I move amendment No. 2:—
To delete in line 30 the words "immediately upon" and to substitute therefor the words "six months after."
I think that in the case of this particular Bill, even though it has reached this very advanced stage, the Government should be asked to reconsider, to some extent, at any rate, its attitude with regard to it. I think it is highly undesirable that a Bill which has never been canvassed before the electorate to any appreciable extent, a Bill for which the Government cannot claim as it claims in the case of so many Bills that it has a mandate, a Bill for which there is no public demand and which is a Constitution Amendment Bill, though it affects a minor amendment, should be pushed through as this Bill is being pushed through. As I said on a previous occasion, it seems to me to be purely a Party measure, introduced, not in vindication of any principle and not in response to any public demand, but simply for the convenience of the present majority Party in the Dáil.
The amendment which I have proposed is one which might be improved, and if I could find means for putting it in order, I should draft an amendment which I would prefer myself, but if this amendment or any amendment along similar lines were to be accepted by the Government, it seems to me that it would meet the Government's reasonable requirements. If carried into effect, it would mean that the continuance of University representation would not be seriously prolonged if the present Government Party obtained a majority at the next election because they could simply sit still for the few months that would elapse until the Bill would become law and the University members would disappear. If the Government were so returned, they could claim—I suppose as well as can be claimed in many other cases—that it had received a mandate for the abolition of University representation. On the other hand, if the present Government did not obtain a majority at the next election, the interval of six months would leave time for the matter to be reconsidered by the Dáil and the Bill either amended or steps taken to see that it did not come into effect at all.
The Minister may argue that it would be undesirable that, on the assumption that his Party obtains a majority at the next election, six Deputies should be elected, and that, after six months, they should have to vacate their seats. I do not think that is anything in the way of a great hardship or would cause any serious inconvenience. On previous occasions, we have had a second general election following a first after a very short interval and Deputies have had to vacate their seats. I think at any rate some arrangement like this would be better than that we should be faced with having the Constitution amended in one sense by one Parliament and in a contrary sense by the next Parliament.
Senator Johnson, on the last day, said that if University representation were to be restored, it presumably would not be restored by way of a Constitution amendment. As I read the articles of the Constitution, if this Bill in its present form becomes law and if the majority of the next Dáil wants to restore University representation, it must amend the Constitution, because, as the document will stand, with the amendments proposed by this Bill, it will be impossible to have University representation. Article 26 says:
Dáil Eireann shall be composed of members who represent constituencies determined by law. The number of members shall be fixed from time to time by the Oireachtas, but the total number of members of Dáil Eireann shall not be fixed at less than one member for each 30,000 of the population, or at more than one member for each 20,000 of the population: Provided that the proportion between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as possible, be identical throughout the country.
The wording of the Constitution when this Bill is passed will make it impossible to have University representation. Therefore, Senator Johnson's suggestion could not be carried out. It seems to me that the passage of this Bill, in its present form, invites a sort of see-saw amendment of the Constitution. That, I think, is highly undesirable and, if the Government will not accept this amendment, they should consider some other way of altering the Bill so as to obviate a development which would tend to bring constitutional procedure into contempt. I put the amendment down simply as an invitation to the Government, if it is accepted by the Seanad, to reconsider their attitude in respect of this Bill.