I do not wish to detain the House by any prolonged observations on the amendment now before us. The Minister, in his opening statement, remarked that this amendment before us to-day was almost identical with an amendment which was debated here, I think on the motion of Deputy McGilligan, some 18 or 20 months ago. He further stated that, therefore, it was not necessary for him to add much to what he had said on that occasion. I take it, therefore, that he is adopting his speech made on that occasion as part of his argument to-day. I would point out to him that the amendment before us now does differ considerably and materially from the amendment which was discussed on a previous occasion. Deputy McGilligan's amendment was one which would delay the putting into operation of the Bill, when enacted, until the second next general election. The amendment we are considering to-day is one merely to delay the bringing into operation of the Bill for six months after the date of the next general election. There might be a difference of several years in these matters. One could understand that the Government—while seeing some terrible evil and terrible danger in this system of University representation, and not seeing its way to consent to delaying putting such a desirable reform, from their point of view, into action for the length of a Parliament—might readily conceive that it would not be dangerous and might even be fair to delay putting that reform into operation until the electors of the country had an opportunity for the first time of expressing their opinion on the matter.
The object of the amendment which the Seanad has sent down is merely to give the electors such an opportunity of expressing their opinion. We had a good deal of debate a couple of years ago on the issue as to whether the electors had really any knowledge or anticipation that such a measure would be dealt with during the life of the present Parliament or during the tenure of office of the present Government. Frankly enough the Minister, after some pressure, admitted that there was not any general knowledge of such a proposal being in the programme of the Government prior to the elections. He did state that the matter had been mentioned at certain public meetings in Dublin. He did say that it had been mentioned at the Ard-Fheis of his Party on various occasions, but he was unable to tell us if any of those references to the question had ever seen publication in the Press of the country. Therefore I think it is fair to say that, whatever may have been in the private programme of the Party, the public of the country when voting for the members of the Government and their supporters had not before their minds that this was part of the programme. The Minister, in drawing back to a certain extent on that point, put forward another argument. He said: "It is also a fact, I think, that all Governments introduce such legislation as they think right or proper, or for the good of the community, whether they had ever put such legislation in the forefront of their programme at a general election or not. That is a practice common to every Government that has so far been on these benches." He might have made it wider, and said it is a natural practice for any Government which attempts to carry on its duties.
A Government must deal with the questions of the day as they arise, and it must not allow its hand to be held up by lack of any statement put in its programme before the general election. But when any change has taken place, or when any sudden danger has arisen, or when any new problem has to be dealt with, it must be met. When one is dealing with the Constitution of a country which is unchanged since it was first made, you are faced with an entirely different question. I do not wish to state it as a completely accurate statement that Governments in this country have not altered the Constitution in certain particulars as the occasion arose, but I think I am right in saying that they only made such alterations when they believed they were faced by emergencies or by some new problem which showed that the Constitution did not give them the scope to achieve or carry out what they thought was their duty. I think when the Government has established to the satisfaction of the House that such emergency arose, they would have in that quite sufficient justification for acting. But I say that when no new factor has arisen, when nothing has happened to alter this fact of University representation; when the persons who represent the Universities here have not proved themselves by their conduct in the House or outside the House a danger to the community and not likely to be a danger to the community; when it has been shown in the most convincing manner that University representation has not interfered in any way with the performance by the House of its duties to the community, then they have failed to show that an emergency has arisen.
The Minister dropped an interesting remark in his speech to-day. He said if the Referendum was still part of the Constitution, this topic of University representation would be a suitable topic to put before the country through the Referendum. I notice on many occasions that the Minister and his colleagues have spoken with a kind of tender regret of the abolition of the Referendum. But they have been in office four years, and during that time they made no attempt to reintroduce the Referendum into the Constitution. My suggestion to the Minister is that being deprived of this useful instrument—the abolition of which I regret, as do many Deputies in other parts of the House as well as on the Government Benches—but having been deprived of that instrument of the Referendum, the Government should be more cautious in making a Constitutional change. Before doing so they ought to make sure that the electors should have an opportunity of expressing their views on the proposed change. This amendment from the Seanad gives them that opportunity, and it does so without any inconvenience to themselves and without any inconvenience to the next Dáil. It does so without any deleterious effect that one could possible conceive. This House wants to alter the representation in this Assembly. It is only fair then to the electors of the country that they should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to whether that change is desirable or not. I see no answer to the suggestion that has come from the Seanad.
There are some other points to which I had thought of referring, but I pass over them as being outside the strict application of this amendment. There is one thing implicit in the Minister's arguments to-day, and not only implicit but explicit in the speech which he delivered on the 14th June, 1934, and which he adopted to-day as part of his argument that the Government has the right to press legislation. Nobody questions that the Government has the right to press legislation. But the Minister falls into a confusion which I have already noticed in the speeches from the Government Benches. Ministers do not take the trouble to distinguish between what people have a right to do and that which it is right for them to do. It is perfectly true that the Government has a right to press legislation. That we as individuals have a right to do many things is perfectly true. But it is an entirely different thing to say that the Government would be right in doing everything that it has a right to do, or that a private individual would be right in doing everything that he has a perfect right to do. The confusion is one that cuts very deep, and is implicit even in the arguments before the House. It was implicit in the Minister's speech when he said: "I do not think anybody will dispute the right of the Government to do that." That is to introduce legislation. But there is another question—whether the Government is right in introducing legislation such as this.
We listened to-day to an amazing, and, if the word is not offensive, a very immoral speech from a University representative. I confess on listening to that speech—and I want to avoid being personal—that Deputy Mrs. Concannon gave the first jolt to my belief in the efficiency of University representation in this House. The argument that Deputy Mrs. Concannon, put before the House, as far as I could understand it, and I listened very carefully to what she said, was this: that it was a gross impertinence for the Seanad to make any representation to this House; that it was a cynical challenge for the Seanad to make representation to this House and that, therefore, this House ought to reject the representations whether these representations were good or bad. I do not think that even the Government Bench would join their supporter in that view. Ministers on the Government Benches have, time after time, come back here with Bills from the Seanad and, by their implicit acceptance of the amendments sent from that House, have expressed their approval of the amendments made there in Government Bills. If these amendments have increased the efficiency of the legislation carried through the Oireachtas, why should it now be stated that this one particular amendment from the Seanad which does not alter the Bill in any matter of principle is a cynical challenge to the Dáil? Even if it were, why should Deputies in this House give away their own independence of judgment in order to reject representations made to them, whether good or bad? We are asked by Deputy Mrs. Concannon to tear up the amendment and throw it back to the Seanad because they have the impertinence to send it to us. That was Deputy Mrs. Concannon's argument and that is why I say it is an amazing suggestion to make to the House and also an immoral one. It is a suggestion that we should throw away our judgment and our consciences because the suggestion has come from a quarter with which we disagree. The Minister has told us that he did not think there was any need to go over any of the arguments advanced to-day in favour of this amendment, that he was relying on the arguments advanced by him in the House one and a half years ago. That is to say, that the fact that he has already put them to us in this House is proof that the arguments are true and that, therefore, the passage of the Bill through the House should not be delayed. I would suggest again that, while the House has undoubtedly time and again approved of the principle, it has not yet discussed the question which we are asked to discuss to-day as to whether the electors should be given an opportunity of considering the matter further and in a way which will not hamper the judgment and opinion of the next Assembly which will meet here after the general election.
Deputy Mrs. Concannon said it would be a degrading thing that we should pay any attention to the wishes of future Assemblies and that we should regulate our duties to-day without any consideration of the Dáil of the future. Surely any wise statesman looks not merely to the public opinion of the moment but to what public opinion is likely to be a considerable time in advance. He legislates not for the month or the year but for the future. The Minister said the House has approved of this measure. I agree. I am not going to try to reopen that question. But whether a Bill has passed through the House once, twice, or three times does not establish the principle for all time. My colleague who spoke a few moments ago quoted from Lewis Carroll. Something that the Minister has said reminded me of another incident in one of Lewis Carroll's books where one of the characters says: "When I say a thing once, twice, three times it is so." The Minister has told us that the House has approved three times of the principle of this Bill; therefore, it is right. We, however, still may be sceptical.
