Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Jul 1960

Vol. 52 No. 19

Seanad Electoral Law Commission: Implementation of Recommendations—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann is of opinion that the Government should introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Seanad Electoral Law Commission.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

There has grown up in this country, particularly in recent years, a mentality which has been encouraged and inspired to a great extent by certain newspapers which throw masla on anyone having anything to do with what is described as politics. On the occasion upon which we last dealt with Senator Stanford's motion, Senator J. D. Sheridan, concluding his address, column 679, volume 52, had the following to say:

We have had a surfeit of politics, and if we gave it a rest for a few years, the country might benefit.

Because of the campaign to which I have referred and because of the attempt which is being made to poison the minds of the young generation in regard to their civic duties and responsibilities, I think it well to devote a little time to dealing with that matter and to reminding Senator Sheridan and those others who apparently think like him of a few points which are of vital importance in an appreciation of the proposition which is before the House.

Politics, the term used by Senator Sheridan, is defined as the art of government or the administration of public affairs. Does Senator Sheridan want government to end? Obviously not. It must be, therefore, that his reference was directed at political Parties, their policies and their members, but I would like to ask Senator Sheridan and those who think like him to answer the question: Where would we be in a democracy without political Parties?

I should like also to remind Senator Sheridan and the House of the famous words of Edmund Burke, that all that is necessary for triumph, of evil is that good men should do nothing, and that appears to be the future that is envisaged for us by those who think in the same way as Senator Sheridan's expression here on the last occasion, that we have had a surfeit of politics.

It is well to remember in considering this matter that there are only two methods of government to choose from, the first being as Lincoln put it "Government of the people, for the people and by the people." That is the type of government we have here today and it is called democracy. The second type, the alternative to democracy, is government by a single great man called a dictator. In Europe, in our time, we have had a surfeit of dictators and unfortunately great parts of the Continent still have them. I think it necessary also that in considering the two types of government in relation to this matter, to remind the House of the hallmarks of the alternative to the democratic system which we have.

They could be summarised in this way: under this alternative to democracy, every form of criticism is stifled everything remotely connected with freedom of thought and conscience is destroyed; political opponents are persecuted; trade unionists are trampled under foot and the rights of workers to organise and to strike and fight for better conditions are denied; Protestants as well as Catholics and Jews are persecuted and attacked and espionage and terrorism are the instruments of government. That is the alternative to the system we have here, which is democracy, and that surely is not what Senator Sheridan has in mind for us as a system of administration.

Let us go back now to the system of democracy. It is obvious that it means the existence of parties and here in our system of democracy we have two great nationally organised Parties and a smaller sectional one. I should like to ask—and I think it is. well that the question should be asked here in the Seanad in discussing this motion—who are these politicians about whom we hear so much? What breed of untouchables are they that so much scorn and ridicule is poured on them and who cause Senator Sheridan to say that we have had a surfeit of politics?

These politicians are the ordinary workers, farmers, businessmen, lawyers, doctors, teachers, road-workers, etc., who band themselves together to serve the community. In my opinion, they are the elite guard of our citizenry. What do they do? How do they operate? For the information of vocational Senators and those who do not appear to realise the great contribution which is made to the continuance of our democratic institutions, it is no harm to summarise it. All the year round these people, the ordinary persons to whom I have referred, attend meetings; they have discussions; they go on deputations to this, that or the other State Department or local authority.

In rural Ireland in particular— vocational Senators may not appreciate this—men and women who are organised in political groupings come many miles, many cold and wet and wintry miles, over hills and mountains, to attend meetings. They are the leaders in their localities in every effort formulated for the general good. They are elected to public bodies. In the recent election for the local authorities, they gave many hours every week, many hours of fine service to the community at considerable inconvenience to themselves. When elections come around for the Dail, these are the people who operate the machinery of democracy and there is quite a lot of this machinery.

It should also be remembered that Parties cannot exist without money because elections cost a great deal of money in printing, advertising and general publicity to inform the citizens of what the particular Party stands for and why it seeks their support. Vocational Senators of course do not have to worry about such things. They leave it to the Parties in a general election to carry the baby and do the worrying. The members of these political Parties who are so much sneered at raise the money which is required. Everybody knows that collections are a distasteful job but they do the job voluntarily and enthusiastically so that the groups of citizens called a Party and whose policy they believe may be able to speak their mind and put their claim for support to the widest possible sections of the community.

In passing, in regard to this matter of money, I might say another facet of this campaign against politicians, and a disquieting one at that, is something which is happening in many parts of the country, that is, the attempt by certain Church dignitaries to deny the right of the citizens to make collections on the public highways under permit from the Garda Síochána, which is the only legitimate authority entitled to give a permit for that work. It is a disquieting feature that interference of this type is becoming more prevalent. I should like to say publicly to those who think that way or who act that way that they more than any others should appreciate the value of maintaining our democratic institutions and our way of life and they should be their strongest props. I hope that this interference with the rights of the citizens and this attempt to usurp the civil power of the people will cease because in order to avoid unseemly incidents, it may be necessary that legislation would have to be considered to deal with a situation of that nature, which in my opinion, is a menace to the continuance of democratic institutions in this part of the world.

To get back to the point with regard to the service of individual members of political Parties, all of this service is given freely by the Party members who want nothing but the general good of the community. In this connection, I should like to commend the attitude of Senator L'Estrange who, at a recent meeting of the Westmeath County Council, defended those who had taken an active part in the public life of the country against the sneers and the jeers of those who take part in the campaign to denigrate them. I should like to reiterate his statement that most men and women who serve the public on local councils leave public life worse off financially than when they entered it.

Politicians work hard locally and nationally. They work hard for the public and they do not have to apologise to anyone, vocational Senators, vocational institutions, vocational bodies or anyone else, for so doing. Particularly do they not have to apologice to certain newspapers which have led this campaign of sneers at politicians and at the Seanad as at present constituted.

In regard to this proposition about vocational membership of the Seanad, I should like to know if these people who get in here on the basis of vocational qualifications alone are so anxious to serve the people, why do they not do as the political Party members do, and thus merit a place in either the Seanad or the Dáil, and come in to either House with knowledge and experience which they would have worked for and got as a result of work? Why do they consider themselves the chosen people and by what right do they claim title to reserved seats in this House?

I feel strongly on this matter because, as I say, of the increasing strength of the campaign which is calculated to bring into ridicule and disrepute not only members of Seanad Éireann but every citizen who feels it his duty to take part in public life and to work for the advancement and the welfare of his fellow citizen. Party members have served their apprenticeship in public administration and they are qualified to know how the machine runs. They know how the finances are raised, they know the people must bear the burden and they can appreciate their difficulties and sympathise with them. The others are not in a position to bring to bear on the problems which face the members of the Dáil or Seanad the same balanced mentality as those who have had experience in public life.

In another way I should like to support something which Senator Hayes said not once but often. I should like to quote from George Bernard Shaw who in his Political What's What published in 1944 had this to say:

Now a chemist may have the most thrilling dreams and visions of the future of chemistry and the most public-spirited industry in furthering its latest developments; but if he knows nothing more about antimony and manganese than that they are both black he will blow himself and his neighbours up instead of contributing to a New Order.

A Chancellor of the Exchequer may read the most abstruse mathematical studies and speculations of Sir Arthur Eddington and Sir James Jeans with intense interest, but if he has no grasp of the fact that two plus two equals four and not 80, he may wreck the nation's finance and industry with every intention of building Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land.

That exactly hits off the situation in regard to the campaign for vocational representation on a big scale in Seanad Éireann, in my opinion.

Coming back to the debate which began a few months ago in this House, I notice that only five of the 12 speakers so far, anyhow, want to change the system of election to the Seanad. The change would involve—

Professor Stanford

Might I point out that there were only five on the other side who did not want it? The speakers were exactly divided and that fact should not be suppressed.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

There were 12 speakers and five only wanted the change suggested by Senator Stanford.

Professor Stanford

Would Senator Ó Maoláin say who spoke against it? Who were the remaining seven who spoke against it? I certainly am not one and I am one of the remaining seven.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I cannot recollect all the names but there were Senator Carter, Senator O'Dwyer, Senator Donegan, Senator O'Donovan——

Professor Stanford

And Senator Lenihan and that is all.

An Cathaoirleach

Does the Senator wish to know the names of Senators who have spoken? They were Senator Barry, Senator Carter, Senator P. Crowley, Senator Donegan, Senator Hayes, Senator Lenihan, Senator McGuire, Senator Ó Donnabháin Senator O'Dwyer, Senator Sheehy Skeffington, Senator J.D. Sheridan and Senator Stanford.

Professor Stanford

I claim that six of those speakers were in favour of the motion.

An Cathaoirleach

We cannot have a debate on that.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

That is not my recollection, but if Senator Stanford insists, I shall bow to his knowledge of the matter. Anyway, irrespective of how many spoke for or against it, the fact is that the change recommended would involve the direct nomination and election of 23 members by certain vocational bodies. That change would be only the first step in the direction of a House composed, in the main, of representatives of those bodies. That, I take it, would be the ultimate objective. Another objective would, I take it, be that eventually the House would be non-political. That would mean——

Professor Stanford

On a point of fact, I must protest against the use of the word "non-political". This House cannot be non-political in any sense of the word. Seanad Éireann must be political and it is absurd to talk like that. The Senator means non-Party political.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is entitled to express his own opinion.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I am corrected. It will be entirely vocational without any political Parties as such.

Professor Stanford

There is no such intention.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

That is the ultimate objective of those who advocate this vocational type of Seanad.

Professor Stanford

Not so far as I am aware, Sir.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Perhaps Senator Stanford is more reasonable than many of the other advocates of the proposition. I believe he is.

Mr. Carton

That would be Senator Stanford's view all right.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Anyhow, it means that the electorate of vocational bodies would select people who have no political views. I do not believe there are any such people in existence. I do believe, however, with Deputy de Valera and Senators Barry, P. Crowley and Donegan that direct election might seriously damage the vocational bodies themselves.

It has been pointed out here by several speakers that a non-political second House does not exist anywhere and that if there were such, it would be useless. Senator McGuire, for instance, who supports the motion, was a firm believer in an all-out vocational Chamber when he first came in here. He is older now, wiser, with much more experience, and he admits that the idea is unrealistic and that in fact such a Chamber would be a laughing stock and that it would wind up in chaotic conditions with regard to legislation.

Senator Hayes, who is prepared to accept the proposed change as an experiment, and whose views on this non-political ramp merits serious attention because of his outstanding knowledge and his experience of the working of the Oireachtas, nevertheless believes that the demands made on the Senators cannot be adequately borne or answered by those who do not take a political view. I am one hundred per cent. with him when he says that he has no faith in non-political people, and like him, I have had a vast experience of the breed. From my own short experience here, too, I cannot see how the House can do its job within the Constitution without some kind of political organisation such as we have.

In my opinion, the most down to earth contribution to this debate came from Senator P. Crowley, who is a vocational representative, incidentally, and I should like to recap the main points of his excellent speech because I think they deserve to be re-emphasised. Senator Crowley believed that the proposal would inject politics in a very undesirable way into the social and economic life of the community. Having gone through two elections to Seanad Éireann, he believes that the electoral college as at present constituted gives us the nearest thing we can get to direct election of the Seanad by the people. Senator Crowley sees the practicability of enlarging the college by adding extra electors from the vocational bodies, and he suggests that the aim of enlarging vocational representation could be achieved by simply increasing the number of seats that may be filled in each nominating panel.

Emphasising that the House is dealing with political problems and that he is not a member of any political Party, Senator Crowley said this in Column 643, Volume 52:

Nevertheless I realise that if I am called upon to give an opinion or to cast a vote I must obviously enter politics to do so, and I make no apology to anyone for doing so.

That is an honest declaration from a vocational Senator which throws daylight on the situation as it exists here. Even Senator Stanford in his admirable statement proposing the motion admitted that the House is a political one.

Professor Stanford

Admitted is quite the wrong word. I am utterly proud that this House is a political House and that I am a politician.

Professor Hayes

Senator Stanford is proving more and more that he is getting like a politician.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I am very glad that Senator Stanford is displaying all the attributes of the politician. While Senator Sheehy Skeffington will support the proposal, he believes the present Seanad has justified itself and in fact that it is at times more in touch with the man in the street than is the Dáil itself. That is an interesting observation. Let us therefore have a look at this Seanad which merits such appreciation from some of the Senators who want to change it. I had a quick look through the membership, and I have listed the following points which may be of interest in this connection. Forty-three of the members of the Seanad were elected in 1957 by an electoral college of 872, composed of 147 members of the newly-elected Dáil, 60 members of the outgoing Seanad, and 785 county councillors and borough councillors. Six more were chosen by the graduates of our two universities and eleven were nominated by the Taoiseach. As Senator Crowley said, the system gives us the nearest approach to direct election by the people, which, in my opinion, is an ideal thing.

Now, on this point, can this Seanad claim to represent widely scattered areas in the country? I think it can, because on a quick run through the membership, I find that it is drawn from no less than 23 of the 26 counties under our jurisdiction.

I should like further to ask another question: can the present Seanad claim to be a vocational body in the widest sense of the term? I say it most certainly can, much more vocational than any other system of election could possibly give us. It has, on my summary, 19 farmers, 16 businessmen, eight educationists, five lawyers, three trade union executives, two Party secretaries, two doctors and two others —a veterinary surgeon and a municipal government official. Fifty per cent of its total membership is engaged in local government.

Mr. John D. Sheridan

How many defeated T.D.s are there?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I shall come to that; I am not dodging that at all. As I said, fifty per cent of the membership are engaged in local administration as county, borough or urban councillors. Four of its members are women. I am sorry to say that there are not more, because I am convinced that we should have in all the public bodies, Dáil, Seanad and the Government, an adequate representation of women. Now, in regard to Senator Sheridan's comment, there are 19 former members of Dáil Éireann— 14 elected on the Oireachtas subpanels, one on the nominating bodies sub-panel and four nominated by the Taoiseach. For the information of these vocational Senators, 12 of these are Fianna Fáil supporters, six support the Fine Gael Party, and one, as far as I know, supports Labour.

Mr. John D. Sheridan

They have already been rejected by the electorate.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

In view of the belief of some critics that political Parties and members are thereby in a sort of vocational limbo, it is well to note that six of these are farmers, eight are engaged in industry, trade and commerce, three in education, one in secretarial work and one in law. And if Senator Sheridan thinks that they are not as qualified to be here as he is, then he should investigate the facts of life.

Mr. John D. Sheridan

I have not been rejected by any electorate yet.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I should like to quote paragraph 29 of the Commission's report, which Senator Sheridan, probably has forgotten. Here is what it says: "We consider it well at this point to refer to the contention expressed in memoranda submitted to us and elsewhere that candidates defeated in elections to the Dáil should not sit in the Seanad. The Commission were unable to find any valid grounds for this contention." I hope Senator J.D. Sheridan will take note.

I should like to record a protest at this point against a broadcast from Radio Éireann containing a piece of typical propaganda against Seanad Éireann and which was framed in language that Radio Éireann authorities should never have allowed to go on the air. In the course of the Radio Éireann, discussion on 30th April in which, incidentally, a tremendous amount of rubbish was spoken by some allegedly intelligent men, one gentleman was brazen enough to say: "The Seanad is a form of limbo for rejected Teachtaí Dála; it provides a place for a form of corruption in public life." The discussion of the subject which the broadcast dealt with was taped and was undoubtedly played back before it went on the air. I should like to protest against the failure of the Radio Éireann authorities to cut out that observation. I regard it as most insulting and as entirely unsuited to broadcast from our national radio station.

I should like to emphasise three other paragraphs from the Commission's Report which embodied the views I urged on the Commission as far as I could and to which I adhere in the light of my experience here during the past three years. In paragraph 24, the Commission have this to say of the duties of the Seanad:

These duties are political and inevitably influence the composition of the Seanad. We would like to emphasise that even if the Seanad were composed entirely of vocational representatives elected wholly by vocational organisations it would still, because of the powers and duties vested in it by the Constitution, have to make decisions which are in the fullest sense political. No alteration in the system of election or composition of the Seanad can alter this fact.

Again, speaking of the type of person required, paragraph 27 has this to say:

On the other hand the political character of the work of the Seanad and the fact that alterations in its membership would not change this were emphasised. It was urged that the type of person required for this work should have a wide understanding of the issues of government and public policy such as can best be gained by practical experience of politics and public life rather than from experience of a particular vocation or occupation. It was argued in particular that specialist representatives of vocations who would give expert advice exclusively on their own subjects would not be the best suited for the type of work the Seanad must perform.

I should like Senators to remember that many members of the commission —I think, practically all—expressed the opinion that, notwithstanding its handicaps, Seanad Éireann as a second Chamber compares favourably in competence of its members, the quality of its discussions and its general approach to all questions with any similar body. I do not believe that increased vocational representation would add anything to the Seanad. It might have a detrimental effect on the vocational bodies which would have to operate the system envisaged. I firmly believe it is a good insurance policy for the future of this nation that we should have no mumbo-jumbo about nonpolitical people or people who can give an unbiased opinion on legislation because they are not tied to political Parties. We must be honest in this regard. Therefore I feel that the Seanad as at present constituted gives us the best possible type of Second Chamber we can get under our Constitution.

Mr. Carton

I would not dare to emulate the Leader of the House because he has put the case so well. However, I have a few notes here which I should like to quote from, though they may appear a bit disjointed. I have them more or less since the subject was introduced to the House. I could not agree more with any statement than that which the Leader has just made. This House is an integral part of the Parliament and as such is essentially political.

Professor Stanford

Hear, hear!

Mr. Carton

That being so, any criticisms of its electoral college on political grounds are unhelpful and unconstructive. The Leader of the House referred to the electoral college. My figures are somewhat different but probably they approximate. The electoral college consists of approximately 900 men and women who had to qualify for membership by facing the ordinary electorate and entering public life, thus enabling themselves to participate in the conduct of affairs in their county. Having secured places in the machinery of local administration by their own effort and by the confidence placed in them by a thousand fellow-citizens, who in this land are better qualified to choose between candidates for this House and give preference to those who in their expert political opinion are best suited for membership of Seanad Éireann?

Is that not the most effective way of electing members to this House? The Leader of the House has covered this matter more effectively than I hope to do. No better way has been suggested. Where else in the democratic world is there a better way of doing it? If there is, why was it not indicated by the papers that are the main protagonists of the anti-political Party attitude?

As an alternative to this system it is proposed that election to this House ought to take place in a myriad of back offices amongst irresponsible persons without a shred of administrative knowledge, who in the main are concerned with a vocational single-mindedness, with a "could not care less" attitude to everything other than their vocational interests. One cannot blame them for that.

Professor Stanford

Is that the Commission's Report from which the Senator is quoting?

Mr. Carton

I am quoting from my notes.

Professor Stanford

That is what I thought.

Mr. Carton

I wish they did say it. They are concerned about their vocational interests. We do not blame them for that because they feel they have a mission here. Whether they represent the farming industry, the cattle industry, building, education, and so on, each believes that his is the mission. The rest of us here are just the people who vote for them and their beliefs—an attitude that could result in an all-over ineffectiveness in this House. That has been covered by the Leader of the House. People purporting to speak on behalf of the vocational groups have gone to press in recent years penning frothy vituperations against politics in their desire to get into the political arena. They are wolfing to get into politics, cursing it on the way in and then accepting it.

The examination and critical discussion of legislative measures is a job for men and women who are skilled in the field of politics and to obtain proficiency in that sphere an opportunity will be afforded in the future—an opportunity was afforded in June last. That opportunity will be open to anybody who wants to become skilled in politics, in that most laudable profession as quoted by Senator Stanford who said as recently as this evening that he is proud to be a politican in Seanad Éireann. Last month, upwards of 3,000 men and women from all walks of life, from all the vocations, offered themselves for election to the local authorities. They offered their time and their talents purely voluntarily for five years and as the Leader of the House said, that means some hours a week. In point of fact, the minimum is 36 meetings a year and some men who are enthusiastic and specialise in certain spheres of local administration also give their time in the afternoons to sub-committees which means approximately 50 meetings out of 52 weeks.

These men and women are willing voluntarily to give their talents for the benefit of their communities. Here is the opportunity for aspirants to get into politics, to come into this House by the most "hateful" method of all, the political Parties—as the Leader of the House has said, by this "obnoxious" method—and be of some use to the nation. These candidates will have worked for their conception of good government in one or other of the Parties for years before they feel they possess the ability to participate in local government. Men and women cross the mountains into the valleys in the depths of winter to attend meetings. I attended meetings myself in Wicklow—in many parts of the country but mainly in Wicklow—last winter and a number of men and women took hours to come in a downpour of rain and members on the other side of the road were doing the same thing, every man and woman of them believing that he or she could help to run this country as it should be run. Those who have gone, we should be saluting for ever.

Ninety-five per cent of the members of this House and of this Parliament entered public life in this laudable way. Does anybody know a better method than the present method? I am dealing only with the method of election to this House. The Leader of the House dealt with the whole subject more comprehensively. The end product here is as good as it is anywhere. Let us have a look at what the end product is like to-day. We have, apart from the university nominees, professors, doctors, leading industrialists, farmers, lawyers, teachers and trade union leaders and business is represented in all categories. We have a university professor with the finest of national and cultural backgrounds in the Chair. As Leas-Chathaoirleach, we have a doctor in the forefront of the educational field. As Leader of the House, we have a man of sound ability with a wide knowledge of affairs and an intimate association with national aspirations. We have a daughter of James Connolly, a sister of Pádraig Pearse, a son of Sheehy Skeffington. We have a lady with a lifetime knowledge of trade unionism and a lady who graciously occupied the mayoralty of Cork last year, so that even the papers who criticise us have had to admit that they were very proud of her efficiency. Senator Stanford highlighted the situation that occurred on occasion when, but for the political side of the Seanad, it would have been impossible to go on with the business.

Professor Stanford

I contend that there is no other side. It is all political.

Mr. Carton

There is an organisation, I believe, which is making you stand up and say these things and it will not look good when it is quoted. If this House were composed of Senators elected by small influential vocational votes, abuses would abound in a very short time. In the recent by-election, it was said that one of the candidates—and I should like to say that he was not elected to this House —joined a nominating body purely to obtain his candidature before the election. That is possible with a vocational body but it would be highly improbable with a political Party. Apart from that aspect, it is abundantly clear that loyalty to the Oireachtas would be merely secondary to loyalty to the group who sent their representative here with the result that the control of the House would pass to pressure groups with their various antagonisms. In spite of the fact that this debate did succeed in getting a profession of political faith from Senator Stanford, I cannot agree with his motion.

Professor Stanford

I must protest. The profession was not elicited from me. I have been saying it for 12 years in this House.

Mr. Carton

I do not want to misrepresent the Senator but it is nice to hear him saying it repeatedly.

Mr. Ryan

I think it is generally agreed that the Seanad has two functions to perform, that it has in the structure of the State two reasons for its existence. Its first reason is to be a House to review legislation, to have a second look at Bills when they come from the Dáil and sometimes to have second thoughts about the desirability of these Bills. It very often happens that legislation goes through the Dáil rather quickly and without much notice; it very often happens that it goes through before the public have time to form an opinion about the particular Bill. The second Chamber provides an opportunity for public opinion, if it is suddenly aroused, to form as to the significance of the particular Bill, to examine through the members of the Seanad, the Bill again and to hold it up or amend it. In my view, this function of the Seanad of reviewing legislation, of having second thoughts, is its principal function. I think that is certainly true of second Chambers in other countries and it is also true of the Seanad in this country.

The second function which the Seanad has to perform is that of a vocational Chamber, a Chamber where the vocational bodies of the country can give their views on the desirability of Bills, give their comments and give their expert opinion where that is applicable on Bills affecting particular vocations and it must be admitted that the Seanad has an important function in that field also.

It has been suggested that the vocational character of the Seanad should be extended, that we should have considerably more members both nominated by the vocational bodies and elected by them. Whatever may be said for extending the number of members who are nominated by the vocational bodies, I think that possibly there is something to be said for the suggestion that the members who are nominated by the vocational bodies should also be elected by them, but whether the number nominated by the vocational bodies should be extended is, to my mind, another matter.

It must be remembered that in the Seanad we have already gone a very long way towards giving the vocational bodies representation. At present more than one-third of the members of the Seanad are members nominated by the vocational bodies. In addition, it is quite obvious that almost all the remaining members of the Seanad are themselves active in some vocation or occupation and that, as such, they are, in fact, vocational members; that they can voice the vocational point of view of the particular vocation or occupation to which they belong, so that it is quite clear that we have between the strictly vocational members and the other members of the Seanad a very strong vocational point of view. There can scarcely be any vocation in the country, as has been pointed out by some of the previous speakers who have been enumerating the views which are represented here, which are not represented in the Seanad and which is not very adequately represented by some member or members here.

What is important, I think, about those members who are not actually nominated by vocational bodies is that they do not always voice a vocational point of view. They keep their vocational point of view in proper perspective. They speak sometimes from the vocational point of view but very often they speak merely from the point of view of a politician, merely from the point of view of a representative who is giving his view from a broad national point of view.

The Seanad has often very important national decisions to make, decisions which are not relevant to any particular vocation. They are decisions which it would be most improper to make from a narrow point of view or from the point of view of any particular vocation. It is very important, therefore, that the members of this House, or at least that a majority of the members should be primarily politicians rather than primarily representatives of a particular vocation.

When I say politicians, I want to explain quickly, before Senator Stanford gets up to protest, that I mean politicians who are sufficiently realistic and have sufficient commonsense to know that the only effective politician is a politician who is a member of a Party. There may be exceptions to that rule but they are very few and far between and they merely——

Professor Stanford

May I ask the Senator something? Does he, therefore, rule out all the politicians of ancient Greece who had no organised party system?

Mr. O'Reilly

That is what destroyed them. That is why the Greek democracy fell.

Mr. Ryan

I think Senator O'Reilly has answered that very effectively. I have no hesitation in saying that I believe the only effective politician is a politician who is a member of a Party. The exceptions to that rule are so few and far between that I think they merely go to show that the exception proves the rule. I say it is essential that the Seanad should be primarily composed of politicians. The reformers of the Seanad seem to seek some form of pure vocationalism. They seem to think that if everybody speaks from the point of view of their own vocation, that if they are untainted by Party politics, in some way they will then be able to express better views, expert views or more valuable views. I do not believe that is the case.

In fact I do not believe there is any such person as a person who is a pure vocationalist, a person who is nonpolitical. If there were such a person, I am quite sure that if the Seanad were entirely composed of such persons, it would be a very poor Seanad and a very bad Chamber for considering national measures and making decisions on them.

The Commission, in the course of their findings, referred to the evolution of the Seanad and they acknowledged that the Seanad was a young Chamber; that it has not been very long in existence and that, consequently, it is hard to judge it. I believe it will take the present Seanad a considerable time to assume definite characteristics. I believe it was unfortunate that there has already been so much interference with the second Chamber in this country and so many attempts to reform it by legislation. I think it would be a mistake, a very serious mistake, at this stage to attempt again to make this a better Chamber by legislation. It would be much better that it should be given time in its present form to find a niche in the structure of the State.

Mr. Cole

I might not go the full way in accepting at one stroke the recommendations of the Commission. I would suggest that the Government might seriously consider going a little way in some form or another by recognising bodies of a certain size in some way. Although I was very impressed by the speech of the Leader of the House and also by Senator Carton's speech, they did not, to my mind, distinguish between allowing these bodies to nominate and allowing them to elect. The position is that there is not very much difference between the two suggestions. Take the case of organisations which have nominated and elected their nominees to this House. I wonder if that suggestion would bring politics into these vocational bodies? I wonder has it really brought politics into any of those bodies and has it had a detrimental effect?

We have a body which originally nominated the late Senator Baxter and which also nominated Senator O'Dwyer. I do not think the fact that that organisation nominated two Senators from two different Parties has done it any harm. I am sure there are other bodies like that, so that that possibly would dispose of the suggestion that it would do vocational bodies a certain amount of harm. Senator Carton suggests that a person might join one of these bodies simply to get a nomination. That point could easily be legislated for by making it necessary for voting members to have, say, three or five years' membership.

I regret in a way that the House has not taken a more academic view of the proposals in the Report instead of a political, or at least a non-vocational, view. A great many of the speakers, although they spoke against it showed, I thought, a certain amount of admission that a lot could be said for vocational bodies and especially a vocational Seanad. I feel that we must all admit, even the Leader of the House, that an ideal Chamber would be composed of completely independent members. I am the first to agree that it would not work but an ideal Parliament would be composed of single members and one would think that an ideal Upper House would work if there were a great many members who were not officially in Parties, which is the next thing to being completely independent. While not officially members of a Party, they might to some extent be members and have sympathies with a Party. The fact that a House composed of Independents would be the ideal thing should not stop the Government from going a little way to experiment, perhaps with some members of this House elected in that way. If we have ideals, we should at least have the courage to put some of them into force. That, I think, was the original idea of the framers of the Constitution when this House was re-constituted.

I do not think we should be overimpressed by people who say that our Houses are political and must be political. They are purely political Houses. Although we have adopted legislation and ideas from other countries, there is no reason why we should not adopt those parts which suit us, or be a little original. We are a young country and we have had many original ideas and I do not see why a more original idea of an upper House could not find its birth in this country.

As regards the type of man who would be sent forward by a vocational body, I once had an opportunity of talking to a British, official who had the job of selecting candidates for British Colonial posts. I was in the company of a headmaster of a school at the time and he was very keen to obtain information about the type of candidate who, in the opinion of this official, or in the opinion of the Government, would make a good administrator. The official said that they looked primarily for a student who had one good subject—let it be mathematics or classics, he did not mind, provided the man was good at the subject, although he might be finally chosen to go on to the legal side, or some other side of the administrative service.

To my mind, that is very important in answer to the suggestion that we would have too many experts here who would only deal with their own subject. I do not think we have in this country a number of the people whom the late Professor Laski, I think, described as experts who know more and more about less and less. I do not think there is room or a living for many real experts in this country and I think the person who comes from a vocational body—whom perhaps we should like to call an expert—is not an expert in the sense that Senator Hayes said he would like to listen to these experts but would not like to be ruled by them, or some such words.

I do see a great advantage in having members elected by a body which would have a general knowledge and an interest in every sphere of the activities of the Seanad, a person who would come with a particular knowledge of his own subject, let it be education, or farming, and who would be in a position to speak in detail on a Bill having heard the views of the members of his own organisation for and against, and who to a certain extent, while not an expert would be solely interested in the subject of that Bill. Such a person would be an ideal person to come to this House provided he had a general wish, as we all have, to further the interests of good legislation. After all, the people who are nominated by these bodies are liable to be elected. They are to a certain extent experts, and they have a general wish to further the interests of the country generally.

To get back to where I started: where is the difference between the body electing them straightaway and nominating them and letting another electorate elect them? That, to my mind, is the crux of this whole debate. There is a great deal to be said for recommending to the Government to go a little way with these suggestions in the Report of the Committee.

One would like to make other suggestions for the improvement of the Seanad. One suggestion that might perhaps be out of order on this motion is that the Seanad might be enlarged by letting ex-Ministers become members of the Seanad, ex-members of the High Court and, in spite of what has been said about them, ex-T.D.s. As the number of those members elected by the vocational bodies grew, the Leader of the Opposition in the House could be given the right—admittedly, it might involve constitutional drafting—and the power to nominate members, fewer members than the Government, but at least the power to nominate members to assure him of his continuity in the front bench. I would urge the Government not to reject the suggestions of the Commission out of hand and at least to consider them. Perhaps they are novel, but at least they are ideals that we should approach perhaps in a small way at first, but they would find great favour in the country. I urge that point of view on the Minister.

Tómas Ó Maoláin

May I intervene for a moment to ask would it be possible for us to find out how many more Senators are prepared to speak? We would like to finish this motion tonight because of the amount of public business we shall have to deal with next week.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think there are very few speakers. In fact, there is only one other speaker.

Professor Hayes

The Minister will be speaking?

Tómas Ó Maoláin

Senator Stanford will require adequate time to conclude.

Professor Hayes

Will the Minister be speaking?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Does the Minister intend to intervene?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Yes.

Professor Hayes

We could finish at 10.30 p.m.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We can decide to sit until 10.30 p.m., if necessary.

Mr. O'Reilly

I feel perhaps at a disadvantage in getting up to speak on this motion because quite a long while ago I felt so strongly on this matter that after reading the Report, I prepared some notes which I intended to use in this debate, but because the motion has been so long on the Order Paper, and because the discussions have been so broken, I now find myself without the Report and without my notes. However, perhaps it is all for the best because I intended to lambaste the mover and seconder of the motion and also the Leader of the House because he is one of those who signed this Report.

At this stage I find myself in a certain amount of sympathy with Senator Stanford because it is obvious to me now that when he put down this motion, he did so to have it discussed on the best academic lines, as suggested by Senator Cole. I suggest he did not intend that it should become the plaything of groups of people outside this House who want to misrepresent, debunk and destroy it. I know that Senator Stanford is in no way connected with those groups of people who are engaged on that type of work. Therefore, knowing him to be a sensitive person, I sympathise with him and I know that after what has happened, he is inclined to protest.

An interjection of mine when Senator Ryan was speaking leads me to say to Senator Stanford that, in my opinion, while he is trying to protect the Greek classics, he has failed to learn a small lesson of history. I am prepared to suggest to him that it was because of an attempt at idealistic vocationalism in Athens that the system, which was the earliest democracy I know of, broke down. I am not qualified to take on a discussion with the Senator but, in my view, the proposer of this motion apparently attacks Party politicians.

Professor Stanford

On a point of fact, I have never attacked any Party politicians—never. That is a fact. I have been 12 years in this House and I have never attacked them as such. I have attacked Party politics and Party statements but never Party politicians as such.

Mr. O'Reilly

I was taking the view that the Senator was not an accomplished politician, but I am now inclined to think that he is and that he would make an excellent addition to any Party. He is a pretty good tactician. The Senator may not have attacked Party politics, but the implication of this motion is that a Seanad composed of members of Parties who are Party politicians is not as good a House as a Seanad elected by vocational bodies, or, might I say, pressure groups. I do not agree with that view and I think the Senator has so little experience in this matter——

Professor Stanford

Twelve years.

Mr. O'Reilly

——that he is inclined to take the view that Parties are run along such lines as make for bad Governments. I do not subscribe to that view.

The Senator made another statement when proposing this motion which reminded me of another Senator without a Party. I am referring to Cicero who ultimately finished up with his head on a rostrum in Rome. One of the reasons why that happened was that he failed to become a member of a particular Party at a particular time. I believe if we were to continue along that line, instead of having an improvement here, this House would disimprove. I feel that the groups, the trade unions of teachers, transport workers, doctors and University professors would perhaps elect to this House men who are not necessarily the best, but men who would advocate the points of view of those groups which would represent a narrow sectional outlook. It would be disastrous on broad national issues when difficulties arose, if we had in this House a position in which no firm decision would be taken by the people so elected.

I heard once from a senior executive of an insurance company that before there was a fire brigade in Dublin different companies put their own sign on buildings which they insured so as to know in the event of a fire what buildings they were covering, and it was known that when a fire broke out and some good citizen called the nearest fire brigade that brigade would go to the spot, and seeing that the sign was not its sign, would say that the fire was not its responsibility. I greatly fear that if the Seanad were elected along the lines suggested in the motion that sort of thing would tend to develop, and it would be a disastrous development.

Looking at the other side of the case, this Assembly has, by and large, acquitted itself with some distinction and has carried on its business in a fairly intelligent and workable manner. I do not think that the people who elect to criticise and debunk it would, if they were elected, be any improvement. If the people who make those sustained charges had a little more charity, they would not make them.

People have talked about this House being a limbo for defeated T.D.'s I have been a fairly long time a member of this House and was never a Dáil Deputy, though I almost was one once or twice; but I was a director of elections more times than I can count, and whether that should be regarded as a qualification or not, apparently the people who vote and the particular Party did regard it as a qualification.

I do not agree with the people who are arguing that political Parties are undesirable. I do not want Senator Stanford to make any further protests, and I am not suggesting that he is subscribing to that view, but it is unfortunately true that there were many people making that case at the time the Senator put down his motion. Most of the members, I feel, will agree that it is unfortunate that people have tried to misrepresent the situation at the very time this motion was on the Order Paper.

Professor Stanford

They have been doing it for 20 or 30 years, not for two or three years.

Mr. O'Reilly

I am not clear as to what the Senator is referring to, and I suppose we all have to fight our corner and meet misrepresentation all down along the line.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

Is fior é sin.

Mr. O'Reilly

It can possibly be argued that at present we do not get people with the best administrative experience, but you do not want all administrators. In the long run, if you get people who have some experience in public life, you will do well, and the only way they can get that is through our political Parties. We will all agree that if through some earthquake or some other means which I cannot think of one of our major political Parties were to be removed, there would be a very serious vacuum in the country.

Professor Hayes

The other one would have a great time.

Mr. O'Reilly

It would not even be good for the other one.

Professor Hayes

Maybe not.

Mr. O'Reilly

That, I think, is most of what I had intended to say. There were a few other things which I am afraid I am missing but the House will have to suffer the loss. I do not agree that this motion should be passed. This House has served the country pretty well and I cannot understand why so many people with common sense signed this Report. That includes Senator Ó Maoláin, and it should be an object lesson to Senator Stanford in Party politics to read the Report and then bear in mind Senator Ó Maoláin's speech after signing the Report. I want to say in conclusion that it would be a tragedy if this motion were accepted by the House, but I do not think it will be.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

Before I come to deal with any part of the discussion or the terms of this motion, I would like to take the opportunity of putting on record my deep appreciation of the members of the Commission, both of this House and the other House and those outside both Houses, who sat on the Commission and who gave us a Report in a very expeditious way. I am deeply grateful for that and I am sure all of us feel a sense of gratitude to those people who did this service for us.

I have listened with very great interest indeed to the debate on the Commission's recommendations. I have listened to the arguments that have been excellently presented and the speeches very properly put by the various speakers. Indeed, I might say that the speeches were put in the traditional manner in this House. They were very clear and moderate and concise. Senator Stanford, proposer of the motion, summarised the entire question, or certainly the question of importance in regard to the terms of the Comission's Report, when he put the question "Should 23 Senators be nominated and elected by vocational bodies?" I very particularly emphasise and stress the word "elected" because as we know at the moment, the vocational bodies are empowered and entitled to nominate to each of the five panels a number of candidates at each Seanad election, and no matter what happens, no less than 16 members so nominated will be elected to this House.

Therefore, it would appear to be a question, on this particular issue at any rate, of the difference between a maximum of 16 elected from the nominating bodies sub-panels, or the vocational groups if we wish to call them that, and a fixed 23 as appears to be the wish of those sponsoring this motion and the recommendation of the Report itself. Of course, the difference of seven which appears to be there need not exist at all, because 23 or more vocational nominees may in fact be elected under our present system, so that it does not really seem as if there is a very great deal between the supporters of the status quo and the proposals in the Report so ably advocated by Senator Stanford in his opening address.

Of course, there are those who have already said, and I am sure will say, that the present electorate makes it extremely difficult for more than 16 vocational people to be elected to this House; but let us look at the electorate which, as has been pointed out already by some other speakers, really makes the choice between the Oireachtas sub-panel candidates and the vocational bodies sub-panel. It is composed, as Senators are aware, of the members of this House, the members of Dáil Éireann, and the members of county councils and county borough councils scattered throughout the country. I entirely agree with the speaker who said that this electorate is as broad as it is possible to get, and I would go further and say that to make it any more widespread and representative would mean no less than going directly to the people themselves.

That is the electorate that makes this choice. It is a good and most representative electorate. Within that electorate, as is known to every Senator, there are quite a large number of independent, non-committed people who vote and participate in the Seanad elections and who cannot be said to be controlled in any way by any group or Party. Surely that electorate, which represents a fairly significant proportion of our local bodies, must give us food for thought when we talk of making a change?

I listened with very great interest to all the speeches. I am glad to hear the views of anybody who has studied this subject in a serious manner. I was particularly interested in the views expressed by the vocational Senators. At this stage and subject to check, out of 17 speakers in the debate only five vocational Senators spoke and there are 16 of them in this House. It might be six—I am not sure —but, on a quick check, I think, only five spoke.

I was particularly interested in the views of the five vocational Senators on this subject. They know intimately the type and scope of the work of this House. They have had that experience since they became members. With those five—subject to a re-check, of course—what do we find? Senator Barry, who actually seconded the motion, found himself in the curious position of disagreeing somewhat with the recommendations of the Commission. He disagreed with the Commission's main recommendation which we have been discussing to a very great degree. Instead of the Commission's proposal for the direct election of vocational Senators, he recommended that the present electorate be leavened by a number of vocational electors.

Senator McGuire, who declared himself in support of the motion, gave us a really excellent description of the functions of political Parties in the Seanad. He pointed out that the effort to create a purely vocational Seanad without political Parties would create chaos. I entirely agree with that view. However, as he proceeded, I am afraid I then came to the point when I could not agree at all. Having made an excellent case as to why we should not have a vocational Seanad, as such, he then deduced that a greater number of vocational Senators are desirable. I do not quite follow the trend of his thought. He makes a case with which I entirely agree up to the point of his deducing that we should have more vocational Senators although he said that by having all vocational Senators, we would make a mess of things. That is as I recall his speech. I took a note and checked what he said in the Official Report. Senator Crowley did not think the changes recommended by the Commission would justify the risks. Senator O'Dwyer voiced probably the feeling of many when he said that even if we had vocational members elected by vocational bodies, the result would still be political. I think that is agreed by practically everybody here.

I think I would be quite fair, though possibly others may think I am not, in summarising the views expressed by our vocational Senators by saying that only one of the five I have counted fully and wholeheartedly supported the motion proposed by Senator Stanford and he is Senator J.D. Sheridan. I hope nobody will feel I am in any way reflecting on Senator J.D. Sheridan when I say that he himself would be a perfect example of what Senator McGuire had in mind when he visualised the chaos which would tend to exist here if we had 60 independent-minded, vocationally-trained and elected nominees in this House.

One of the most vital questions to be discussed in this House for very many years was the recent question of the referendum. Senator J.D. Sheridan, as is his right, decided not to vote—I am not wronging him, I hope—his line being that it was a political question and as such, he did not want to and would not participate in a decision one way or the other.

That, then, would bring us to the situation when we would have, excluding the 11 people nominated by the Taoiseach and the six elected by the Universities, 43 people with minds very definitely made up on certain subjects but with a firm commitment that when a political question was to be decided, none of them would vote. That would be the complete and absolute negation of the idea of a second House.

Dr. O'Donovan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Blaney

The word "chaos" used by Senator McGuire as a description of the result is very mild. The work of this House is political. That is fairly well accepted by anyone who to my knowledge has spoken here. One has only to look at the Order Paper of this House today to see the many and varied matters all of which can be described as of political and topical importance. Surely, if we were to say: "We belong to vocational bodies; we should not make political decisions" I wonder where the items Senators have so expeditiously dealt with today would find themselves?

This idea of course that the Seanad is a political institution is quite unoriginal. It is recognised and admitted by everybody who stops to think. To quote one item from the Commission:

We would like to emphasise that even if the Seanad were composed entirely of vocational representatives elected wholly by vocational organisations it would still, because of the powers and duties vested in it by the Constitution, have to make decisions which are in the fullest sense political. No alteration in the system of election or composition of the Seanad can alter this fact.

Another matter commented on by a number of Senators, as I may have already mentioned, was the danger of making the vocational bodies not only the nominating bodies but also their own electorate. Four or five Senators on both sides of the House spoke of these dangers and said that it tended to bring politics into the vocations rather than bring any great advantage from the vocations into politics. These people, Senators Barry, Lenihan, Sheehy Skeffington, Hayes and Carter, taking them by and large, are a fair cross-section of the opinion of this House and I believe that the fears they express would possibly have a fairly sound foundation. I am inclined to agree with those five Senators and would indeed feel that there is great danger of what they suggest happening, if this aspect of the Report were put into operation.

Senator Donegan raised another very important point. He was the only one to raise it and call a spade a spade. He talked of the situation before the present system of Seanad election was instituted when we had an electorate overall of about 400. The talk of corruption in those days was possibly a contributing factor to the change that took place in the actual electorate and in the system. If the recommendations here before us regarding the electorate for the vocational panels were accepted, surely it implies that in future the importance of one vote in each group of one hundred of an electorate in the vocational groups would be far greater than was one vote out of four hundred in the open electorate which we are told lent itself to abuse. Certainly if it did not give rise to abuse it was talked of in a manner which led people to believe that it did and in matters of public interest such as these, it is almost as dangerous when such things are believed to have happened as when they do happen.

I agree with Senator Donegan that giving an electorate of one hundred to each of the various panels would draw us back to a greater degree than an open electorate of four hundred which resulted in so much talk and accusations of corrupt practices being slung around by those who possibly hoped to injure this institution. We have a bigger electorate to-day and since the electorate was extended to its present size, there has been no breath whatever of a suggestion of corrupt practices regarding Seanad elections. Certainly I would say that to go back to a situation where such suggestions could be made would be a very retrograde step and one all of us would regret.

Seventeen speakers made contributions to this debate so far as I can ascertain on a check. Might I say— and I am sure Senator Stanford will entirely disagree because he has already held that the figure is somewhat greater than I make out—that of those 17 members who spoke, there were two people fully for the motion: Senator Stanford, the proposer, and Senator J.D. Sheridan who spoke at a later stage. Senator Barry, I would say, was about 50-50. In his own words, he found himself in some difficulty in seconding. He wanted the motion discussed and therefore he was seconding it, although he did not entirely agree with the idea behind it. Senator Hayes, I thought, spoke against it; I felt he spoke against it. I have read what he said since and I am still convinced that he did speak against it, but he wound up by saying that we should try it as an experiment in deference to the agitation raised and the general feeling that something should be done.

Might I also couple Senator Cole with the idea that the Government should go a little way at any rate and at least experiment? I believe, with due regard to both Senators and to this House, that this is far too serious and important a matter, too delicate a subject, to be experimented with. If that were the only reason for a change, it would be foolhardy to attempt it even though a change might appeal in certain ways.

Senator McGuire, I felt again, spoke against. On reconsideration of what he said as reported in the debates of this House, I am still convinced of that, but he wound up by saying that he supported the motion. That gives us two speakers who seemed finally to come down on the side of the motion, with Senator McGuire being half in favour of it, and two others who might come down in favour of an experiment. In all, we have two and a half for and two doubtful out of 17 speakers and the rest against.

In addition, I would say, subject to correction, that only five of the 16 vocational Senators spoke at all, either for or against. Of those five, I make out that two were for, one of them half and half and two against, so the five would appear to me to be evenly divided.

Taking all that as the background and realising full well that the contributions made here will take a little time to digest fully, I should say at this stage that no formal decision has yet been taken. I have on many occasions said in the Dáil in reply to Parliamentary Questions that until we heard the views of this House and considered them, no final decision whatever would be arrived at by the Government. Despite that, I feel that, overall, my impression would be that no really worthwhile case has been made to justify the departure suggested by this Report.

Professor Stanford

First, I should like to thank the Minister—I am sure all the House will join with me in this —for his patience in listening to our debate and for his contribution to it. I must add that I am disappointed at the general tenor of what he has said. I shall try to meet one or two of the arguments he made. He did argue that only two were fully in support of the motion, namely, myself and another Senator.

Here, I should like, with due deference, to say that it was hardly fair to single out one Senator in his absence and take him as a kind of example of what the Seanad might or might not do if all of us here were primarily vocationalists. I really do not think that this was an entirely justified approach. It would be perfectly possible for me to single out some unfortunate Senator either present here, or in his absence, and say his conduct was a reflection on the Party or something like that. It is the last thing I would do, but it is perfectly within my power. I do not think it is a fair argument against vocationalists to single out a person and say that he is an example of what is likely to happen. I should like to say that emphatically. I think this is a negative approach. I think we should have a constructive, positive approach to a matter of this kind.

It is not worth going over an analysis of the figures which the Minister gave because he has his mathematical methods and I have mine. Perhaps, neither of us is a pure mathematician. We could not come to absolute agreement on this. As I see it, seven out of 17 gave a partial support to this motion. It is quite true that there were reservations in many cases. But I think it is only fair to say to the Minister that there were reservations on the other side, too. Among the ten who supported the motion, some made suggestions for changes or improvements in the constitution of the Seanad. It would be perfectly possible for me to whittle down that ten on the other side, but I do not think that is really a practical approach.

Let us consider the principles that underlie this debate and consider where the best principles, the most constructive principles, for the welfare of the country lie. The Minister's argument—it was the argument of many—was that a kind of chaos would result if the loyalties of Senators were primarily vocational. He quoted, very rightly, the remark in the Commission's Report that the Seanad must be in the fullest sense political. But what the Minister is doing and what pretty well every member of this House who is in opposition to the motion is doing is refusing to see that there is any form of politics, or valid politics, other than, Party politics; that Party politics is the be-all and end-all of good government in this country and in every country.

Let me remind the House that history has its lessons. The Party system is a bare 300 years old at the most. It has served its purpose and is still serving its purpose. Some day it will go like the other systems. In Athens, you had a system of personal leadership. It served its purpose and very brilliantly for a while. I think even Senator O'Reilly might concede some good things were done by the Athenian democracy, even in the absence of a Party organisation. That was personal leadership. It served its purpose. In Rome, you had a kind of class organisation—the Knights, the Senators and the plebs. It served its purpose, and it went. In the English House of Lords, you had an hereditary system. It served its purpose and produced a very good House, though it is being gradually changed now by life peers. The fact is that there are other valid and valuable forms of political organisation besides the Party system, and unless you are going to shut your history books and see no further than the shores of this island, you cannot deny that.

Again and again in this debate, we have had the view that politics means Party politics, as if anyone who is not a member of a Party cannot be a politician. The thing is idiotic. When I use the word "idiotic," I use it charged with over 2,000 years of force. When the Greeks used the word idiotes, what they meant was a man who did not take a proper interest in national politics and none of us here should be an idiot in that sense, taking no interest in national politics. Why should vocationalists be idiots in that sense. either? Surely, they have a sense of national responsibility just as much as the Parties?

Sir, may I say through you to the House that I am not attacking the Party system? It is good up to a point but it is not the last word. It is not the only possible source of political energy and political intelligence in this country. Anyone who says it is is denying the universality of the Irish nation because there are a good many people in this country—a fair number, at any rate—who just do not particularly like the Party system. They prefer another system.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

What system?

Professor Stanford

They could choose the Athenian, personal leadership, the system in Rome, the hereditary system, or a form of vocationalism such as some of us recommend.

I am pained by the way in which the words "politics" and "political Parties" have been grossly abused and misused throughout this debate. It is a reflection on the intelligence of the House in many ways. It is obfuscating our minds. This debate has not succeeded in clearing the air completely because these falsified terms have been bandied to and fro. If we could only have agreed upon a definition at the beginning, as wise politicians and diplomats do, we would have had a much better debate. The agreed definition should have been this, as I am sure that all will agree: politics is the art of Government, and the politicians are those who take part in government, local and national. That is the meaning of the word and I do not think that any sensible man can honestly deny it. I am afraid that even the Minister lent himself to that obfuscation of our thought by tending to identify the whole question of politics with the Party system. History denies that.

May I turn to the contribution of Senator Ó Maoláin? I am very grateful to him. He is an honest man who speaks his mind. But he also changes his mind as a supporter of his Party pointed out in a very choice phrase. Senator O'Reilly described him as "one of the people who signed in support of the Commission," a very well-chosen phrase. But we are perfectly entitled to change our minds in a few months like that, provided that we always do it honestly.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Senator Stanford knows very well that it was not a question of changing my mind. I urged on the Commission, as Senator Stanford knows and as the Report of the Commission will show, my particular viewpoint. For the sake of getting a report and having it discussed, I agreed to sign. There was no question, as Senator Stanford knows, of changing my mind.

Professor Stanford

Senator Ó Maoláin signed the Report as it stands, and I cannot see how a man who signs a report can say he did not support the report at that time. He may change his mind afterwards. I know he made reservations at the meeting— I think I was at nearly all the meetings —but he did not come out with this masterly attack that he used today. We did not hear that at all. He has now changed his mind.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I have not changed my mind.

Professor Stanford

I wish I could change it back for him. I know he will listen to reason. He began with a eulogy of the Party system and I kept saying in my mind: "Yes, yes, yes; of course it has done good but who is attacking it?" I am certainly not and no one in this debate did, with one exception, which I regret. But he insisted that the Party system is the only source of good, strenuous political work in this country. I think that is where he is wrong. He said that the Party politicians learned to operate the machinery of administration and complained that they were sneered at. They were not sneered at by anybody in this House or by anybody who signed the Report. That is not relevant. The question that concerns us is: would this House be improved by an infusion of politicians whose primary loyalty, after that which they must all have for their country, is not to Party but to their profession or vocation? That is the question.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

If the Senator looks around him, he will see that the politicians are here and the vocational people are absent.

Professor Stanford

He went on to say that only the Party members served their apprenticeship and saw how the machinery of politics worked. But does he honestly think that a man who has been chairman of a hospital for ten years or a man who has run a big factory employing hundreds of people for ten years or a man who has organised and run a trade union for ten years, or a large business firm— are such people completely ignorant of the art of government, of managing people, of making regulations? The thing is absurd. Some Senator seemed to imply that they would know nothing of public life. Could anything be more absurd? They will be people who have taken part in medical politics— and that is pretty political in all senses of the word; or played a part in academic politics—and let me tell Senator Ó Maoláin that academic politics have little to learn from the sharpest Party politicians—or in trade union politics. There are other forms of apprenticeship which will be valuable for this House if the vocationalists come into it. These people will have experience of public life, experience of the art of government. They will have experience and knowledge of human nature. What more do we want? There was too much emphasis on the political machine. This really is not a matter of machinery and machines, but of human beings. I claim that some of the vocational politicians will be useful human beings in this House.

I deplore it when Senator Ó Maoláin speaks of this non-political ramp. Those are unnecessary words here. I take it that what he means is that some people in this country have decried politics in general; other people decried Party politics in general. But that is not the motive behind this motion or the motive of those of the Commission who really wanted a change. That is not so. They want to improve national politics, to stimulate Party politics by a kind of Opposition which is at a different level, not necessarily higher and not necessarily lower, but simply, shall we say, from a different angle. I think that would do good. I hope I am being fair to Senator Ó Maoláin. I know he will interrupt me if I am not.

In general, I think his argument was, first, that this motion amounts to an attack on politicians; secondly, that it is an attack on Party politics; and thirdly, that it is an attack on the Seanad. Now, I deny all three of those. We are all politicians here and must always be, or else I hope that anyone who says he is not will be shown the door by the Captain of the Guard. That would be the proper way to deal with him. Secondly, only a fool would decry Party politics in general as an evil thing. But it is not the only possible source of political wisdom and energy and action in this country. That is the distinction.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Name a few.

Professor Stanford

Party politics provide the largest and the most effective source at the moment. But I am saying that there is another possible valuable source. I did not hear that murmuring?

Professor Hayes

It is just as well.

Professor Stanford

Thirdly, no supporter of the motion attacked the Seanad as far as I know and no one intended the motion as such an attack. I could quote from my opening speech, but I will not as the hour is late. I made it clear in my opening statement that I think this is a good House. I think it has done good work in this session and in past sessions. But I also said that I think it is capable of being improved. Like every human institution, it is capable of being improved. I am simply arguing that one way of improving it is to get a section of the Seanad away from the Party system. That is all.

I should like to say a word on what Senator Carton said in his stimulating speech. I think he argued—again on this exclusive approach—that local government politics and local politics were the best schools, so to speak, for national politics. In fact I think he said that this was the only possible school, or something like that. I say that there are many other such schools, and that in the vocational political arena, you get a different kind of schooling in politics which may be valuable.

Now there is one argument which disturbs me in the whole debate and I concede it frankly. Senator Ó Maoláin referred to it, as did Senator Crowley and others. It is this: the danger that the wrong kind of politics—I shall not specify it— would get into the vocational bodies if more members of this Chamber were elected from them. I agree that that is a risk, but I think it is a risk worth taking and I shall go back to that in a moment.

Senator Ryan spoke of two functions of the Seanad, quite rightly, one to review and revise legislation and the other to be a vocational body. My claim is that until you get a larger proportion of people both nominated and elected by the vocational bodies, there will not be enough vocationalism. I know it is a matter of opinion, but it is my convinced opinion. I do not want to launch any attack on the vocational members of this House—it would be most improper although the Minister has almost put it up to me. It is possible in some cases that we would get better representation of vocationalism if they were both elected and nominated by those bodies.

The outside people I am referring to, these vocationalists whom I should like to bring in, are genuine politicians, are politically-minded. Their first loyalty is to their country and their second loyalty is not to Party but to their vocation. They do not answer the Party Whip. At the moment those in this House who rely on some Party support for their election must quite often be torn in their decisions between what the Party line says and what their vocational supporters may say. There is always a risk of this: I do not say it often actually happens.

Senator Ryan said with much truth that the only effective politicians were members of Parties. By and large, that is true in Ireland today. But is that the best thing for Ireland? Would it not be better possibly if there was a kind of politician who would be separate from the Party, devoted to his country and its best interests, and with enough effective influence, as it were, to balance the Party system in respect to the body politic? That is arguable. I cannot prove it would be the best thing, but I think it would be an improvement.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Would the Senator indicate what would happen if all those good people were to adopt that attitude? Suppose all the Parties and all these good people were to be patriotic, and so on——

Professor Stanford

I say to Senator Ó Maoláin that I will not pursue that line of argument because it is completely irrelevant. I refuse to discuss it. We are discussing whether it would improve the Seanad to introduce 23 vocationalists, pure and simple, and I submit that Senator Ó Maoláin's inquiry is completely irrelevant. I am willing to discuss it in another case and on another occasion. I am now discussing the infusion of 23 pure vocationalists—I am not using the word "pure" as a nasty word, which it seems at the moment to be in this House—and I am simply saying that after their loyalty to their country, they would be devoted secondly to their vocation, whatever it is. That is clear enough.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Would they all refuse to vote on a Bill like the Referendum Bill?

Professor Stanford

That is an unfair argument.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Not a bit.

Professor Stanford

I could be provoked into severe retaliation along those lines but I shall not do so. I should like to sum up, Sir. The main point at issue is whether the Seanad would be improved by gradually increasing the number of members whose second political loyalty is to their vocation rather than to a political Party. I must emphasise again and again that the kind of vocationalist I see in this House, if this proposal is put through, will be an intelligent man who has had experience of the art of government in his own vocation—many of his duties may call for that—who would bring a new point of view on the art of government into this House, not a narrowminded expert. Some people seem to be terribly frightened of the word "expert", as if an expert had some malevolent power which could be switched on like a death ray on certain occasions while for the rest of the time, he would be as still as a comptometer or something of the kind. It looks like that.

Now I agree that such a man would be utterly unsuitable. But the men I refer to would be expert in their vocation, would have experience of government in their own vocation and in the world in general, but would not be subject to the Party Whip. The Party Whip is in some cases a good thing but in others perhaps not. In other words, that is what is wanted by some of us—the Minister says two; I think approximately seven of those who have spoken, but I shall not quibble about numbers—and a great many people throughout the country must be included, as well. That is perfectly clear.

I should like to emphasise that my intention was not to attack politics, Party politics or politicians. But there is in this country a strong body of sensible opinion saying that the Seanad could be improved. I believe that this is true. Senators must not jump to the other conclusion that I therefore think the Seanad is inefficient or bad. That is not so. But it could and should be improved.

Some bias is inevitable in politics. Besides our loyalty to the nation, we must have some kind of second jumping-off ground. For most of the Senators here, it is the Party, and a very good jumping-off ground that is in many cases. But I suggest that if we had others who could jump off from the vocational ground, we would get to a much higher level in our national politics. I personally believe that there are many good citizens who would make excellent Senators who could play a fruitful part in politics but are prevented from doing so by not liking the Party system, either rightly or wrongly. I suggest that there should not be an absolute bar—as it virtually is—to those people. I suggest that we should enlist a greater number of those people in this House. I believe this country is losing valuable political energy and wisdom by the virtual monopoly on the part of the political Parties.

I shall end by emphasising one point. I admire this House. I have spent a good deal of time in this House for the past 12 years. I do not want to give the impression that I come here to disparage what has been done. It is not my intention in any way to criticise the House. That is certainly not so. I am simply suggesting that a move along the lines recommended by the Commission might improve, strengthen and enrich the House. I say there has been a strong demand for that in the country for some time. No better method than the one which has been laid down by the Commission has been suggested by anyone in this debate or anyone outside. It is the only practical suggestion we have at the moment. If we reject it, we shall stay where we are now. If we cannot improve along those lines, if we refuse to make the experiment, I personally think it will be a pity: we should be slightly adventurous.

The control of the House will remain largely with the Parties. That is perfectly right. They do most of the work —there is no doubt about that—but we should be slightly adventurous and increase the number of pure vocationalists in the House. That would enrich the political life of the country.

Mr. O'Reilly

How many are here now?

Professor Stanford

Those are the only reasons why I have put down this motion. I hope that perhaps the Government may eventually either implement the recommendations of the Commission or perhaps think out some other way of improving the Seanad and the Dáil, if that is possible.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Seanad adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 20th July, 1960.