Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Oct 1928

Vol. 26 No. 1

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (No. 7) BILL, 1928—COMMITTEE.

The Dáil went into Committee.

SECTION I.

Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. LEMASS

In view of the attitude which this Party took up upon this Bill on Second Reading, we intend to oppose the inclusion of this particular section. Section 1 of the Bill proposes to reduce the term of office of Senators from 12 to 9 years. When we opposed the Second Reading of the Bill, we were informed by the President and others on the Benches opposite that we were opposing the reduction of the term of office of Senators. Of course that was inaccurate, as most of the statements made from the Benches opposite are. When the Bill, therefore, comes before us on Committee Stage we have an opportunity of singling out this particular section and there can be no confusion caused by the fact that we are opposing it on this occasion. We are opposed to this section of the Bill not because it proposes to reduce the term of office of Senators, but because it does not reduce that term sufficiently. We believe, and have expressed our belief, that if we must have a Seanad the term of office should not exceed six years. The advisability of not increasing the term beyond that period becomes much stronger in view of the altered system of election. We believe that if any effective control is to be exercised over those appointed to the Seanad it can only be done by holding over them the possibility of their removal at the end of a period which will not be too long. A person elected for nine years, no matter what other provision you make, will feel himself independent of public opinion or the opinion of the Dáil for a considerable portion of that time. He knows that no matter what he may do during the first five or six years of that period it will very likely be forgotten when the question of re-election comes forward. We will have as a result of this section, if it is passed, an aggravation of the evils which we have at present to endure in respect of the Seanad. We have had a very considerable number of the members of that body showing absolute indifference to the duties which membership places upon them; and the cause of that was no doubt the fact that the period of twelve years was in the Constitution. Reducing that period to nine years, does not remove the cause of the evil; it should be reduced to, at least, five or six years.

We do not think that the term of office of Senators should exceed the maximum term of office of a member of the Dáil. We, therefore, intend to oppose this section. We hope that Deputies on the Benches opposite who profess to desire to see a vigorous, active and useful Seanad will realise that their desire is much more likely to be accomplished by the adoption of our suggestion than by that contained in the Bill.

Mr. DAVIN

We are favourable to the suggestion contained in the section, and are prepared to go further and agree with Deputy Lemass to reduce the period to six years if necessary. I suggest to Deputy Lemass that if he has views on the lines of the speech to which we have just listened, in favour of the reduction of the period of office to six years, the right road to follow is to vote for the nine years. If he felt so disposed, an amendment might be brought in, and we would be prepared to support him to reduce it further to the period of six years he mentions.

Mr. FLINN

My difficulty in relation to these good people up above is that there seems to be very great difficulty in finding out what they have to do or who intends to do it. You have them functioning there now for a number of years. They seem to meet sometimes for an hour. Officially they are sometimes adjourned for a fortnight or three weeks. They are sometimes waiting for months, apparently, with nothing to do, and when that very small modicum of work which they have to do is offered to them, the attendance as a body is very small, and the attendance of individuals is scandalous. Under the present arrangement, once you have bought a pig in a poke you have got to live with him for this period. If they do not attend— some of them have shown quite frankly that they do not intend to attend—we have no means of dealing with them. If we had as a record of this House that these people did ordinarily attend and pay attention to business, and that they did not merely just turn up when some particular interest came up in which they were concerned; if we had a record that they attended to their business over the period of office which they have had there might be some reason at any rate to give them an extension of the period in which their action would be without review in this matter. But having regard to the fact that a certain number apparently hardly attend at all and that the average of them do not make even a reasonable attempt to do the very small amount of work that apparently comes their way, then if the lowest possible limit the period during which they can disregard their duties and treat with contempt the functions to which they were appointed and the Dáil which they are apparently appointed to supervise and control and delay.

When we have the President here, in relation to this and other Bills, saying that they have to introduce for these gentlemen a compensation for disturbance in the vested interest, which this House is engaged in extending, in their power to interfere with and delay legislation of this House it is time, and more than time, that we reduced the period of their office to the smallest possible limit. Nine years has been proposed, six years has been proposed. How about three years? Why three years on their record of non-attendance? Why three years or two years or one year of the continuance of their vested interest as declared by the front bench opposite, in the power they have to restrict and restrain the activities of this House? Why should they have nine years? Why should they have twelve years? Why should they have vested interest for one single minute in the power to hold up for twenty and, if they are sufficiently ingenious, nearly thirty months the legislation of this House? Why should they be given a period of office which would enable them, by picking a particular moment during the lifetime of the Dáil, to sterilise completely the activities of the Dáil unless and until they had forced the people to dissolve? Personally I think it is an outrageous thing that a House so constituted, claiming through the mouth of the President a vested interest and a right to compensation for disturbance of vested interest in their power to interfere with this House and to delay its legislation, should be given this office. I for one will vote for the shortest period that anyone has the face to propose as the period of office in the other House.

The PRESIDENT

We have got a great lecture, lasting about seven, eight, nine or ten minutes, and one could conclude nothing else from it than that the person who gave it is a man of remarkable ability and capacity. But what are the facts? This is a measure which reduces the term of office of Senators from twelve to nine years. That is the measure, and the Party opposite were disposed to oppose it the last time it was here until I informed them what it was, and, having explained it so clearly that they quite understood that it was a reduction in the period of office from twelve to nine years, they said: "Yes; we like that. We would like it better if it were six years, and we would like it better still if it were three years." The Deputy who has spoken could have made a better speech if he had put down an amendment to reduce the period from nine to six years, but he did not do so. He either forgot or was incapable of doing so, and he is constrained to vote for a period of nine instead of twelve years.

Mr. FLINN

Fortunately or unfortunately, the Rules of the House give an opportunity of talking three times in Committee. That was one of the reasons why I deprived the House, with that haste which is unusual with me, for seven minutes of the pleasure of hearing the oration which has received great commendation from my temporary colleague in Cork. The fact of the matter is, An Dáil or Peadar Doyle, it does not matter the toss of a coin what we put down. From our experience of this House and of the debates on this Bill it does not matter the toss of a coin what argument we put forward. All we have to do is to deal with the majority which introduces these Bills and slings them at the head of the House without reason, without justification, without argument. Any amendment that was offered when it was not ruled out was blown out by the majority. Will the President say that it would make the slightest difference if we brought forward an amendment for a three-year period? Is he not fooling, or trying to fool, us and is he not making a mistake in attempting to try fooling on his colleague from Cork?

It is not what I do, it is not what I know, it is not what I neglect, which matters. It is the three men from Trinity College. It is the indication of appreciation. It is the men bankrupt of intelligence, bankrupt of initiative— very useful in relation to a series of legislation which abandons the initiative. It is those people—Deputy Cooper. That is the thing that matters. It is not whether I put down an amendment or not. Why should I waste the valuable paper and printing of this House by putting down an amendment which might just as well be left in my portfolio at home? He knows it. He is just fooling. That is the plain English of it. Look back over the whole of this discussion and ask yourselves if there has been any honest attempt, any pretence of attempt, by the President or any man on his bench to justify by argument the whole body of these Bills which they have thrown out. What justification has been offered to any of you—except Peadar Doyle? What justification, what evidence, what argument except "we have the majority"? Is not that argument overwhelimingly strong against me wasting my time in writing down an amendment which not An Dáil but Peadar Doyle will decide?

The PRESIDENT

Now we have heard the explanation why the Deputy did not put down an amendment. I suppose it is quite clear.

Mr. FLINN

I am extremely sorry that I did not hear what was said.

The PRESIDENT

I think the Deputy will be able to read it if he did not hear it.

Mr. FLINN

Yes, but if I am to answer the casual interruptions, the little odd contributions to the discussion on constitutional questions which we get from the President, they ought to be intelligible. I do not expect them to be intelligent. We ought to be able to hear what he says to the Chair. It is not a private conversation, and if he has any answer to make to what I have said, that the question is not whether I should have put down an amendment but whether it was any use, having regard to our experience of the contempt with which the President and his body have treated the House in relation to the whole of these Constitution Amendment Bills, he ought to have said it in a way which could be heard. He knows as well as I, everyone in the House knows, that it is waste of time for us to attempt to amend this thing because this is part of the foolish, bad and corrupt bargain which has been made by the President and the other House by which, in consideration of the fact that they allow in certain ways their vested interests in interfering with the liberty and authority of this House to be interfered with, he will give them definite compensation. He could not do it if he tried. He told us himself— we did not invent the phrase. He came here and told us that that House ought to receive compensation. He got up and told us that it was not in money— an amazing sort of interruption that was intelligible though it was thoroughly unintelligent. You are dealing in all these Bills with a bargain between the President of the Executive Council of the Free State and certain forces in this country which govern and control the President of the Executive Council of the Free State. It is waste of time for us to put down amendments which will be beaten simply by a majority and which will not be tackled by argument.

The PRESIDENT

That is the second explanation we have heard as to why an amendment to reduce the term of office from nine to six years has not been put down. It is perfectly clear now why the Deputy did not put it down. It is getting clearer every time.

Mr. DE VALERA

We have already pointed out our objection on Second Reading to this particular aspect. We have said that no argument has been put forward by the speakers who spoke on the last occasion as to why the period of nine years should be kept. If you look at the period of office in other countries where there are Senates, you find, for example, that the United States has a period of only six years, that in Belgium Senators have a period of office of only four years, in the Netherlands a period of six years, in Australia a period of six years, and in New Zealand a period of seven years. We made out a positive case for having the period not more than six, but, as Deputy Flinn has pointed out, seeing the attitude of the Executive on this matter, there is very little use in going to the trouble of putting down an amendment to a Bill of this kind, particularly where the moment you change the period you have a whole lot of consequential changes that would also have to be worked out. It is quite obvious that people are not going to go to the trouble of working out these consequential changes when they know that they are talking to the air, that the Executive have made up their minds that they are going to push this thing through as they did other Bills without any reason behind it except that it is their policy. No other reason has been given to us.

We are quite prepared to formulate and put down an amendment on the Report Stage fixing the period at six years. I hope that we will get for that the support of those who want reason in this thing and who are not satisfied with the statement simply that it is the policy of the Executive. As I have said the reason why six years was considered a fair period was given on Second Reading, and it should not be necessary to stress it at this stage. Why a longer period than six years should have been selected we do not know. We understand, of course, that it gives a certain amount of conservatism and continuity of office, etc., but there are serious objections to it which we pointed out. Not one of these objections has been met. Our position in regards to this Bill is exactly what it was. We intend definitely to vote against this section, even though our opposition would appear to be throwing the period back to twelve years. We will at least do this. We will not allow this particular thing to go in this particular way.

The PRESIDENT

It is perfectly clear now. Deputy Flinn has been overruled by his Leader, who says that he will put down a motion on the Report Stage. That is at least an advance on the attitude of saying that it is stupid to argue against this Bill while attempting to do it.

Mr. DE VALERA

I might point out that if the Labour Members are prepared to support a motion of that kind there is some hope of carrying it.

Mr. DAVIN

I am absolutely convinced, speaking for myself, that there is every reason and every justification for the shortening of the existing period of office of Senators and for a shortening of the period laid down in this section of the Bill. I took the liberty of asking, although I was not quite sure whether I was entitled to it, for certain information regarding the manner in which the Seanad had discharged its work for the past three years. That information was declined and I was forced into the position of having to spend several hours yesterday going through the official records of the Seanad in order to satisfy myself of the efforts these people have made in the past three years to justify their existence and the existence of the Seanad. I find that there were 103 meetings since the last Seanad election and the number of hours devoted to work of national importance was 274. In other words, the average length of the Seanad meetings held during that time was two hours and thirty-nine minutes. For the work performed the taxpayers of the State have had to find £74,390. Assuming that every Senator attended at each of the 103 meetings which were held, which is not the case, the taxpayers would have to pay each Senator at the rate of £4 10s. per hour. We know that every Senator was not present at the meetings that were held during that period and that the average attendance was actually forty out of sixty members for the three years. On that basis the payment of Senators would appear to be £6 15s. per hour. I am satisfied that the taxpayers, as far as my constituency is concerned at any rate, are not prepared to stand that nonsense any longer. Speaking for myself. I am in favour of a Second Chamber, but I am not prepared to state here and now the type of Chamber which I would be prepared to support. I am prepared to stand for a revisionary Second Chamber with a right to initiate legislation. The Seanad has a right of initiating legislation under the present Constitution, but they have made no attempt whatever to do it or to discuss matters in that Assembly which might educate the electors of the country by trying to get the mind of the country on to questions of national importance. That is due absolutely to the type of men you have in that Chamber, and I am therefore in favour of shortening the existing period of office to the very minimum so that we may in the future get into that Chamber a type of men who will do honour to the nation.

Question put.

The Committee divided:— Tá, 72; Níl, 53.

Tá.

• Aird, William P.
• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Coburn, James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margaret.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
• Corish, Richard.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Crowley, James.
• Daly, John.
• Davin, William.
• De Loughrey, Peter.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Esmonde, Osmond Thomas Grattan.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Leonard, Patrick.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James E.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
• O'Reilly, John J.
• O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, William Archer.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Shaw, Patrick W.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• White, John.
• White, Vincent Joseph.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl.

• Allen, Denis.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Broderick, Henry.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carney, Frank.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Clery, Michael.
• Colohan, Hugh.
• Cooney, Eamon.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doyle, Edward.
• Everett, James.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• French, Seán.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Holt, Samuel.
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kent, William R.
• Kerlin, Frank.
• Killane, James Joseph.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Maguire, Ben.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Mullins, Thomas.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Leary, William.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• Powell, Thomas P.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
• Smith, Patrick.
• Tubridy, John.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl, Deputies MacEntee and Cassidy.

Question declared carried.

Question: That Section 2 stand part of the Bill put.

Mr. DE VALERA

Our attitude towards Section 2 is consequential to our attitude towards Section 1.

Ordered: That Section 2 stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed: That Section 3 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. LEMASS

When this Bill was receiving its Second Reading in the House I made a very valuable suggestion which I thought the Government might have adopted. I suggested that instead of Section 3 of this Bill, as it now appears, they should merely insert a clause to the effect that the manner in which the Seanad election of 1928 would be carried out would be determined by law and then have inserted in the Seanad Electoral Bill or some other Act the necessary provisions to make that possible. If they had done that they would have saved themselves a very considerable amount of trouble into which I think they are now walking. In the first place, it is a rather extraordinary procedure to adopt the necessary sections in the Constitution which have only a very temporary importance and which will become obsolete after the expiration of a few months. For those who profess they have any respect for the Constitution it is a particularly extraordinary procedure because it will mean that in time that document would become of interest only to historians who are anxious to find out the particular steps which the Government took, from time to time, to preserve the continuity of their existence. But in the section as it now appears here certain provisions are made and to any person who examines these provisions, even casually, there will appear at once to be consequences which are not provided for. In paragraph (a) for example it is stated "the first five members so elected shall hold office for nine years." Then the second Section provides so many of the members so elected after such first five members as are necessary to fill additional vacancies because of the death, resignation or disqualification of Senators who are due to retire in the year 1937 shall also hold office for nine years. The next five, however, shall only hold office for six years. There is an important distinction between these two classes and it is important to provide that there shall be no confusion as to what successful candidates were or were not amongst the first five. I thought that provision would be made in the Seanad Electoral Bill or some other measure to ensure for example that in the event of an equality of votes between the fifth and sixth candidate some machinery would be devised to distinguish the fifth from the sixth.

General MULCAHY

So it is.

Mr. LEMASS

I have searched the Seanad Electoral Bill very carefully.

General MULCAHY

When we come to the Seanad Electoral Bill we will help the Deputy.

Mr. LEMASS

I would be very glad. I have searched carefully the Bill and found no provision which meets the situation adequately, and the same applies to Section 5. The machinery set up to distinguish between the candidates who got an equality of first preference votes and who would be tying for either the first fifth or the second fifth seat is not adequate, and there is going to be confusion. We think that this particular section, particularly in the manner in which it appears here, is an indication, as is also the next section, of the hasty and ill-considered manner in which the Government produced these Bills. It would be much better from the point of view of the Government and the Dáil and, I might add, from the point of view of the Constitution, if what I have suggested on the Second Reading was adopted, and if the Government are prepared to adopt it now we are prepared to facilitate them and let them withdraw the Bill.

The PRESIDENT

I think the Deputy is slightly exaggerating when he states that the Bill was hastily prepared. This was certainly one of the most technical sections of all the Constitution (Amendment) Bills which have been introduced, and it is absolutely watertight. As the Deputy knows, the number of vacancies normally arising under the present system is fifteen at each triennial period. Under this system twenty would go out triennially, having a nine-year term of office. Fifteen are already in office for nine years, having been elected in 1924, and having a twelve years' term of office. They were elected for twelve years. In order to fit in the new arrangement of the nine five have got to be added to the fifteen so entitled by the election of 1924 to run for a term of office of twelve years, and no interference was made in connection with that particular point. So down along the fitting in of the next period is so arranged that those who had a six years' period can be added to the number so as to allow twenty to go out in the following election and then twenty are left for nine years hence. It is obvious that while in ordinary circumstances one might not like to have the Constitution burdened with such an amount of detail, as a matter of historical knowledge and accuracy it is advisable that the thing should be stated plainly and distinctly so that there may not be any possible misunderstanding of the position.

As regards the other matter that the Deputy touched upon, Section 13, sub-section (2) of the Seanad Electoral Bill will settle the point with regard to the possibility of two persons having an equal number of votes. That, however, falls for consideration when that matter comes up.

Mr. LEMASS

It will, but I do not think that section provides for it.

Mr. FLINN

I have assumed, rightly or wrongly, that my colleague, Deputy Lemass, is a moderately reasonable and intelligent man, reasonably capable of reading a Bill and of understanding it. The fact that he is in the position that he is means that not merely his colleagues, but a very great body of people in this country think the same of him, that he is reasonably competent, perhaps something more than averagely reasonably competent. Yet we have the fact that making an honest attempt to understand this Bill he does not clearly understand it. I do not want to speak of my own interpretation. I am in the same position as Deputy Lemass, and I find it very difficult to bring the drafting of this Bill within the definition which the President predicated for drafting Bills in relation to Constitution matters, that they should be so pellucidly clear that there could be no doubt or misunderstanding as to their meaning. We are not by any means satisfied that an attempt has been made to make these Bills as clear as they could have been made. We had the example in relation to the people who were to elect the Seanad. It was possible to put the qualifications of those who were actually going to elect in this case from the Seanad in language which was unmistakable.

And yet apparently they deliberately chose that. I do not think it was mere casual idleness and neglect—they apparently deliberately chose to put that particular Bill in such a form that it was certainly not easy for the ordinarily intelligent man to find out what it meant. I say quite sincerely in this House that if I had not had in my hands the report of the Committee which went into the constitutional changes and the recommendations of that Committee, and unless I presumed that the Bill as they drafted it was intended to carry out those recommendations, I would not have known who it was was going to elect those people. What I am suggesting to the House quite plainly is that there is a lot of loose drafting in these Bills. You have cases now before the Court in connection with the Licensing Act, an Act drafted by the Minister for Justice. That Act was very carefully considered apparently, and yet it now turns out that the Act was so badly drafted and is so unintelligible, so controversial as to its obvious meaning, that your own judges are differing as to its meaning, and you are having the District Justices in one case sending up one licensed house for removal compensation and holding themselves estopped under that Act from sending up more. Assuming for a moment that you disregard the intelligence of the ordinary member of Fianna Fáil during the reading of these Bills, your own judges, the people whom you appoint to interpret the law, professional interpreters of the law, are being offered laws so badly drafted that they are in definite antagonism to each other as to the meaning of this legislation. You have a judge saying: "I will do a certain thing——"

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Will the Deputy come to Section 3?

Mr. FLINN

I am giving this as an example of the point that we suggest that these Bills are not carefully drafted——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy must come to Section 3.

Mr. FLINN

Very well. It is then that this thing, intelligible or unintelligible, has got to be swallowed.

The PRESIDENT

Perhaps I might be permitted to draw Deputy Lemass's attention to Article 82 of the Constitution, where I think he will find under sub-section (d) it is mentioned that a certain number of Senators shall hold office for a term of three, six, nine and twelve years. That is in the Constitution, and obviously there is an alteration being made which is putting it perfectly clear as to the number who will hold office for nine years. That is perhaps the main reason why this Bill is drafted as it is.

Mr. LEMASS

It is obvious that the President has not understood the trend of my remarks. It is probably my fault. I can quite understand the necessity for a procedure of this kind in order to get over the intervening period in the period of their term of office of the newly-elected Senators. What I do say is, there is no adequate provision in the Seanad Electoral Bill to ensure that under any conceivable circumstances there will not be a doubt as to who is to constitute the first five members elected. It is quite possible under the Seanad Electoral Bill in its present form that there may be ground for dispute as to whether the person elected sixth, seventh or eighth may be elected for nine years.

General MULCAHY

Would the Deputy accept it for the purposes of this Bill that Section 2 of the Schedule to the Seanad Bill, plus Section 8 dealing with the transferable surplus, plus Section 13 dealing with the order of election, contain the most adequate machinery for eliminating any shadow of doubt in any mind as to the order in which the different persons will be elected in the Seanad election?

Mr. LEMASS

I will argue that with the Minister when we come to the Bill.

General MULCAHY

But will you accept it?

Mr. FLINN

Why should we accept it?

General MULCAHY

Why should we not go on telling each other stories to keep ourselves occupied here?

Mr. FLINN

Why should we accept that as certain from the Minister, having regard to the fact that the Bills and Acts sent out into the country are not intelligible to his own judges?

Mr. LEMASS

And particularly in view of the amendment which is set down to the next section.

General MULCAHY

Will the Deputy take it that, assuming that what he says is correct as regards ourselves, the Bill will come before him and his Party and they can add whatever is necessary in order to make it clear even to the meanest intelligence?

Mr. LEMASS

But look at the amendment to the next section, and then we will know all about careless drafting.

Question—"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Article 34 of the Constitution shall be and is hereby amended by the deletion of the word "sixteenth" now contained therein and the insertion of the words "twenty-first" in lieu of the word so deleted.

Mr. DUGGAN

I beg to move the following amendment:—

In line 26, after the word "deletion" to insert the words "of the word fifteen now contained therein and the insertion of the word "twenty" in lieu of the word "so deleted and by the deletion."

It is consequential to Article 32, which is amended by Section 2 of the Bill, which in turn provides that one-third, and not one-fourth, of the members of Seanad Eireann shall be enacted under that Article. There seems to be a slight misprint in the drafting of the amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. LEMASS

This is a new one.

Mr. DUGGAN

Some of the commas seem to have slipped out. The word "fifteen" in line two should be in inverted commas, and the comma before the word "so" in the third line should not be there. I do not know who is responsible for that.

The PRESIDENT

Is it perfectly clear now?

Mr. LEMASS

Perfectly clear and well drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5 and the Title put and agreed to.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Bill reported, with one amendment.

Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 17th October.