The effect of these amendments, inserted in the Seanad, is to remove the anomaly which lies in the fact that, at present, under the Constitution, the person elected sixteenth may secure the place of a Senator whose term of office is, say, three years and the person elected seventeenth may secure the place of a Senator having a term of six years or possibly nine years. I asked the Seanad to disagree with this amendment, not because it is in itself unsound—it is, as a matter of fact, quite a sound and desirable amendment—but because I thought it was outside the scope of the main purpose of the Bill, which, after all, was introduced to deal with the question of the pending elections to the Seanad and purposes directly connected with that. This matter is not so directly connected with that purpose. It is kindred matter, no doubt, and it aims at removing an undoubted anomaly—that of a person elected number sixteenth, possibly getting a short term of office—say, a term of three years—whereas persons elected lower down might secure a term of office of six years or nine years. It will be noticed that the amendment involved a change in the Long Title of the Bill, as a consequential amendment, because it lay somewhat outside the scope of the Bill as drafted and as sent to the Seanad. Although I feel that if this amendment had been proposed when the Bill was before the Dáil, I would possibly have objected to it on the ground that it was undesirable in a Bill brought in to deal with a specific point and embodying a specific amendment to the Constitution to introduce other matter, I think that the point is, perhaps, not worth differing with the other House about.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT No. 1) BILL, 1925—FROM THE SEANAD.
We will take Amendment 2 first and Amendment 1, which is the consequential amendment, afterwards.
I propose that the Dáil agree with Seanad in Amendment No. 2.
The Minister has given the reasons why he asked the Seanad not to agree with this amendment. I think those reasons were sound and conclusive. When the Bill was brought forward, expression was given to the view that a Constitutional amendment over a small matter was undesirable and unnecessary and that, without question, there would, within the next two or three years, require to be brought forward for consideration. several other amendments to the Constitution. It was urged that this matter ought to be treated as part of a general amendment of the Constitution. I think the Minister's views as to the undesirability of making a second amendment of a minor kind in the Constitution, which amendment is not necessary, should be adhered to. If such an amendment as is now proposed is required, and is not urgent— as it obviously is not—it ought not to be introduced into this Constitutional Amendment Bill, which is only to deal with an emergency created through the necessity for electing members to the Seanad. I think that the House would be well advised to hold by the position which the Minister himself stated. I do not think the Seanad could regard this action as manifesting a desire for conflict. I think that we should stand by the expression of opinion that amendments to the Constitution should be very carefully considered before they are entered upon. This amendment has not been carefully considered. It has come down to us from the Seanad and is being treated, obviously and necessarily in the circumstances, as a minor amendment. Whether it is a minor amendment or not, I cannot say. I doubt whether many members of the Dáil have given the matter that amount of consideration which any amendment of the Constitution, however trifling, requires. I would urge the Minister to stand by his decision and I suggest that we should notify the Seanad that, in the circumstances, we think that such an amendment, however desirable it may be, should not be passed without the fullest consideration.
There is nothing obscure about the amendment, and it is scarcely right to say that it has not been carefully considered. I have no doubt it was very carefully considered by those who urged its acceptance in the Seanad and, once it appeared as an amendment, it was carefully considered by me, with the assistance of the Law Advisers of the Government. As I say, the amendment in itself is sound and desirable. The only objection I made to it in the Seanad was that while cognate and kindred to the subject-matter of the Bill, it lay just outside the scope and purpose of the Bill, as is shown by the fact that its acceptance involved an amendment in the Long Title.
It is undoubtedly an anomaly, probably not contemplated by those who drafted and endorsed the Constitution, that a Senator elected sixteenth in order would possibly fill a casual vacancy created by the death or resignation of a man who had only a three-years' period, whereas someone coming next to him, seventeenth or eighteenth on the list, might get the casual vacancy of a man who had a much longer tenure in the Seanad, a tenure running possibly to nine years. That is, of course—there is nothing obscure about it—wrong and unsound, and this amendment aims at changing that. Therefore, it is quite desirable in itself. The only objection that could be urged to it is that it is a little beside the main objects of the Bill. I asked the Seanad to take that view, and by a very substantial majority they took the other view. I have the feeling now, seeing that nothing can be urged against the amendment itself and seeing that a great deal can be urged in its favour— in its favour as far as its intrinsic soundness and wisdom goes—that it would be perhaps straining things for the Dáil to send a Message back to the Seanad disagreeing with the amendment.
I am not discussing the merits of the Bill, but we are liable to get into the position that amendments to the Constitution can be treated as ordinary legislation and in a rather casual fashion, without having the very careful united consideration, perhaps of the two Houses, even preliminary to introduction. The casual passing of amendments to the Constitution, even though their desirability may be obvious, is a very undesirable procedure. Either the Constitution is the most important document that we have which guides and determines the limits of our legislative activity or it is a matter of trifling importance. If it is, as we all admit, the supreme document, governing our legislative activities, it should only be altered after microscopic examination and after all sections of the House had, perhaps, considered it over a table. I do not know what the idea of the people who drew up this particular form may have been, but we have a right to assume that during a sitting of several months they examined very closely and carefully all the phrases and their consequences. There are, I think, other anomalies which would be generally admitted equally with this.
Yes, but scarcely equally cognate to the Bill as this is.
But it is not essential. The Minister has said, and the House has agreed with him, that the original Bill was designed and was necessary to meet a particular emergency. It is not contended that this amendment is designed to meet a particular emergency and is actually necessary. Therefore, I say we ought not introduce it into a Bill which only deals with an absolutely necessary thing. I say it is leading to a cheapening, in the minds of Deputies, of the Constitution, and will lead to our thinking that any constitutional amendment might be treated in a similarly light and casual fashion.
The Constitution is fundamental law. Any tampering with it or alteration of it must, therefore, be looked upon with considerable suspicion, or, to put it positively, any amendment must be the result of a great deal of careful consideration. It is declared as one of the Articles of the Constitution that alterations in it are to be made after the fashion of ordinary law; that is to say, that a Bill for the express purpose of altering the Constitution must be introduced in one of the Houses, get its First Reading, its Second Reading, and go through its different stages. I think that is the regular procedure.
I do share the view of Deputy Johnson that whether an amendment which arises casually is a valuable amendment or is not is comparatively irrelevant where the consideration is the paramount importance of keeping the Constitution a sacred instrument. I quite agree with the Minister for Justice that that is a desirable and valuable amendment, but let us consider in what way it has come before us. It has come before us as an amendment to a Bill that was properly initiated in one of the Houses, had its First and Second Reading, went through all the courses of an ordinary Bill and then was submitted to the consideration of the Seanad. In the course of the consideration of that Bill by the Seanad this amendment was introduced. I think that is derogatory to the dignity of the Constitution. To me it is a valuable alteration. It amends a flaw. It comes to the assistance of those who enacted the Constitution and removes an objectionable feature; but I hold very strongly where there is a question of making an amendment of that type that would preserve a proper veneration for the Constitution and impress on the public mind its character as fundamental law, that even—I may be open to the charge of pedantry in this—for the alteration of a comma, we should go through all these Stages, at whatever cost of time and trouble. I say that all the more when I remember that it was contended that the Article of the Constitution with regard to an amendment of the Constitution could be given another construction than that which we uphold. It was contended that after the fashion of ordinary law, it meant that if a Bill included a section which ran counter to the Constitution, and in the course of time the Bill became an Act, this qua Act in so far as it conflicted with the Constitution was thereby amended and we had the obiter dictum of a Judge in one of our Courts to that effect. It is, therefore, to my mind most essential that, at the very earliest opportunity that presents itself, a proper interpretation and an interpretation supported by the Irish translation of the Article in question should be maintained here. If it had no other value than this I would oppose the amendment, namely, that it provides us with a striking opportunity for declaring our view on the nature of the Constitution and the procedure by which alone it can be modified.
I think we will have ourselves to adopt the same method that has been adopted in practically every country, and that is of devising some special method of undertaking constitutional amendments, even during the eight year period when they may be taken, as Deputy Magennis has correctly stated, according to the form of ordinary legislation. In most countries very great difficulties are raised over the introduction of any legislation that means the slightest alteration of the fundamental law of the country. We have done so in the Constitution after the eight-year period. Within that eight-year period we have not prescribed any special forms except the form that the Government has now rightly and very wisely adopted of describing this particular Bill as a Constitution (Amendment) Bill. I do not go further into that at the present moment.
All I do say is that I think we ought to consider some procedure. The French have a procedure whereby the two Houses sit as one to debate a Second Reading, and there has to be a special summons. Various countries adopt different procedures, and I think we ought to adopt some procedure that would specify a Constitutional amendment as distinct of its kind and character from all other kinds of legislation. But we have not done that. All that we have done is, we have adopted a description of the Bill as being a Constitutional Amendment. Having got the words in that, this is a Constitution (Amendment No. 1) Bill, I think, seeing that we have not prescribed any special form, and seeing that this amendment is by agreement, as Deputy Johnson and Deputy Magennis have said, a sound change, and a change to which we would be pressed at a later stage, if we were not to do it now, I think we might let the matter pass and I would vote for the Seanad amendment on the soundness of the amendment on its own merits, because we have got this phrase that it is an Amendment No. 1 Bill, and it is cognate to the original purposes of the Bill, as the Minister has said. It would be carrying the matter too far, I think, to press the objection further. I think the Minister might give some assurance to the House that some kind of procedure will be adopted in future by which any and every amendment of the Constitution will be compelled to go through a specially difficult prescribed course.
Perhaps the Minister would note the very change that we made here in the Short Title, making it Amendment No. 1 Bill—not Constitution (Amendment) Bill, No. 1, but Constitution (Amendment No. 1) Bill. Now we are proposing to introduce No. 1 and No. 2. The second amendment has not had the detailed consideration, with the possible implications, that such a Bill should have; even the Short Title is changed in the proposed amendments.
I have some sympathy with the point of view as represented by Deputy Johnson and Deputy Magennis. I feel that if this amendment had been put up in the Dáil when the Bill was here, I probably would have said much the same thing myself about it. I did, in fact, in the Seanad urge a substantially similar objection. The Seanad, however, have inserted the amendment, have sent it here, and I have endeavoured to give the Dáil a clear and accurate presentation of my state of mind. I think, to justify or warrant the sending back of the Bill to the Seanad, there ought to be some objection to the amendment in se. There is no such objection. On the contrary, it seems admitted, and I certainly consider, that the amendment in itself is sound and desirable. If not strictly related to the main substance of the Bill, it is kindred matter, and is not out of harmony with the Bill. It deals with, or aims at, removing that peculiarity, that anomaly, with which I have dealt. I have no very decided view about the thing. I think, on the whole, the Dáil ought not to take the course of sending the Bill back to the Seanad. If the majority hold another view, I would not be very perturbed about that.
Tá
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Sir James Craig.
- Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean Ui Dhrisceóil.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Darrell Figgis.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- William Hewat.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Máirtín O Connalláin.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Seán Príomhdhail.
Níl
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- David Hall.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Tomás de Nogla.
- Risteárd O Conaill.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
- Seán O Raghallaigh.
- Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
- Liam Thrift.
Constitutions for sale, cheap!
Amendment 1 is a necessary consequential amendment. I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in that amendment.
There are now two amendments in the Bill and, as a consequence, it will be necessary, I submit, to alter the Short Title. I think that a consequential change in the Short Title is necessary, and I move an amendment accordingly.
This Bill as it left the Dáil seems to me to have contained two amendments to the Constitution. There was the insertion of two Articles, one, Article 31 A., and the other, Article 32 A., dealing with kindred but different things, so that the amendment proposed by Deputy Johnson, if we agree with his assumptions, might not completely meet the case.
I assumed, and I think the House assumed, that though the amendment that was in the Bill originally contained two clauses, it was one Constitutional amendment. This is another Constitutional amendment and should be designated as such. Otherwise, there may be consequences that we do not at present foresee. If the Bill, while containing two amendments of a distinct character to the Constitution, continues to be described as Amendment No. 1 Bill, it is liable to the interpretation that it is simply the first of a series of amending Bills, whereas the intention of the Dáil was to deem this to be the first amendment to the Constitution. Now we have made a second amendment in addition to the first amendment, and I submit that the Short Title should necessarily be altered accordingly.
I agree with Deputy Johnson in the opinions that he expressed before as to the need for giving the greatest care to any amendment to the Constitution that is proposed, and as to the need for examining in the most careful way even the very words that are used. I think, however, that he is now putting forward something which it would be rather dangerous to adopt. The amendment is an amendment in principle, and I do not think that we ought to take Amendment No. 1 in any sense but in a collective sense, referring to one kind of principle which has been touched in the Constitution. Amendment No. 1 may still be regarded as the proper title, and as the amendment first proposed in the order of time. The second Bill would then come on as Amendment No. 2 Bill, proposed at a different time. I think it might be even dangerous to adopt the idea which Deputy Johnson suggests, because his amendment might really, though called one amendment, touch two or three different things, and perhaps, to a certain extent, separate things in the Constitution. I would prefer to keep Amendment No. 1 as simply meaning the first amendment that was introduced in the order of time.
I think Deputy Johnson's amendment would imply that every time a change was made in the Constitution, every time a word or an alteration was made in it, that you would need to have a separate Bill. That would mean, I take it, that one Bill could not cover more than one alteration made in the Constitution, however slight that alteration was, or however far-reaching it might be. There might be consequential alterations to the Constitution caused by one amendment, and therefore what Deputy Johnson seems to imply is that to provide for these consequential alterations three or four Bills, or perhaps more, should be introduced.
I do not want to prevent discussion on this matter, but I was wondering whether it was in order for the Dáil, at this stage, to do anything more than agree or disagree with the Seanad amendments.
The Dáil can deal with the Seanad amendments, but an amendment may be proposed at this stage in the Dáil if it is shown that the amendment proposed is relevant to the amendments made in the Seanad, or rather relevant to the action which the Dáil is taking upon the amendments made in the Seanad. There appear to be two interpretations of the words in the brackets in the Short Title to Amendment No. 1. On one of these interpretations Deputy Johnson's proposed amendment would be in order, and if the Deputy persists with the amendment, which would give a remarkable Short Title, I would accept it.
I do not want to persist, but I am putting it forward as a possible view to indicate how very important and how very necessary it is that every possible effect of a change in the Constitution should have the most careful examination. I am putting the point to you, sir, to find out whether there is unanimity or any understanding of the meaning of the amendment that we have made, or even of the Bill that we have passed.
The question is, whether No. 1 refers to the Bill so that in our list of statutes it would be Amendment of the Constitution No. 1 Bill, or whether it refers to the actual emendations. It seems to me that what is of importance is that it should be on record unmistakably that an interference, by way of change with the Constitution, has been effected by such and such a measure, and that that is No. 1, and that any subsequent Act should be No. 2 even though it may contain one, two, three, or four, or more alterations. I think Deputy Johnson's purpose would be effected by retaining No. 1, as I have put it just now, namely, that this is the first amending Act in reference to the Constitution, irrespective of its content, whether it contains an alteration in respect of one Article, or two Articles, or three Articles. Otherwise, we may have refinements and subtleties later as to whether a certain change, for example, the one effected just now by the amendment from the Seanad, was to be numbered separately from the first, and though it might be clear in one particular case that they were not cognate, it might be very difficult to determine, in another case, whether or not they were sufficiently akin as to rank as one. It seems to me that convenience and clearness would be well served merely by numbering the Acts, and as this is the first amending Act, let it go as No. 1.
Is Deputy Johnson moving his amendment?
No.
Amendment not moved.