I listened to the greater part of this debate and to the long speech of Deputy Dr. Browne. In the main, he recalled some of the arguments I had put, back in 1934, I think it was, when the question of a former Seanad was being considered and a motion for its abolition was before this House. I think that most of the arguments which I put forward during that period were fundamentally sound. From a purely theoretical point of view, I think the arguments I put were difficult to controvert. Later, when we were bringing in the Constitution, I was fully aware that, notwithstanding the arguments that had been put forward, nevertheless the people desired to have a bicameral, instead of a unicameral, system here.
I had tried, when the Constitution was being considered, to find some form of Second House which would not be open to the objections I had put forward previously or would not be open to the objections which I was fully aware had been made to the existing Second Chambers in a number of States. We were all aware, of course, that where you have a federal system there is a very good reason for having a Second Chamber—in the United States of America, for example —but in a number of other cases where it existed fault was consistently found with the various modes of constitution of the Second Chamber, and so on. I looked around and I could not see how we could have a chamber here that would not be open to these objections. There was a line of approach, however, which had not been tried before, and that was to try to get in the Second Chamber something like a vocational House in which the various vocational groups of the community might be represented and that would have its powers carefully limited, to ensure that they did not clash with the fundamental rights of the directly representative Assembly. That was the line that was aimed at in the Constitution as it stands.
My hope at the time was that, after a period, we would be sufficiently organised vocationally in the country, and that the panels which were indicated in the Constitution would be such, that the members for these panels could be elected directly by vocational bodies. I still have a hope that that day may come, that it will be possible, after we are organised sufficiently, to allow the vocational bodies to elect members for these panels directly. I thought that, in the mean-time—and there I have been completely disappointed—the method of nomination would so limit the number of persons who would be going up for election that, in fact, no matter what the electorate was, as the panels from which the electorate had to select would be definitely of a vocational character, the electorate would not matter very much. In that I was disappointed, because the tendency has been for the bodies which have the right to nominate the panels to have regard to the electorate in selecting people to represent the vocational groups. They look forward to having persons elected by the electing body, and since these electing bodies comprise members of the Dáil, the County Councils and so on, since the electorate is of a political character, the names are thought of rather from the political Party angle than the purely vocational one. It is that that has prevented the aim I had in the Constitution from being achieved. That is my view.
A motion has been put forward to abolish the Seanad, and I think that motion will have to be resisted. There is an amendment before the House that the present system should be amended. My view is that, if the House wishes to do it, we could have another try. We could set up a committee, or a commission, to go into the whole situation. I do not want to say that the system can be amended because, as a matter of fact, when we examine it we may not be able to get anything better. Remember that what we have is the result of consideration after consideration. A Joint Committee of the Dáil and Seanad went into the matter fairly thoroughly. We had a previous committee, or commission, also which went into the matter fairly thoroughly, and we should not like to commit ourselves in advance to the view that we may be able to amend the system under the present circumstances.
I would suggest to those who put down the amendment that if the amendment is withdrawn we should try to set up either a committee of the two Houses or a commission to reexamine the system of election, leaving the Constitution untouched, to see whether the method of election can be improved. If there was a stronger view on that, we might have a mixed commission with members from the two Houses and members from outside as well, so that the matter might be examined as impartially as possible and the Government would have an opportunity of considering the report, taking up their attitude and bringing to the Dáil any proposals they might approve.
I do not wish to take up too much time in this debate or curtail the time of those who wish to reply. Our position is that we will have to resist both the motion and the amendment in the form in which they are, because there is a suggestion that the system can be amended and we may not be sure of that. If it is left open that the matter should be reconsidered and re-examined we are ready to accept that suggestion.
