent he could follow in miniature and adopt in miniature the Bill that prescribes for the constitution of this House. Really, in these days when there is so much serious work to be done, it seems a terrible waste of time that we should have all this elaboration to keep in step with something which was exceedingly imperfect from the start and which never fulfilled in any way the function which it was intended to fulfil. Also, why waste this money because a certain amount of money will undoubtedly have to be spent on this system? Cannot the Minister recognise reality and say that if the House presses him, he will withdraw the Bill, do away with all this elaboration and leave it to the Taoiseach to nominate the candidate. Really, I think that when the country realises what is going on, there will be a great revulsion against this system. Complicated as bureaucracy is, this Bill is bureaucracy run absolutely mad. I hope the House will unite in pressing a common sense view on the Government.

I would ask the Minister to withdraw the Bill and put before us some few simple clauses, as suggested by Senator Douglas, which would meet the situation. I do not know that the Taoiseach would be very anxious to take the nominations on himself but he might leave the nominations to the House. Senators on this side of the House are in the minority. The present vacancy belongs to the minority, but we are satisfied to trust the other side, who are always in the majority, to do the right thing. I think it would be much more common-sense to adopt that procedure than the procedure laid down in this Bill.

While I am prepared to admit that this is a rather long Bill, I am certainly not prepared to admit that it is complicated. If you take it in conjunction with the other Act, which has already been passed into law, it follows very much on the same lines. In Bills of this sort, draftsmen have to provide for all eventualities and for all sorts of loop-holes. I should always personally prefer if I could come in here with a one-section Bill, where it was possible to do so, but as I say the draftsmen have to provide for all eventualities and it is impossible to do so adequately in a short Bill.

There is not much in this instance that can give rise to loop-holes. A vacancy has merely to be filled.

I know that but I am not prepared to get away from the vocational idea. The vocational idea was embodied in the previous Act. The last elections were based on the vocational idea and this Bill is intended to give further effect to that idea. You have these nominating sub-panels. You have a register provided and every year certain bodies are put on the register by the returning officer. The returning officer has a list of these registered bodies. These registered bodies nominate the people to go on this nominating committee and all these people meet together. When these bodies meet to select their names you will get the names of three persons who will genuinely represent the vocational interest for which that panel stands. I do not agree that people who belong to vocational organisations cannot exercise the same good judgment as people who may look at a matter purely from a political standpoint.

They are much better.

I believe they would be and that is the idea behind the vocational principle.

I think it is a misunderstanding of vocationalism.

It is in its early stages I agree, but this is an attempt at any rate to see how far we can get the vocational idea into operation. Perhaps if we were further away from certain events in this country it might work out more easily. I hope we are getting away from them for all time. If you could get the vocational idea working in the country it would be a great asset for this Seanad. When a casual vacancy occurs, it is not the political outlook of the candidate that will be the determining factor. It lies with the returning officer to say that the three persons whose names will be submitted to him are men of practical experience in a certain walk of life, that they are men who have been associated with a particular panel and that from that point of view they are persons suitable to fill the particular vacancy. The returning officer must be satisfied that persons whose names are to be submitted to a vote before these nominating bodies have the qualifications and experience that entitle them to represent that group.

Does the Minister not recognise that all these panels are permeated by political allegiance?

I know a few of the groups, and I do not think that can be said of them. For instance there is the Bar Association, the Law Society, the Veterinary College and a number of bodies like that to which the Senator's remark would not apply. Of course, there is hardly any person who has not some political views. Senator Sir John Keane perhaps has his own political views.

How many members of these bodies ever found their way into the Seanad?

In any case they were amongst the nominating panels.

The most distinguished of them hardly got even one vote.

As a matter of fact, the vacancy that now exists arose through the death of a Senator who was put forward by the Incorporated Law Society. Is that not so?

It is a political scheme with a vocational varnish.

What the Minister says is correct.

I agree that this vocational idea is in its early stages, but I do not think that, at this stage, we are in a position to judge whether it is going to be able to work properly in this country or not. I hope it will.

It did not get a fair chance yet.

I think it has got a fair chance. I think that this is a very good Seanad. At any rate, when those three names are submitted to the Taoiseach, they will be three names that will have been selected by those nominating bodies meeting together, and it is then for the Taoiseach to select one of them. I think it is a very reasonable way to go about such a matter. Let us say that the Labour groups meet together and select three names. I think it can be taken for granted that one of these three names will be selected. The same would apply to the educational or cultural groups, and so on, and even if you did not get agreement, I do not think there would be very much difficulty in getting three names from any of these groups, and these three names will represent the ideals and aspirations of that particular panel or group. As to the suggestion raised by some Senators, to the effect that the Taoiseach should directly nominate, in the case of such vacancies, I do not think that would be feasible, because it would mean going away entirely from the vocational ideal. It has been suggested that the Bill is a complicated Bill. It is not a complicated Bill: it is a long Bill—that is all—and it is a long Bill only because it is necessary to provide against the various eventualities that may arise.

Is the Minister not prepared to give any consideration to any of the other suggestions that have been put forward?

At any rate, the Minister has admitted that this is a good Seanad.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26th June.
Barr
Roinn