Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 May 1979

Vol. 314 No. 7

An Bille um an Seachtú Leasú ar an mBunreacht (Forais Ardoideachais do Thoghadh Comhaltai de Sheanad Eireann), 1979: An Dara Céim. - Seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Election of Members of Seanad Eireann by Institutions of Higher Education) Bill, 1979: Second Stage.

Minister for Education (Mr. Wilson)

Tairgim:

"Go léifear an Bille Dara hUair anois.

I move:

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

The purpose of this Bill is simple and straightforward. The form of drafting is rather complicated for the reasons which I shall give later on.

The purpose of the Bill is to remove an obstacle in the way of legislation to deal with university reorganisation. Article 18 (4) of the Constitution stipulates that three Members each shall be elected to the Seanad by the National University of Ireland and by the University of Dublin. A proposal to establish independent universities at Dublin, Cork and Galway in place of the National University of Ireland involves an alteration in the arrangements for the election of Members to the Seanad. It may be argued that the arrangements for the election of Members to the Seanad in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (i) and (ii) of section 4 of Article 18 would automatically lapse to the relevant extent if one or both of the named universities ceased to exist. In this connection, the following considerations arise—

(i) the alternative arrangement, if any, which should be made for the election of Members in substitution for those Members which would otherwise be elected by the institution which ceased to exist: an amendment of the Constitution would be necessary for the purpose of allowing such an alternative arrangement to be made;

(ii) would it be permissible, in the absence of an appropriate amendment of Article 18 (4) of the Constitution, to enact legislation which would have the effect of altering the provision in that section of Article (18) for the election of Members to the Seanad?

(iii) Could Article 18 of the Constitution be invoked to prohibit the dissolution by law of a university mentioned in Article 18 (4)?

It is in the context of these considerations that it was decided to introduce this Seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill to enable legislation to be enacted in due course dealing with university reorganisation. The details of such reorganisation will be set out in the relevant legislation and discussion on it will take place in the debates dealing with the promotion of the legislation. The matter does not arise for detailed debate in connection with this Bill. I consider it appropriate, however, to indicate in general terms the reasons for the introduction of such legislation and the form which it would take. Before doing so I propose to make reference to the reasons for the complications associated with the drafting of the present Bill.

In addition to making provision for the possibility of the introducing at a future date of an alternative form of election of Members to the Seanad by new universities and other specified institutions of higher education, it is necessary to provide for considerations such as the following—

(a) the preservation of the eligibility of existing Members of the Seanad elected on the university franchise during the period from the date of the acceptance of the referendum proposal and the end of the period for which the Members had been elected;

(b) the occurrence of a vacancy in the relevant university panel necessitating a by-election before the total legislative process had been completed; this process would deal with the revised arrangements for university senate representation in the Seanad following acceptance of the referendum proposal;

(c) the synchronisation of legislation for university reorganisation and the arrangements to be made by law for alternative provision for representation in the Seanad of university and other higher education institutions.

The Bill as drafted takes considerations such as the foregoing into account and allows for a smooth transition from the existing arrangements to a new situation.

I have referred to the subsequent legislation to be introduced after acceptance of the referendum proposal to amend Article 18 of the Constitution. This proposed legislation would comprise two Bills:

(i) A Bill to dissolve the National University of Ireland and to establish new independent universities, to be introduced by the Minister for Education;

(ii) A Bill to provide by law for the election of six members to the Seanad by the institutions of higher education specified by law. This Bill would be introduced by the Minister for the Environment.

It would not be appropriate for me to enter now into a detailed discussion of the provisions of these Bills to which I have referred, nor am I in a position to do so. The time for such discussion will be when the relevant Bills are being debated in the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The present position is that the National University of Ireland (NUI) have three constituent colleges, University College, Dublin (UCD), University College, Cork (UCC) and University College, Galway (UCG). It is proposed that NUI will be dissolved and that its constituent colleges will become independent universities at Dublin, Cork and Galway. St. Patrick's College, Maynooth and the Colleges of Education, St. Patrick's, Drumcondra, Dublin, Our Lady of Mercy, Carysfort, Blackrock, County Dublin and Mary Immaculate, Limerick are recognised colleges of the National University. The proposed legislation dealing with university reorganisation will also determine the future status of these colleges.

The legislation dealing with the election of members to the Seanad by the institutions of higher education after the NUI has been dissolved, and new independent universities have been established, will set out how such elections will take place. It will be in the course of the debate on the relevant legislation that the appropriate arrangements to be made for these elections will be discussed.

I should conclude, accordingly, by saying that the present Bill is for the purpose of enabling legislation to be introduced in due course for the reorganisation of university structures, and that such legislation is strongly urged by the authorities of the university colleges. It is widely hoped and expected that the present Bill will be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas in time to have the proposed referendum on the same date—5 July next—as the referendum on the sixth amendment of the Constitution dealing with adoption. I confidently recommend the Bill to the House and I request the co-operation of the Deputies for a speedy passage for it.

Mr. E. Collins

There will be no disagreement on this side of the House in relation to the passage of this Bill. We accept the need for a constitutional amendment in relation to the dissolution of the NUI and the subsequent setting up of independent universities in Dublin, Cork and Galway. Debate on the future structure of universities will take place when the relevant legislation comes before the House.

I am not very satisfied with the wording of the present Bill. Article 18.4 paragraph (i) states that three shall be elected by the National University of Ireland and paragraph (ii) states that three shall be elected by the University of Dublin. The whole of Article 18.4 now becomes paragraph 1 of the new Article and two new paragraphs are being added. It is stated that provision may be made by law for the election. The retention of the word "shall" is not good drafting and it would be preferable to include in Article 18.4, paragraphs (i) and (ii), after the word "shall" the qualifying words "unless otherwise provided for by legislation". As it stands, it will not read correctly and may be open to misinterpretation and action in the courts when other legislation affecting the universities has been passed. I would ask the Minister to consider these reservations.

It is stated that provision may be made by law for the election, on a franchise and in the manner to be provided by law, by one or more of the institutions. I understand the need for the reference to the law but I wonder what the Minister means when he speaks about a possible new type of franchise. He referred to the possibility of the introduction at a future date of an alternative form of election of Members to the Seanad. What has he in mind concerning a new method of election? I am not saying there is not need for a change.

In the 1977 Seanad election the NUI had an electorate of 41,187 and the total poll from that university was 20,882, which is fractionally above 50 per cent. I consider this a very low percentage poll. The University of Dublin had a total electorate of 8,007 and the valid poll was 5,528, a somewhat better percentage. Even taking into account the difficulty of getting ballot papers to graduates who may have changed addresses, there should be some obligation on a graduate to seek to have his vote recorded and to seek to have his ballot paper delivered to him. I expect that the Seanad election as it relates to the university panel is the only election in which votes may be cast by post though the graduates are not living in the State. To that extent the election must be unique. A vote may be cast by a graduate living in any part of the world so long as he is in receipt of a ballot paper. Is it the intention of the Minister to limit the vote of graduates on the basis of a residential qualification or is it the Minister's intention to limit the vote to the extent, for instance, that if a graduate has not voted in two consecutive Seanad elections, he will be disqualified from voting? What change in the method of voting is envisaged? Will the change be radical? Is it intended to have an internal system of election, say, from the staffs? I am perplexed by what the Minister has in mind and, consequently, I should like to hear from him in this regard.

I value the representation of university members in the Seanad. They have contributed much to debate down through the years in that House. Their independence has been seen to be genuine. In many cases, but not in all cases, they have been seen to be above politics and to contribute without the constraints of a party Whip. That was the role that was intended originally for members of the Seanad. That House was intended to be a vocational chamber but because of the workings of party politics it is, by and large, with the honourable exception of the university seats, a political body. The Seanad would be a better place as a legislative assembly if it were a vocational assembly. While appreciating the legislative problems that a Seanad in the role which was intended originally for it could create for a Government by way, for instance, of holding up legislation, the long-term interest of the country would be served better if that House were vocational in the true meaning of that word. Though I would not really like to see the present legislative powers of the Seanad being changed I would advocate some attempt to re-establish the Seanad on a vocational basis. I regret that the Government on this occasion have not considered the Seanad as a whole rather than concentrating only on the university seat question in the proposed referendum. It is not often that we have the opportunity here of discussing the role and the effectiveness or otherwise of the Seanad. Greater use could be made of the Seanad by way of the initiation of more legislation there. We have not used the Seanad to the extent that the Constitution provides for. Consequently, the country has lost an effective forum for discussing legislation. Successive Governments have failed to use that House as an initiating assembly for Bills.

On the question of university reorganisation, the last Government mooted the question of independence for the universities at Cork, Galway and Dublin and for the dissolution of the NUI. It is the intention of this Government to go ahead with that idea and I look forward to the relevant legislation being brought before the House.

The lack of reference in the Minister's speech to St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, is somewhat mystifying especially in the context of university reform.

Mr. Wilson

It is mentioned.

Mr. E. Collins

That is so but it is not mentioned in the context of independence. The Minister has not indicated any intention to grant independent status to that college. I am wondering whether he has taken advice on the matter. The role of St. Patrick's College should be discussed here and the question of its future status should be discussed in public so that its potential role might be understood, that its role as the national seminary and its role also as a lay university might be understood.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair understands that there will be opportunity during discussion of future Bills to raise all these matters.

Mr. E. Collins

I understand that but the Minister made references to the college.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I accept that but the reference was only in passing.

Mr. E. Collins

I would have preferred the Minister to have been more specific regarding his intentions for the future of the college because there is need for a clear legislative definition of its place in the university system.

I understand that the original wishes of the authorities there, the Hierarchy, indicated a preference for independence though recent Press reports seem to indicate that the position of the college as a constituent college of UCD may now be considered preferable. I do not mind one way or the other but some clarification is needed in respect of a number of matters. For instance, there is the question of funding and accountability. In relation to the lay university functions of the college there is the question of the role of the HEA. The powers which they may or may not have in relation to the funding of the college have been questioned and need to be clarified here in a legislative capacity. There is the question also of the use to which the funds should be put. So far as I am concerned we could not give enough funds to any third-level educational college.

Mr. Wilson

Most of them would agree on that.

Mr. E. Collins

The need for greater funding for all universities is accepted fully but there is a need to know the role of the HEA in relation to Maynooth college and for satisfactory accountability. I am not saying for a moment that moneys so far have not been accounted for but there is a need for more clarity in respect of the funding of the lay university at St. Patrick's College.

Another reason for the need for clarification relates to the vexed question of appointments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are surely getting on to an issue which does not arise on this Amendment to the Constitution Bill.

Mr. E. Collins

I shall not deal with it in depth, but merely say that the lay university established in St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, should have the same equitable appointment system as exists in the other constituent colleges of the National University of Ireland and that lack of an equitable system in the eyes of many teachers, many lecturers, is unfortunate. The Irish Federation of University teachers, especially, have expressed reservations about the appointment system. The High Court case of two lecturers——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely, Deputy, we are getting away from the Bill.

Mr. E. Collins

I am merely seeking clarification of the Minister's intentions in the context of his own speech.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I agree, but it does not arise on the Amendment to the Constitution Bill.

Mr. E. Collins

I shall desist. Another matter dealt with by the Bill before us is the matter of the grouping, or otherwise, in relation to the Seanad election. I quote the Bill "A member or members of Seanad Eireann may be elected under this subsection by institutions grouped together or by a single institution". I understand the need for drafting the Bill, pending legislation. There are a number of alternatives open to the Minister. I should like some insight into the Minister's intention. Does he intend giving geographical representation? For instance, may we expect a Senator to be elected from Galway and a Senator to be elected from Cork, or is it intended to group the newly formed independent universities for the purpose of electing, say, three Senators? Is it intended to group the colleges receiving degree recognition from the National Council for Educational Awards for the purpose of electing, say, one Senator? What mechanism does the Minister intend using?

This is a difficult problem. There is a need to ensure representation from Trinity College that would be acceptable to the House. At present, there are three Senators for 8,000 graduates, whereas the NUI have only three Senators for an electorate of 41,000 graduates. Nevertheless, the contribution of Trinity College down the years has been very welcome, and valued by us as politicians.

I should, also, like to see representation from the west of Ireland in the form of a representative from University College, Galway, and representation being assured for the graduates from the degree holders of the NCEA. The rise of the non-university third-level sector is welcomed by all in this House as something we value as a society which is growing, maturing and meeting the demands of European life today. We value it and should recognise it by representation in the Oireachtas.

I do not envy the Minister's task in bringing about a satisfactory grouping, whether it is to be on a geographic, a university, or a non-university basis. We should have a discussion on the Minister's intention here today.

I should like, also, to discuss the time schedule in relation to the legislation governing the reorganisation. When may we expect this legislation? Will it be in this Dáil or years ahead? May we have assurance from the Minister that the legislation will be made effective before the next general election? I trust it is not intended to leave the matter on the long finger, the constitutional reform having been brought about.

The Minister mentioned the future of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, and the Colleges of Education—St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra, Our Lady of Mercy College, Carysfort, and the Mary Immaculate College in Limerick—which are recognised by the National University of Ireland. What is the intention in respect of these colleges? Is it intended to give them constituent college recognition, or is it intended that they be allowed to have independent structures, or to be grouped together and connected with one or more of our universities?

I do not wish to delay the proceedings. We can discuss the matter on Committee Stage, but would the Minister consider the possibility of amending the words used in the Bill, in order to achieve a more satisfactory wording?

Mr. Horgan

It is no small matter to be amending a constitution and it is some time, to put it mildly, since a constitutional amendment was introduced by a Minister for Education. Although I do not object to this happening, it strikes me that the Taoiseach having basic, overall charge of the Constitution, it might be regarded as more appropriate for him to introduce the amendment. However, I am not going to raise any quarrel on that issue, and am glad to see the Minister for Education here with this amendment. In passing, it might be worth noting that the office he holds was held at an earlier stage by a university representative from the Oireachtas, the late Professor Eoin MacNeill. He was not a university representative of the Oireachtas, but was elected by the graduates of the National University of Ireland after the Redistribution Act of 1918, to represent them at Westminster. Good man though he was, he saw fit not to take up that onerous responsibility in Westminster, but it is a fact that the present Minister for Education, in political lineage at any rate, is one of a chain of men one of whom owed at least part of his political career to the graduates of a university.

The second thing which we need to take into account here is that we are not only amending the Constitution, which is a serious thing in itself. If I may be more accurate, we are not only offering the people of Ireland the opportunity to amend the Constitution; we are offering them the opportunity of amending it in a particular way and we are introducing—or giving them the opportunity of introducing—into the Constitution a new principle. The new principle involved is that the election of a certain number of Members of the Oireachtas hitherto carried out by university graduates should henceforth be carried out not only by university graduates but by graduates from other institutions. I do not propose the extension of the principle of educational representation, if one may put it thus, in the Oireachtas, but it needs examination and it can be talked about in some detail.

To some extent we are dealing here with a pig in a poke. We have not been told in any great detail, or in any detail at all, about the Minister's precise intentions in relation to the distribution of the six seats which are currently voted for by the graduates of Dublin University and the National University of Ireland. I suspect that the major debate that will take place will be on whatever formula the Minister chooses to adopt when the Minister for the Environment brings in the appropriate legislation. The debate will in turn centre on the issue of whether one should have representation by institutions or whether one should have a large global constituency electing the required total number of members. I propose to reserve my position on this issue because the Minister has not adverted to it and perhaps it is not even strictly relevant, but I daresay that this will be where the major debate will take place.

Even at this stage it is possible to indicate at least some of the options open to the Minister. The National University of Ireland have three constituent colleges and Dublin University have one. If each of these institutions together with their associated colleges were to be given one seat to themselves that would leave two seats of the six for grabs, as it were. Even that would, as a solution, lay itself open to objections from some sources in that it would give some institutions far greater representation for a graduate than others. No doubt the Minister for Education and the Minister for the Environment will be grappling with these problems and will let us know the result of their deliberations in due course. No doubt they will be getting plenty of free advice on the matter both from the universities and the other institutions of higher education concerned.

The principle which we are discussing and offering the people of Ireland the opportunity to amend through this legislation is a very old one. It is none the less odd for being old, but it is old. It goes back in relation to Irish Parliaments to 1613 when the University of Dublin obtained the right of returning two Members to Parliament. This right continued until the Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1800 when only one Member was returned to the Imperial Parliament and the right of voting for MPs was, initially at any rate, confined to Provost, Fellows and scholars. The situation continued unchanged until 1832 when the Irish Reform Act created a new situation under which the University of Dublin obtained the right of returning two Members of Parliament and the right of voting was extended to include ex-Fellows and those who had obtained the degree of Master of Arts or higher degrees in the University. In order to have the right to vote on this register of Dublin University from 1832 onwards you had to pay £1 a year, the equivalent then, I suppose, of the 2 per cent levy or something like that. It must have been quite a lot of money in 1832 but, presumably, not too much for the well-heeled university graduates of that time.

In 1918 the Redistribution Act added the National University of Ireland to the category of institutions entitled to elect representatives to the British Parliament. Professor Eoin MacNeill was one of those representatives. Events took a rapid course of change after 1918 and in 1922 the question arose for the first time as to whether the university representation which had hitherto existed in relation to the British Parliament should be transferred to the native Irish Parliament, Dáil Éireann. It is interesting to note that in that debate there was not a division. Various people spoke on the resolution in connection with the Constitution which was involved at that point. Some people were against it but there was not sufficient weight of opinion to divide the House on the matter.

It is interesting to look at some of the rationale for introducing this mechanism into the Dáil at that time. One of the possible objections raised to university representation in the Dáil was that people would have plural votes, that they would be entitled to vote both in their natural geographical constituencies and in their university constituencies. I suspect that one of the reasons why this constitutional amendment had such an easy passage was that the right of plural voting was abolished. In other words, graduates of the universities concerned had to make up their minds whether they were going to vote in their university constituencies or in their geographical constituencies. Once having made up their minds they were not permitted to vote in both.

The proposer of the amendment to the Constitution on the principle of university representatives was Professor William Magennis, who made a fairly detailed speech in support of his various proposals and stressed two points which were to recur in the general debate on this process over the years. The first was the rightful voice of education in politics. The Official Report of 4 October 1922, column 1109, Volume 1, reports him as saying:

Now you have in this, the University representation, an opportunity to go back to an earlier conception of the social fabric, in alignment of its elements. In the old Gaelic days an t-ollamh—the professor—was next to the King. I think without asking for social privileges such as were attached to that office, that we might at any rate do something here in our institutions that would mark a public sense of the Gaelic spirit's desire to honour education—the great spiritual, the great vitalising influence.

This was one very strong strand of the debate at that time. It was backed up by another strand which was an argument which held not so much force then as it does now, even though today it still does not hold as much force as it ought. It was that in giving particular political representation to universities one is not really legislating for an élite since the universities were less and less the preserve of an élite. In a way it is sad to look back to 1922 and 1934 and the other years of these debates and to read in the statements made the degree of misapprehension under which very well-known and very well-educated people themselves were about the accessibility of university education to the ordinary mass of the people. Contrasted with the 1830s it was certainly very substantially greater but not as great as it might have been and not as great as it is today. It might be argued that even today university education is not as accessible to many people even as some of the politicians and statesmen who spoke in the 1920s and 1930s thought it was then.

To give an indication of the general impression, I will quote from the debates concerned. When Professor Magennis was advancing his case, he said, at column 1108 of the same volume:

I look forward to the time

—He was anticipating rather than stating the situation that existed—

when the university graduate voter, in this University representation that I venture to claim for you, shall include every stratum of the population, when he shall have—and there is no incompatability whatever in it—men of every walk of life, engaged in all varieties of occupation, who have received this university stamp as a result of higher studies, and of having undergone what we claim, at least—the broadening and widening influence of university study and university culture.

Later on, especially in 1934 when the question of removing the seats from the Dáil came up, some of the speakers were similarly insistent as part of their defence that the university electorate was by now no means an elite. In 1934, for example, there was one Fianna Fáil Deputy—I believe his name was Tom Kelly—who objected, though not so strenuously as to vote against it, to his Government's proposal to abolish the university seats in the Dáil. He quoted the speech of Thomas Davis to the College Historical Society in 1840 and in particular his phrase, "I tell you, gentlemen of Trinity College the peasant boys will soon put to the proof your title to lead them". At the time Deputy McGilligan was under the touching if somewhat inaccurate belief that 90 per cent of the students and graduates of universities were the sons of peasants or the sons of peasants at one remove. Deputy Costello went so far as to aver at column 527, Volume 52, of 1936, "Everybody at the present moment in this country has an equal opportunity of getting into university". Sadly, of course, it was not true in 1936 and it is not true today.

The proponents of university representation in the Dáil were lucky because they were not seriosly opposed in 1922. In 1934 there was a very different situation. There was a Fianna Fáil Government in power. They were not in power by very much and had considerable difficulty with the Seanad as then constituted. Their difficulty was not only confined to the Seanad but to the university representatives in the Dáil who were making the then Government's majority somewhat more precarious than it otherwise might have been. It is not difficult to see in the sequence of events that occurred in the mid-thirties and late thirties part of a very deliberate logic by the Fianna Fáil Government of the time to remove some of the political problems that faced them in their early years in Government. In doing so they had some rationale because the question of giving university representation in the Dáil was very much, certainly by the thirties, a concept which it would be difficult to defend wholeheartedly. The problem was that at that stage the Seanad was going through a sea of fire. The simple option which might have solved the problem of transferring them from the Dáil to the Seanad did not exist. It existed in 1937 and was put into operation at that time. At the time they were abolised in the Dáil it was not altogether quite as easy.

Whatever about the political logic of the needs of the Government of the day, it is difficult to deny that, if you have a Seanad in which there is ab initio the question of indirect representation, universities have as much of a right to be represented there as anybody else, especially in a situation in which the Seanad is supposed to be a vocational body.

The question of plural voting has not been abolished. It is technically possible in this day and age for one person, assuming he were Taoiseach, to have at least 14 votes for the Oireachtas. He has 11 in that he nominates directly on his own word 11 Members to the Seanad. He has one in his geographical constituency where he resides. He has another, either as a Member of the Dáil or as a member of a local authority, and he could have two more if he were a graduate of the two universities. That is a fair amount of plural voting and it is technically possible for one man to exercise all those votes, some of them very important votes, in an Oireachtas election. Granted that the Seanad is allegedly a vocational body, there seems to be no reason why the universities should not have the right of representation transferred from there to here.

In passing, I must refer to one aspect of this problem which was dealt with by Deputy E. Collins when he pointed out that the University Senators had a reputation of being independent, that they were in some sense above politics. It is true that some University Senators have had the good reputation of being above politics. It is also true that many of them have been extremely political. I would deprecate—and I imagine Deputy Collins would too—any suggestion that politics was something to be above. Independent University Senators are free from the tyranny and constraints of the party whip but they are not free ultimately from the right to vote and the obligation to vote. Voting is a political action whether you take a party whip or not. The best Independent Senators that I have known have not been shy to exercise that right and that responsibility which they have been put there to do.

Politics embraces people outside the political parties as well as inside them. If there was a wider acceptance of the fact that the stuff of politics is the stuff of daily existence and the bread and butter issues that affect people in their ordinary everyday lives we might have a healthier political climate.

The question in relation to representation of the universities in particular is one that has also excited a fair amount of argument from time to time. It is interesting to note that one of the few people to oppose the 1922 development in the Constitution was the then Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Thomas Johnson, who said at column 1117, Volume 1:

The education test is put forward, but I maintain that the fact that men or women have graduated in a University does not fit them any more for the selection of representatives than the fact that men have become fathers, and women have become mothers, or men have done military service, or men have gone to sea.

At column 1120 of the same debate, Deputy Sears asked: If the universities, why not the churches, the farmers, the trade unions, the teachers? Later on in the same debate Cathal O'Shannon, who was a Labour Deputy, in an intervention which to some extent mirrors what the Minister has brought before us today, said at column 1126: "But in that whole educational body, I would want to insist that everybody connected with education activity throughout the country should form the Constituency for representation". So the Minister's proposal has a lineage and it is an honourable one. If education is a constituency it should be a constituency not unnaturally cribbed and confined. The Government in 1922 was, interestingly enough, divided on the issue and perhaps not surprisingly. Deputy O'Higgins came in at column 1121 to say:

Deputies will probably hear with a certain relief that there is no official attitude on this particular question,

A column later he was venturing into the realms of prophecy with the statement:

The National University may, for instance, break up into several Universities.

This was in 1922 so the Minister's action in that regard also has a lineage which goes back as far as 1922.

In relation to the proportionality of the voting within the six seats which are at present disposed of by the two true universities, the situation has changed over the years. When Deputy Sean T. O'Kelly was introducing the Constitution Amendment (No.23) Bill in 1934 to delete university representation from the Dáil he pointed out that in Dublin University one Dáil Deputy was elected by 1,087 people; in the National University of Ireland one Deputy was elected by 1,552 people and nationally one Deputy was elected by 11,699 people. The case he made for abolition of the university seats in the Dáil, for all that if may have been prompted by the Government's political needs at the time, was a fairly strong one and he saw fit to reply at the time specifically and in advance to the potential accusation that in doing this the Government were doing down the Protestant minority in this country. It is not unreasonable to assume in fact that the original 1922 amendment which gave three seats to Trinity College, despite its relatively small number of graduates, may have been the result of some behind the scenes discussions and agreement between the statesmen of that time. Certainly, reading through the debates, it is very difficult to escape the impression that there had been some prior discussion on the basis of which university representation was to be given to Dublin University in the Dáil as part of an effort at the very beginning of the foundation of the State to assure Northern Irish men and women, many of whom went to Trinity and were graduates of Trinity, that the new State had something to offer them, that it was not concerned to discriminate against them and that it would, if anything, give them representation in the Parliament of the country out of all proportion to their numbers. Deputy O'Kelly, when he was introducing the Bill, referred specifically to this problem and referred to the potential accusation that abolishing university representation in the Dáil would be a blow against relationships between North and South. At column 481 of Volume 52 he said:

To make such a claim now is but to plead that the interests of the minority are not identical with those of the nation as a whole, and any fears which members of that minority may have felt as to their treatment at the hands of their fellow-citizens must have been dispelled long ago.

With all due respect to Deputy O'Kelly there may still, from time to time, be fears that have not been dispelled but that is by the way. The fact is that it was seen then as an issue important enough by the Government of the day for them to make specific reference to it. The most telling speech on that occasion in that debate was made by the late Deputy Lemass in Volume 52, column 518 and 519, in which, with a very cool and devastating logic, he demolished the claims of the universities for special representation in the Dáil. There is also the general question and the secondary question of whether or not the universities are entitled to be represented in the Seanad. Deputy Lemass at the time was referring to the Dáil and the way he put it was this:

The question which this House has got to answer is: why a graduate of one of our Universities, whether he lives in this country or outside it, whether he pays his taxes to our Exchequer or to some foreign Exchequer, should have the same rights of representation in this House as ten persons who are not graduates?

He went on at column 519:

This Bill is designed to secure equality of political rights in this country.

Deputy Lemass's speech provoked indignation of a high degree on the opposite side of the House and provoked statements such as I imagine few university Members of the Oireachtas would want to stand over today. One of them, Professor Alton, at column 529 of the same volume said:

This doctrine of the same rights and that all men are equal, is not true to life or nature. It is false physiologically and it leads to political disaster.

That was a fairly extreme statement for a university professor in 1936 as I am sure the Minister for Education would agree.

Mr. Wilson

No doubt he was thinking of the physiology.

Mr. Horgan

There are a couple of themes lying behind this whole question of university representation in the Oireachtas and before I conclude I would like to mention them both very briefly. One I have already referred to and I will refer to it briefly again and that is the question of the North. The other question, ironically enough, was the role of the late President Eamon de Valera who, though Chancellor of the National University of Ireland at the time, was promoting legislation which effectively denied its graduates representation in the Dáil. There were politics in this, of course, of a high degree and it is ironic to note that some of the university representatives in the Dáil who are members of the Fianna Fáil Party were prevailed upon to vote themselves out of office. This was an act of self-abnegation on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party which I do not think has happened before or is likely to happen again for a long time.

Mr. Kelly

Their wounds were well bound up by the following year.

Mr. Horgan

They may well have been and Deputy Kelly will no doubt instruct us on the medicinal processes that were arrived at after that. It is interesting to note of course—and this was adduced by the Government of the time—that Convocation of the National University, which is the assembly of all the graduates of the National University, passed a resolution urging that the university seats be abolished from the Dáil. On the other hand it is fair when we talk about Convocation of the National University to remember that as the body representing all the graduates of the university it is a very unwieldy one; it can effectively be led and controlled by a relatively small group of people and its policies can be so directed as well and I suspect very much that that is what happened in this case. The Senate of the National University itself discussed the matter and there was a division within the Senate on the matter in which the Chancellor of the University was in the minority, or so we are led to believe. These currents and eddies were going backwards and forwards through all the debates on this legislation. In fact, one speaker in 1922 referred to the fact at column 1120 of volume 1;

One Professor could do as much damage as it would take one million Professors to make good in twenty years.

From later exchanges it was plain that the Deputy he was referring to was in fact Deputy de Valera and he was corrected on the point that Deputy de Valera, the late President, had never been a professor in the National University of Ireland although he had applied for a job in University College, Cork, for which he was recommended by my grandfather and which he failed to get.

Mr. Kelly

Was it not he put Deputy Horgan's grandfather into the Seanad?

Mr. Horgan

My grandfather and Deputy de Valera came to a parting of the ways not very long after that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are getting very deeply into history now, I would think, rather than dealing with the Bill before the House.

Mr. Horgan

I have not much more to say but I will make a few more points. One of them is in relation to the role of universities in politics. I do not believe that there is anything ignoble in people in the universities being involved in politics or anything ignoble in people who are elected by the universities to be actual or professing politicians of whatever party. One of the sub-themes that echoes through the debates on the whole question of university representation has been the attitude of Governments in power to particular universities. In fact, Deputy Lemass in his speech advised one university which he did not name but which from the context was plainly Trinity College to welcome the legislation abolishing the university representation in the Dáil because he said that the fact that they were effectively a pocket borough for one political party did them no service at all in the long run.

Many years later, another Fianna Fáil Minister, the late Deputy Donogh O'Malley, during a debate on the legislation necessary to correct certain appointments in University College, Dublin, referred to the management of that institution as a "Fine Gael junta". It is not entirely unknown for universities and politics to become intermingled. Underlying it all is one fundamental point which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister and urge on him in the context of the Bill. A particular aspect of the representation of Trinity, in particular in 1922, and I daresay also in 1937, was the intention of the legislators on both occasions to give some kind of a voice in the National Parliament to Irish citizens who happened to have been born and bred in Northern Ireland. The decision in 1934 to abolish university representation in the Dáil was seen by some people as an attack on that principle, on Trinity College and, indeed, on the Protestant minority in general.

Professor Eoin O'Neill, in his speech reported in the Official Report of 23 April, 1936, Volume 61, column 1509, stated:

In my belief this Bill was brought in here simply and solely as an attack on Trinity College. And so, the cry goes up: "Is Trinity ever to be forgiven?" Through Trinity it is an attack on the Protestant minority. This whole ramp is an anti-Protestant move. We are engaged in a Protestant man-hunt. That is the bald fact. As I regard this Bill and this policy, it is a Protestant man-hunt that is being indulged in by the so-called followers of Wolfe Tone.

Harsh words, even for 1936 and for Professor O'Neill.

Mr. Wilson

Not true.

Mr. Horgan

I am quoting from the Official Report.

Mr. Wilson

I know that, but it is not true.

Mr. Horgan

I will suspend judgment on the truth or otherwise of it and I am sure the Minister will be glad to comment on it. I have quoted that statement for the purpose of bringing the attention of the House to the fact that the representation of Trinity specifically has been seen by many people over many years as an indirect form of representation for our Northern brethren in the central democratic institution of the State.

I would argue that if the individual representation of Trinity is to be removed—we have no indication yet whether it is or not—could the Minister give us some indication of his further intentions in this regard? Would he envisage, perhaps, the possibility of using this particular mechanism to extend the right of representation generally accorded to university graduates to graduates either of universities or of other institutions in the North of Ireland who are Irish citizens? It seems to me, if there is any argument at all for institutional representation or for limiting the representation of a certain number of seats to particular institutions, that we have an opportunity of affording to Irish men and women born and bred in the northern part of this country who hold Irish passports, who are not ashamed to describe themselves as Irish, who are the graduates of Irish educational institutions, a right to vote directly in elections for Members of one House of the Oireachtas.

I urge the Minister to consider that as a possibility and, if necessary, to organise discussions with the relevant institutions concerned to see what degree of goodwill there be for such a proposal. At present we have the anomalous situation whereby graduates of Irish universities in this part of the island who may or may not be Irish citizens—there is no effective way of policing that register to make sure that they all are, despite the best efforts of the university authorities—and may not be living in Ireland are entitled to vote for Members of the Oireachtas whereas graduates of other Irish institutions who are Irish citizens born and bred and may want to vote for Members of this Oireachtas are not entitled to do so because they live in the North of Ireland.

The amendment which would make this possible would be in the Schedule and this can be discussed again on Committee Stage. It would be quite simple, one would simply delete the words "in the State" or "sa Stáit" and replace them with the words "in Éirinn" or "in Ireland". That would not tie the Minister's hands and it would make it possible for him to make a genuine openhanded gesture to the people I have described. It would make it possible for him to make a gesture that was both political and educational towards anybody born, bred and educated on this island who might like to claim the same rights in relation to university representation and educational representation in the Seanad as the graduates of any other institution in the State as we currently know it.

Mr. Kelly

Before I deal with the terms of the Bill I should like to put this Article of the Constitution which we are proposing to amend in its historical perspective. I did not hear the contributions of the Minister and Deputy Collins and I missed most of Deputy Horgan's contribution and therefore, I do not know whether anybody has yet told the House in so many words that, as is so lamentably often the case here, we are dealing with something which was left behind by the English and which they themselves have long since scrapped. University representation existed in the British Parliament until 1945. The late A. P. Herbert was the most distinguished among an otherwise rather undistinguished lot of persons and he represented the University of Oxford for a long time. That situation did not survive the Second World War; in 1945, with a lot of other things, it was swept away. It was put into the 1922 Constitution here, characteristically without any flummery, a great deal more simply and more effectively from the drafting point of view than it was in the 1937 Constitution. The 1922 Constitution did not name any particular university; it simply spoke of the universities which existed in the State at that time. Of course, that boiled down to the same thing, but it was an altogether preferable drafting mechanism.

That Article which conferred a separate franchise on the universities which was exercisable through seats in the Dáil and not in the Seanad, was struck out of the Constitution in 1936; but when the new Constitution surfaced the following year, lo and behold, the Paddys were still attached to the university seats, they could not be done away with. As far as I know that did not exist anywhere else in Europe except in the country to be free from which we had, according to the received orthodoxy, struggled unremittingly for 700 years. However, like the smallest and most trivial bits of gold braid which the British had stuck on to institutions here, like the title of Alderman in borough councils, the chains, the cocked hats and the coaches, we naturally, being Paddys and being led by a party and an orthodoxy which was convinced that was the right description for us, had to hold on to special representations for the universities.

I do not think there is much point in arguing this nowadays in the sense that I have the authority of the Taoiseach for saying that if one gives a dog a bone it is quite hard to get it away from him, as he is discovering as he examines his bleeding fingers over the last six months or so. It is hard to get a dog off a bone, and the bigger the dog gets the more powerful will the struggle become. The total university electorate in this State, or outside the State, is extremely large. I think the university voters value their votes. I do not want at all to belittle mine—I am glad to have it—but I recognise it for what it is, namely, an anachronistic privilege. I sat in the Seanad for four-and-a-half-years. I did not get in there through the university vote; quite likely I would never have made it through the university vote in the way that Deputy Horgan did, by a blitz campaign of unparalleled assiduity and, let me add, brilliance. But I would not have despised a seat in the Seanad even had it come through the universities. Had I sat in the Seanad as a university Senator I still would not have been so craven as to deny that the existence of such a representation was an anachronism defensible only by Paddys to Paddys in terms which only Paddys understand, namely, that the English left it behind them and anything they could do or did is more than good enough for us. I protest for the hundredth time in the House against that attitude of mind which is second nature to the party opposite, absolutely second nature to them. It is outrageous that this matter could be solemnly brought up again in 1979 without the Government—particularly when it is the Government of the Legion of the Rearguard, the Soldiers of Destiny—sitting down and asking themselves what is it about universities which gives them the right to six seats in the National Parliament——

Mr. Wilson

Is the Deputy opposed to the view held by the spokesman?

Mr. Kelly

No, I am not. I know the spokesman is in favour of the retention of this representation but I am not a marionette. I will speak my mind, spokesman or no spokesman; I will accept his superior wisdom in the way that he requires me to, but I will speak my mind just the same.

Mr. Wilson

I just wanted to know.

Mr. Kelly

And it would be a healthier Dáil if the people on the far side would do so more often. This is not the first occasion on which we have seen instances of trotting lamely along behind the English; I would not mind, only wearing cast-off clothes of the English, the fashion of which they themselves changed over 30 years ago.

This matter comes before us in the context of the Minister's proposed amendment without any consideration about whether the Seanad fulfils a serious function at all or not. How often do we get a chance to discuss the other House? If a Deputy so much as mentions a Senator in this House in the ordinary way, he is sat on by the Chair—— mind you, another old English convention—on the grounds that it is breach of privilege, if you please, if you are not offended. We would have the Speaker thundering on the door with his mace in a moment; Gold Stick-in-Waiting would be up on your back if one were to persist in referring, while speaking in one House, to the members of the other. Naturally all these ceremonies are more than good enough for us. We should be honoured to be allowed to ape these conventions.

Very seldom do we get a chance to discuss the Seanad and when we do, we should ask ourselves, what is that House there for at all? Does it fulfil any serious function? Could it perhaps be got to fulfil a serious function? I know it is easy for me to say that, having managed to get out of the Seanad and into the Dáil; and I do not want to close off too many options, although I must confess I would regret it if I ever found myself on the Seanad trail again. But since we get so few opportunities to discuss the matter, we might spend a minute or two asking ourselves if anything could be made of the Seanad, perhaps specifically in the context of the changing of representation, the shifting of the basis of representation which this amendment is designed to achieve. The Seanad has no serious power. At most it has an embarrassment value. Even the embarrassment value is slight because of the distribution of political strength in the Seanad. I think the last occasion on which the Seanad made a nuisance of itself to any Government was in 1959, at the time of the first of Fianna Fáil's two efforts to give us the English election system. I forget who was the Minister for Local Government then. Perhaps it was Deputy Boland who will go down in history for two futile efforts, trying to gaelicise the Army and to anglicise the voting system. At any rate Fianna Fáil's first effort to anglicise the voting system was defeated by the people in 1959 in an extraordinary display of political maturity because, on the same day they voted that down, they put the Fianna Fáil Leader into the Phoenix Park as President; I should say a display of political discrimination—perhaps that is the wrong word to use because it is ambiguous but I mean the capacity——

Mr. Wilson

Discernment.

Mr. Kelly

Discernment, yes, I thank the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid the Deputy is widening the scope of the Bill, very considerably.

Mr. Kelly

I am sorry; that is true. On that occasion the Seanad voted down, on the first occasion, the proposed constitutional amendment by a narrow margin; I have forgotten exactly how it happened—perhaps people were missing; it does not matter how it happened but they did vote down the amendment. Of course that was a very important feather in the cap of those who were opposed to having here the English voting system, having once succeeded in getting rid of it.

Mr. Wilson

Surely the Deputy realises that proportional representation was also an English system, allocated by the Brits.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid the Chair must point out that we are dealing with one aspect only of the Seanad here and that Deputy Kelly is now going way outside the Bill.

Mr. Kelly

Let me just take out the grenade which the Minister flung in and throw it back over the parapet; proportional representation was introduced here to meet the special situation in Sligo.

Mr. Wilson

By whom?

Mr. Kelly

It was introduced in 1919.

Mr. Wilson

By whom?

Mr. Kelly

By the people running the country then.

Mr. Wilson

By whom?

Mr. Kelly

The English.

Mr. Wilson

That is what I wanted to get out of the Deputy.

Mr. Kelly

They introduced it specifically to meet the Irish situation——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not relevant to the Bill before us.

Mr. Kelly

But Fianna Fáil wanted to introduce the English system, not to meet the requirements of the Irish situation but to meet the requirements of their own situation. In spite of the illusions they may have, they are not coterminous with the Irish people yet by a very long shot.

The Seanad on that occasion threw out the Constitution Amendment Bill which was a severe embarrassment. But that was 20 years ago and it has not happened since. The Seanad has the useful function of giving a Government breathing space and of hearing Senators' suggestions which, provided the debate takes place early enough in the year and amendments are politically non-contentious, may possibly be incorporated, and I suppose frequently do get incorporated, in the legislation. But is it useful enough? Would the same function not be fulfilled by adapting Dáil procedures so as to include a further stage of a Bill, a kind of extern stage of a Bill on which committees or outsiders might sit and give evidence? That would be an equally possible alternative and would save the expense of having a second House. But if we are going to have a second House at all, we owe it to the dignity of that House to furnish it with some element in its structures or functions which would make it more useful than it is at present. At present its function—and I do not at all despise this—is to ease beginners into serious politics and ease others out of it. That is an extremely useful function; it is a kind of political AnCO at the beginning of political life; it is a kind of social service, I suppose, in a sense, at the other end.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Could the Chair say seriously to Deputy Kelly at this stage that we are not debating the powers and functions of the Seanad on this Bill. I have given the Deputy plenty of latitude.

Mr. Kelly

I must admit, Sir, you are giving me a fair bit of latitude. But it is not every day we are proposing to amend the Constitution. It is not every day we get an amendment of this kind on which I am so peculiarly well qualified to speak.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I accept that but the Deputy would have to make his contribution a little relevant.

Mr. Kelly

Very well, Sir, I appreciate that you have been generous. While I appreciate that, let me say that an indirectly elected House cannot in a democracy hold a veto over a directly elected House. I do not suggest and would resent any suggestion that the Seanad ought to have any extra power in the sense of being able to block legislation or override the will of the Dáil. Nonetheless if the Seanad could be improved as a feature of the Legislature by alterations in the methods of its elections and in the recruitment to it of different kinds of people—let me give credit if it is deserved; it probably is the intention of the present amendment to bring some new blood or new sources into the Seanad via the institutions of higher education other than the universities. But it seems to me to be a terribly marginal thing. It really is another feature of the perpetual fiddling that goes on in this country while Rome is burning. I do not want to stray away from this subject, but it is analogous to a Minister being on the far side of the world while there is an oil crisis here, with other Ministers worrying about the "national objectives" to which they themselves have made no personal contribution in 50 or 60 years of life, not one, and going on about national aspirations when the economy is falling into ruins around us. This is what I call fiddling while Rome burns. We have a serious chance of looking at the Seanad and doing something about its composition. Although I accept the necessity for the change being made here within the very narrow boundaries of those six seats, this change is a minimal one, and is pitifully small compared with what could be done and what needs to be done in regard to Seanad representation.

With regard to university representation, if I were constructing a Seanad from scratch I do not believe that I would be led by anything the English did in their own country or here. I would start from scratch and do it from what seems to me to be first principles. I would expect Deputy Collins, Deputy Horgan and everybody else to do it from first principles too, and to debate it with me on that level also. Since we have got this relic which the English left behind them, this oxidising statue with birds perched on its shoulders, in our political institutions, let us try and make something useful of it.

One of the greatest problems we have here, apart from that of unemployment and emigration, which apparently are always with us, is the problem of social tensions and the industrial tensions, which are only a symptom of those. I would ask myself whether this second House, even if it cannot override the Dáil, could not be given some role in the easing of those industrial and social tensions. I find that this was an expressed part of the purpose of having the House organised in the way it is and having it divided into vocational panels. I find there is a labour panel, an agricultural panel, an industrial panel, a cultural panel and an administrative panel. These are all intended to represent broad spheres of vocational and social interests. I do not quarrel with that way of doing it. Who do we find fills those seats? These seats are filled—and cannot be otherwise filled, because of the electorate—by politicos. I do not despise politicos, I am one myself and I value my years in the Seanad. I do not want to say anything which might lead one to think that I disparaged either it or the senatorship. I am deeply grateful for that.

I wonder now, while looking around me, and finding that farmers are snarling at the trade unions, the trade unions are snarling at the farmers and both of them are snarling at the Government —everybody seems to be snarling at the Government except the IRA, which is giving them very little bother at the moment—now that the social and the industrial tensions are so conspicuous in society and since they are also so powerful I ask myself whether or not all these interests and groups are the ones who are calling the shots here. Everybody is calling the shots except the Government. Since that seems to be the case why not acknowledge their power, their influence and their status in society, bring them in under this roof and allow them to sit down in an institutional setting which recognises their function as part of the law-making and ruling organisation of the country. It would not be a function which would override the functions of this House. It could not be that; but it would be one likely to be more fruitful than the function which they are at present discharging, which is simply that of extremely high-powered, very articulate, increasingly angry pressure groups, in all cases, no doubt, sincerely representing the best interests of their members. As the Ministers opposite are constantly lecturing us—once elections are over—in pressing those interests forward they tend to neglect the overall interests of the country.

I cannot see why we should not organise the Seanad, particularly since the Constitution tells us to do so on truly vocational lines. At the moment it is organised in such a way that the agricultural panel has nine Senators, some of whom are there because they have been Deputies and some who will not be there any longer after they have become Deputies, and various others who have knowledge and experience of agriculture, but who are not representative figures of the world they are supposed to represent. They do not represent anybody. They may be farmers, they may be mart managers, they may be veterinary surgeons or people with experience; but they do not represent farming interests and they do not represent the people, vocationally speaking, who are clamouring when they find a levy imposed on them and with whom the Government seem to argue in regard to the question of taxation.

Similarly, on the Labour side, there are 11 Labour Senators. I am open to correction in this, but I believe only the couple of Senators who sit on the Labour party benches are representative trade union leaders. The ones on the Fianna Fáil benches and the ones on the Fine Gael benches are not. I cannot see, when we are making this extremely marginal change, which will only have the effect of giving the vote to graduates of the NIHE, colleges of technology and so forth, and allowing them to elect people to the Seanad who may already be qualified for election by reason of being simultanuously graduates of NUI or Trinity College, why we cannot look more deeply at what goes on in the Seanad and ask ourselves if the Seanad might help in some way to ease the social and industrial tensions we suffer from by reorganising the way in which the Seanad membership is elected.

Let me say to the Dáil that unlike the provisions in regard to Dáil Éireann, which are laid down in Article 16, which provides about constituencies, constituencies not having fewer than three seats, the way in which the constituencies must be evenly spread in regard to population, and so on, there are virtually no provisions in regard to the Seanad election. The drafters of the Constitution left it open to the Oireachtas to prescribe by law what should be the composition of the Seanad. Nothing is prescribed in the Constitution except the provision of the five interest groups, but how those groups are to be elected, who is to elect them, is not in the Constitution. There is no rigidity about the matter in the Constitution. It is not in the Constitution that the electorate must be the outgoing Seanad, the incoming Dáil plus all county councillors and county boroughs. That is not in the Constitution. That is an ordinary Act of Parliament which can be repealed overnight without the necessity for a referendum.

Article 18 of the Constitution deals with the Seanad. Even if that article were to stand by itself along with this very marginal change, which I acknowledge is designed to secure an even representation between institutions, many of which are no longer, strictly speaking, universities, we should be trying to extend the vocational panels and the vocational benches of the Seanad to incorporate people who speak for someone, leaders of the professional, social and vocational interests which correspond to the benches in which they sit. We should be trying to do that. Then these groups would get to know one another. They would respect each other and understand each other's problems. It would give them a status and a prestige which would make it easier for any Government to deal with them, to negotiate with them and to expect in turn a certain modicum or measure of responsibility.

Let me not be taken as accusing any of these bodies of irresponsibility, but if they were formally built into the Oireachtas structure it would tend to ensure a certain constant level of responsibility, of mutual respect between these groups and between them and the Government. I think that would be helpful. I mentioned Article 18, but one of the most forgotten Articles, Article 19, deals with the Seanad. There are some never-visited Articles in the Constitution, like rooms in an old house. The hings squeak noisily when you open the door. Article 19 is such a room. It is brief:

Provision may be made by law for the direct election of any functional or vocational group or association or council of so many members of Seanad Éireann as may be fixed by such law in substitution for an equal number of the members to be elected from the corresponding panels of candidates constituted under Article 18 of this Constitution.

In other words, the Constitution specifically provides for the possibility I am advocating, and in case it may be thought that that was done by an oversight, let me cite the former President of the Executive Council and Taoiseach, the late Mr. de Valera, when he was speaking in the Dáil on the Constitution on 1 June 1937, reported at column 1471-2, Volume 67. He moved Article 19 and when Deputy McGilligan put a question to him he said:

In the case of the Seanad, you have functional or vocational groups and statutory bodies like the universities that might be trusted themselves to elect direct. That, I think, would be the better way it could be done, though it may take some time. If there was a voluntary development in that direction I think most people would welcome it. We do know what is going to be the result, so that we leave it open here to put that scheme into operation.

In other words, the Dáil liked that and they passed this Article without further debate, but it is worth recalling that the substitution for the system of election by politicians, which guarantees that only politicians would get elected, of one of direct representation from the middle of these functional vocational groups was envisaged by the man who produced this Constitution, with all its strength and with all its weaknesses.

I believe that was a good idea and since it does not require a constitutional amendment it could be done by an ordinary Act of the Oireachtas, and it should be given serious consideration. The Government I worked for were no exception, but there always has been a great disinclination by Governments to experiment. What is shameful about saying: "We will try this and if it does not work we will try something else"? All Governments seem to be afraid to experiment. I cannot guarantee that to activate Article 19 would produce a better Seanad. I have not said that it would, but there are strong reasons to think that it might. Why not try it?

Perhaps it would lead to the problem Deputy Horgan outlined in regard to the 1936 Seanad being asked to vote for its own abolition. What would you do with all the people who hold Seanad seats and who could never hope to get Seanad seats under a new dispensation? My answer is that some of those seats could be left behind and let the best men fill them. In other words, I would not abolish the whole of the Oireachtas sub-panels but I would reduce them to a proportion of the total panels now occupied. There are 43 panels and I would leave two seats in each panel for nomination by the Oireachtas or election in the traditional manner by county councillors. I would let 33 be elected from the heart of the farmers' organisations, the trade unions, employers' organisations and so forth.

Perhaps that would not work very well but there are strong reasons for trying it. If it did not work we should not be ashamed to say that we had intended well, we had powerful reasons to advance in its favour, we had tried it in good faith and we should try something else. I do not think anyone would make political capital out of such a failure. Sir, you have been——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have been very indulgent.

Mr. Kelly

I acknowledge it gladly. Let me make some points on the draft of the Bill. I suppose the Minister would have been surprised if I were not critical about it. This is the second time in the past three months that we have had a messy constitutional amendment—I had to say that on the Bill in regard to the validating of adoption orders. This could have been done more neatly, more elegantly. The following are my objections. I do not object to the substance of what is aimed at here, but I have some objections to the legislative technique.

Let me observe, before I say anything about that, that the technique which has been adopted will simply have the effect of deferring decisions on which bodies will elect Senators besides the NUI and Dublin University. I can see a lot of political sense in deferring decisions because I have no doubt that if the Government were to say they propose to give a vote to graduates of the NIHE and the colleges of technology, there would be instant demands—and I do not say they would not be justified—from colleges of music, colleges of art, colleges of journalism, commercial colleges and so forth saying: "We run third level education centres. We do not take people until they have finished secondary schooling and we feel that this confinement of the Seanad vote to NIHE graduates and graduates of the colleges of technology is unfair."

Let me say that if that case were made I would be completely on the side of such institutes of third level education. If there is any case at all for giving parliamentary representation to graduates of third level institutions it should be given to all third level institutions, the hotel and catering trade, the whole lot. I should not like to find myself having to defend any criterion which would separate those who might confer a national benefit if they were in the Seanad from those who might not confer such a benefit. I would be in favour of throwing it open to all institutions which are educational in even the broadest sense, not just the academic sense which we are always urging we should get away from.

However, I can see that there is not any such intention here and perhaps that was the Government's motive in not showing their hand. It would have been preferable to have removed from the Constitution altogether any reference to universities and to insert in substitution for Article 18.4: "Six shall be elected by institutions of higher education". To make myself clear, I do not see any immediate objection to a constitutional amendment which would make Article 18.4 read:

The elected members of Seanad Éireann shall be elected as follows: (i) six shall be elected by institutions of higher education. (ii) Forty-three shall be elected from panels of candidates constituted as hereinafter provided.

Consequently you would have to adapt section 6 because it mentions the universities. It says at the moment that the Members of Seanad Éireann to be elected by the universities shall be elected on a franchise and in a manner to be provided by law. I would make a consequential change which would read that "the Members of Seanad Éireann to be elected by the institutions of higher education shall be elected on a franchise and in a manner to be provided by law". End of story.

Unless there is something very subtle which I have overlooked, that seems to me to be a much clearer, simpler way of doing this job and one which seems to me to meet the professed objective just as fully. Equally it would permit the Government to hold their hand until they saw fit in terms of saying which institutions of higher education were to benefit under the section and which were not.

I am sorry to have to say this and I do not mean to be hurtful to the Minister's Department or to any draftsman in his Department or in any other office who may have been concerned with the draft of this, but it seems to me to be an intensely messy way of achieving a very simple objective. You are leaving behind the specific mention of NUI and Dublin University in Article 18.4 but you are purporting in the new subsection 3º to allow either or both of these to be dissolved. Not only are you doing that but you are mentioning them again in the new subsection 2º (i). That is a messy way of doing it. I appeal to the Minister to ask his people to look at this again and see whether a simpler suggestion such as I have outlined would not meet the point in a clearer way. I do not want to be positive about it. Perhaps I have overlooked something.

Even if we leave the amendment as it stands there are a couple of things which need to be said about it. Part II. 2º, i, reads in its final three lines:

of so many members of Seanad Éireann as may be fixed by law in substitution for an equal number of the members to be elected pursuant to paragraphs i and ii of the said subsection 1º.

If the intention is to make two seats available of the six for the NIHE or the colleges of technology, and so on, they are to be subtracted from six, leaving four behind. In other words, there is to be an equality in the substitution. You can take two out of the six and use them for institutions which previously had no franchise.

As it stands, the subsection does not say that the two taken away from the six are to be taken evenly away from the six. I do not understand it as drafted to mean an even number must be taken away from the NUI and Trinity. It seems to me not to exclude the meaning that both of the new seats could be taken from the NUI allocation or both could be taken from the Dublin University allocation. Perhaps I am wrong about that, but that is how it reads to me. I do not believe that was the Government's intention.

I have always agreed strongly with the point of view which I know both Deputy Collins and Deputy Horgan share, that is, that because of its association with the minority, Trinity may have had reason, and certainly the northern part of it feels it has reason, to suspect the goodwill and good faith of this State. Therefore there is a special case why one should lean over backwards to show what favour one can, consistent with not being unfair to others, to that side of the Irish people. I absolutely agree about that and, as Miles na gCopaleen would have said, I was saying it at a time when it was neither profitable nor popular.

At the same time, where you find such an enormous disparity in a graduate population as now exists between the NUI graduate population and that of Dublin University, and where you find simultaneously that Dublin University, much to its credit, has very quickly lost or gone a very long way towards losing the kind of exclusivist association with the minority which once upon a time it had, you have to ask yourselves whether any serious reason still supports attributing to that university a representation equal to that of the NUI. I hope that by those tortuous few sentences I have not succeeded in obscuring my meaning, which is, that I am all for leaning over backwards in every possible way consistent with fairness to other people to show favour, not just goodwill but absolute favour, towards the minority, not just on account of the North of Ireland but because of the minority we have within the borders of this State and whom we are supposed to cherish like everybody else; but that where you find that the association of Dublin University with the minority has become a great deal weaker—it is weaker in the sense that of course the minority still tend to go there but the numbers of other people going there have become so preponderant—that increasingly that association is only an historical one rather than an actual one—and where you find simultaneously that the graduate population of the NUI has become so gigantic, so very heavily preponderant compared with Dublin University representation, I am not so sure that you can any longer make quite such a strong case for giving each of them three seats.

I have no particularly strong feelings about that one way or the other, but I cannot imagine that at this moment it is the Government's intention to reduce the representation of these universities unevenly and to reduce the Trinity representation by comparison with the NUI representation. If that is not their intention, in other words if they intend that the representation of other institutions of higher education should be contributed in equal proportion by both the existing universities, this subsection should be drafted more clearly.

There is drafting problem in subsection 3º. There is, if I may say to the Minister, who I know will understand me, a "hapax legomenon" in constitutional usage in that subsection. So far as I know, there never has been the phrase used in the Constitution before, "invoked to prohibit", in the context of legislation being ruled out. I am subject to correction by the draftsman but I do not think one speaks of "prohibiting" legislation. The phrase is too rough to use about a constraint placed by the Constitution on the National Parliament. The expression "invoked to prohibit" appears in Article 40 of the Constitution in the context of the Defence Forces. In Article 40.4.6º it reads—and it appeared in virtually identical terms in the Saorstat Éireann Constitution—

Nothing in this section, however, shall be invoked to prohibit, control or interfere with any act of the Defence Forces during the existence of a state of war or armed rebellion.

That is an absolutely appropriate usage. You can try to invoke something to prohibit the Army from requisitioning tractors, or commandeering motor vehicles and making barricades out of them, from billeting troops in private houses. These are situations in which one can imagine somebody trying to invoke the law against them in order to prohibit them from doing that. The constitutional rule says that you cannot invoke the Constitution to prohibit acts of the Defence Forces in time of war or armed rebellion. I do not think the expression "invoked to prohibit" is an appropriate usage when what is being invoked is the Constitution and what are being prohibited are this House, the other House and the President—in other words, the Oireachtas. It is an inelegant and unhappy usage. I do not think there is a precedent for it. If there is I will apologise. I cannot call one to mind.

Let me suggest as an alternative the formula in Article 40. Article 40.1. is the Article which prescribes the equality of all citizens before the law. It goes on to say:

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

It would be a more elegant expression to use in the new subsection 3º that this section shall not be held to mean that either or both of the universities here mentioned may not be dissolved by law. It would be more in conformity with constitutional usage and a less rude formulation if it read something like: shall not be held to mean or shall not be deemed to prevent or something of that kind. "Invoked to prohibit" is an unusual usage.

There is another little point I want to mention. It is a similar point to that which arose on the constitutional amendment in regard to adoption. If the Constitution is amended, we must not forget that once the new edition of the Constitution is published what we will have is a unitary, seamless document which will be interpreted by the courts as if every line had been enacted by the people on that July day in 1937. The courts have become extremely minute—some would say unrealistic—in the exactitude and in the niggling closeness with which they scrutinise the phraseology of constitutional sections and compare them one with the other in order to extract what they take to be the sense from them. Where there is a special subsection in part of the Constitution which says that a thing mentioned in that section is not to be deemed to be entrenched, is not to be deemed to be put in aspic forever merely because it is mentioned there, to a lawyer that opens up the implication that other things mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution which do not have that entrenching subsection attached to them are not, in fact, so entrenched. I do not want to fox the Minister with this. By going out of our way in Article 18 to make it clear that an element mentioned in the Constitution is not protected from abolition, namely, the universities, you are inviting the implication that other things mentioned in the Constitution are protected from abolition, such as a census or a jury or the name of the city of Dublin. Of course I am all in favour of entrenching juries against abolition but we should know what we are doing here. We should realise that a legislative technique like this will fall into the hands of lawyers. Once the Minister sees this legislation off nobody will ever look at it again except a lawyer. He is going to ask himself, what can be made out of this? He will ask whether it is now open to him to argue—which it was not before—that merely because the universities attach to them a constitutional subsection which emphasises that the mere mention of them in the Constitution does not guarantee them survival, that where such a special clause does not occur in other parts of the Constitution that the thing is guaranteed survival, that it has a special entrenchment in the form of the particular institution was in in 1937.

I do not see the danger there. I mentioned juries and the census—they are the two that are most important and that come first to mind. I would be very sorry to see either of them done away with, for perfectly obvious reasons. We should not lightheartedly throw in a device like this into a law that is so hard to change without being alive to the impact it will have for the legal mind thereafter. A lawyer may be arguing a point that has nothing whatever to do with the universities or the Seanad but he will use this as a criterion on which to base his argument in regard to a totally different matter.

That is all I wish to say about the draft of this Bill. I can assure the Minister that, whatever I may have said that was contentious in the first part of my speech, I put forward in a non-contentious way those suggestions in regard to the drafting. I will encourage Deputy Collins, our party spokesman on this matter, to put down some amendments to accommodate the drafting improvements which I think are needed.

I should like to remind the Minister that we are not amending an ordinary law that can be changed next week. We are amending the Constitution and that has not yet been changed six times. We should impose on ourselves higher standards of tidiness, accuracy and verbal effectiveness in amending the Constitution than we do in ordinary legislation.

Minister for Education (Mr. Wilson)

First, I should like to deal with Deputy Collins' suggestion about the use of the word "shall" in Article 18.4 i and ii. The provision as set out remains until the legislation for the revised election basis becomes law. It could not be amended now for the period until the new legislation comes into force. That is quite obvious. In my original statement I think I pointed out that that was one of the things we had to cover, namely, the position that will exist until such time as the people accept the amendment, if they do, and until the new legislation for election of Members to Seanad Eireann is on the Statute Book That is the reason for the use of the format we have adopted.

Deputy Collins referred to the words, "any other institutions of higher education in this State". It is intended that other graduates will have votes. As I stated already, this whole matter will be debated and discussed when we come to deal with the specific legislation. The whole question of whether there should be representation in Seanad Eireann for the universities has been debated during a long period and I do not think there is unanimity in any political party about it. Obviously Deputy Kelly does not agree that there should be. He regards it as a remant of British imperialism. If something is good it should be assessed on its merits whatever its provenance. No doubt we will have an opportunity to discuss that point later in the Bill which will be brought in by the Minister for the Environment. Finally, Deputy Collins came down on giving representation to the Seanad. He hoped for a more vocational Seanad and expressed the wish that the Seanad be used for initiating Bills.

Mr. E. Collins

To a greater extent.

Mr. Horgan

That hope was expressed as long ago as when I was a Member of the Seanad.

Mr. Wilson

And long before I came near the Oireachtas. I wish to comment on the reference by Deputy Collins to the Seanad being a political body. I am in total agreement with what Deputy Horgan said: belonging to a political party is something that one should be proud of. We should encourage young people to regard it as the noble vocation that it is. Some people refer to it as if it had something to do with a house of ill fame. In fact, people should be very proud of taking part in the political process in a democracy.

Mr. E. Collins

By way of clarification, I was merely saying that the Seanad was originally intended to be a vocational forum, not a political forum. I never stated that I was otherwise interested except in the vocational aspect of the Seanad.

Mr. Wilson

I agree with the Deputy up to a point but I want to say a man does not necessarily lose his expertise in agriculture, or administration, or industry, or in the cultural or educational fields by giving his allegiance to a political party——

Mr. E. Collins

But he does suffer certain constraints from the party whip. That is the net point I was making.

Mr. Wilson

Yes, but I think we are a disorderly race and some kind of constraint is good for us. The Deputy raised the matter of Maynooth and even mentioned appointments there until the Chair took an interest in what he was saying. As I said in my opening speech, the legislation for the dissolution of the National University of Ireland, if and when the people accept the amendment of the Constitution, will outline the status of the various recognised colleges that I mentioned. Within that context we will be dealing with the further question raised by Deputy Collins of whether institutions for the purpose of university representation will be grouped together or treated as single institutions.

Deputy Collins asked when the legislation is likely and mentioned the ubiquitous long finger. I assure him and the House that it is my intention to go ahead with the legislation as quickly as possible. His final question was about the colleges of education and that was covered in the introduction of this Second Stage.

Deputy Horgan referred to the importance of the task of amending the Constitution and asked why it was not the Taoiseach who was introducing this Bill. All I can say is that I feel that I am an inadequate substitute——

Mr. Horgan

Oh, no.

Mr. Wilson

——and he decided that I should do it. The Deputy said he was not opposed to the idea of other institutions of higher education having a vote but that it was something that required discussion and I am satisfied that full opportunity for such discussion will be available in the relevant legislation.

Mr. Horgan

I would welcome such an opportunity.

Mr. Wilson

For debate?

Mr. Horgan

For extending representation to other institutions.

Mr. Wilson

I think that was implied in what the Deputy said. The debate will take place on that and it will be a major debate on how the six seats will be allocated. I was more than interested in the historical excursus of the Deputy where he traced the idea of representation from 1930. I could not help thinking, when he was quoting Deputy Maginnis—I think—and saying that in those days an t-ollamh stood next to the king that it would have been a very dangerous place for an t-ollamh to be in the period to which the Deputy referred.

Deputy Horgan also referred to accessibility in the twenties and thirties of this century and said it was better than accessibility to third level education had been in the 19th century. I agree. He also said that while it is not perfect now it is better than it was in the twenties and thirties. There is progression. I thank the Deputy for the historical excursus, which I found very interesting and it was totally in place in this debate. I am wondering whether there was 50 per cent nominations to the Seanad at one time—the Deputy spoke about the democratic principle—I think there was 50 per cent nomination by the President of the Executive Council at one time. I should be very pleased indeed to think that the Leader of the then Opposition, Deputy Johnson and his deputy and ally, Deputy Cathal O'Shannon, threw their shadows ahead and that I was in their line. I have made a resolution that I shall bow to the portrait of the late Deputy Johnson each time I pass it in the corridor outside from now on. I am grateful to Deputy Horgan for calling my attention to his having mentioned this possibility—he mentioned Cathal O'Shannon; I do not know which——

Mr. Horgan

It was Cathal O'Shannon who mentioned that. Deputy Johnson was more severe on the universities.

Mr. Wilson

I think perhaps being a soldier was as much a qualification as being a university graduate. The Deputy referred to the Northern connection with Trinity College, Dublin. There was a very strong Northern connection and I think, a very desirable one. It did not change the very strongly held views of people who came from the Six Counties to Trinity but at least it must have had some kind of negative effect in that they did not think any more that we were a subhuman species which in a very close society some of them could have been led to believe.

Unfortunately, the numbers coming from that area to Dublin University have declined. I think the university authorities have said that, and it is something I regret very much. Every effort should be made, to the extent of trying to recruit if necessary, by our universities in Dublin to get some people from the Six Counties area to come here. The reverse has been the case in regard to the New University of Ulster in Coleraine. In the Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan areas they have been encouraging people in the post-primary schools to go to the new university in Coleraine. Unfortunately, the troubles interfered with this process when quite a few students had begun to go there.

The whole question of Trinity and its connection with the minority is a quite different one today from what it was ten years ago. Recently, on the occasion of a deputation from the heads of the university, the Provost of Trinity College said that he had substantial reasons now for calling it a national university. It is no longer a university which attracts only one sector of the community.

Deputy Horgan suggested that there might be a possibility of allowing votes by substituting "in Éirinn" or "in Ireland" for "in the State". We had a discussion on this during the course of the NCEA Bill. It is not possible to accept the amendment Deputy Horgan suggested might be made.

With regard to Deputy Kelly, he put on a wonderfully entertaining performance evoking the shade of A. P. Herbert, the glorious Liberal and playwright. He waxed eloquent about the anachronism of university representation. I have already said that a good idea from whatever source, even from an imperialistic one, is not something we should take lightly. In all the political parties there is no unanimity about the desirability of university representation. I take it that everybody would agree that, all in all, the Seanad representation from the universities has been worthwhile. Some may have strayed from the pure Olympian heights of non-politics into political parties. I see nothing wrong with that provided there is no pretence about it. Voters are voting for somebody who is not committed to a political party. It does not necessarily do them any harm to join a party, but it is as well that the electorate should know if they do.

Deputy Kelly was rejuvenated at times and the L and H was in full swing. He spoke about the straight vote being British and, under pressure, he admitted that proportional representation was British as well. I do not know whether this means he would have to condemn both and think out some other ethereal way for electing Members to the Dáil and Seanad. I liked his performance. The rejuvenated Deputy Kelly is a more amusing Deputy Kelly than the Savonarola whom we used to see with pale face and thin lips rounding up the Deputies when he was Chief Whip for the previous Government.

Mr. E. Collins

Very successfully, too.

Mr. Horgan

More successfully than they claim.

Mr. Wilson

Without mentioning the fiddler, he spoke about fiddling while Rome burned. He assumed the role, in his pilgrim's progress, of creator. He was creating a new Seanad and inviting Deputies Collins and Horgan to share in the act of creativity. He spoke of the use of the various vocational panels in the Seanad to represent the people after whom the panels are named. He thought this might be a useful way to reduce social and industrial tensions. It was not relevant to what we are doing in amending the Constitution but he got, and gave, a certain amount of pleasure, in going through the gymnastics which all enjoyed. At some stage he quoted Article 19. Teachers' unions did have a vote and in the system of voting there is direct election by vocational groups. I am not positive about that but I remember some people in a trade union referring to it.

Deputy Kelly said he did not understand why the amendment was drafted in this way. Had Deputy Kelly been here for my opening speech he would have heard what we had to take account of which influenced the wording of the drafting: the importance of preserving the eligibility of existing Members of the Seanad elected under the university franchise during the period from the date of the acceptance of the referendum proposal and the end of the period for which the Members had been elected. We did not want any lacuna there. The draftsman had to cover the possibility of a vacancy occurring in the relevant university panel necessitating a by-election before the legislative process had been completed. This process will deal with the revised arrangements for university representation in the Seanad following acceptance of the referendum proposal. This is the business of the Minister for the Environment and it is also important to synchronise the legislation for university reorganisation and the arrangements to be made by law for alternative provision for representation in the Seanad of the universities and other higher education institutions.

Deputy Kelly and other Deputies said that there were anomalies about the size of the electorate in the two universities that are mentioned in the Constitution, 40,000 plus in one case and about 8,000 in the other. Deputy Kelly said he would favour leaning over backwards to help the minority. One phrase which he took exception to was "invoked to prohibit". It was on aesthetic grounds rather than as a constitutional lawyer that he objected to it. He spoke about it being inelegant and unhappy, but he did not at any stage say that it would not hold water as a legal phrase. I cannot agree to the change suggested by Deputy Kelly. There is no advantage in using the wording "this shall not be held to mean that either or both universities". I accept that in cases totally unrelated to this amendment of the Constitution lawyers and senior counsel might argue about the entrenchment of words in the Constitution. He said that when we say in our amendment that nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to prohibit dissolution, we are inviting lawyers to say that there is an implication that when something is entrenched or embedded in the Constitution it gives it a certain status. Legal minds would probably do that, but they will do that anyway whether this amendment to the Constitution is accepted or not.

I thank the three Deputies who contributed to the Second Stage debate. It is important that the Bill should get through the Houses of the Oireachtas and get the signature of the President by the date mentioned by me in my opening speech, when we will have an opportunity of putting it to the people together with the amendment of the Constitution Bill on adoption.

Cuireadh agus aontaíodh an cheist.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the next Stage?

Mr. Wilson

Now.

Mr. E. Collins

I have a problem. I wish to put down an amendment and Deputy Kelly has indicated that he would like to put down at least two amendments. I wish to facilitate the Minister in getting the Bill through the House. If he fixed it for 3.30 p.m. tomorrow and provided an hour or an hour and a half I am sure we could get through the Committee and other stages in that time.

Mr. Wilson

It was agreed by the Whips that it would be taken at 12 midday tomorrow. That is my understanding from last week.

Mr. E. Collins

Alternatively, I can get in touch with Deputy Kelly to see if he is amenable to taking it at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow and finishing at 12 o'clock.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has to order for all stages.

Mr. E. Collins

There was no agreement on this side of the House about all that.

Mr. Horgan

My understanding of the arrangement between the Whips was that, while we could not guarantee that the Second Stage would finish this evening, we would review the situation at the close of this evening, if it was not concluded, with a view to concluding it in time to get it into the Seanad tomorrow afternoon. Certainly as far as I am concerned that is still very much our intention. I also have an amendment but if the Committee Stage were taken at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow morning the Minister would not be short of his deadline in that regard.

Mr. Wilson

That is suitable from my point of view.

An Ceann Comhairle

To be taken tomorrow morning?

Minister for Finance (Mr. Colley)

My understanding is that the arrangements between the Whips included taking the Finance Bill all day tomorrow. If, as a result of this arrangement, there is an extra hour available this evening, could it be agreed that this Bill be cleared at 11.30 a.m. tomorrow morning so as not to cut down on the time agreed for the Finance Bill?

Mr. Horgan

The Finance Bill gets the extra time this evening.

Mr. Colley

That is why I suggest that not more than an hour be given for this tomorrow. That would equalise the time for the Finance Bill.

Mr. E. Collins

I have no wish to delay the passing of the Bill. However, we on this side of the House consider a Constitutional Bill to be very important and I would not like to constrain a colleague of mine in discussing an amendment. If we allocated an hour and a half to this Bill tomorrow morning we would be clear of the Bill. I am prepared to give an undertaking to that effect. If we finish it within the hour and a half, we could go on to the Finance Bill.

Mr. Colley

All right.

Ordaíodh go dtógfar Céim an Choiste agus na Céimeanna Deiridh ar 10.30 a.m. Dé Céadaoin, 23 Bealtaine 1979.

Committee and Final Stages ordered for 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 23 May 1979.