I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." It is not necessary, I think, to spend much time on this Bill. It is simply to remove from Article 3 certain restrictive words which created, or purported to create, a local citizenship in the sense that the privileges and obligations of a citizen were within the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State; in other words, this Article 3 is of a limited and local character. In practice, of course, it was not so. The strict terms of this were never in fact adhered to and the object of the Bill is simply to make the Constitution comformable to the practice by deleting the limiting words of the Article.
In Committee. - Constitution (Amendment No. 26) Bill, 1934—Second Stage.
Has the President been advised that these words have a limiting effect?
We have.
Has the President been advised they have a limiting effect?
Clearly the words themselves, every person, etc., who conforms to certain conditions is a citizen of the Free State and "shall within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) enjoy the privileges and be subject to the obligations of such citizenship" have a very plain meaning. They purport to limit the area in which these privileges shall be enjoyed to a certain area—the area of the jurisdiction of Saorstát Eireann. The object of the Bill, whatever may be held to be the extent of the limitation, is to remove it. In any case, even if by some construction the words could be held not to have a limiting effect, I think they should not be there.
Of course, nobody objects to this measure, but to my mind it is rather futile. I should like to know who has stood over the definite statement that these words have a limiting effect. The President dodges that and says they have a plain meaning. The word "only" is not there. It is not "shall only within the limits." What is it that is marked out? The enjoyment of privileges and being subject to obligations. That, of course, will be governed by the law—the law affecting whatever these privileges and obligations are. Remember that Article 12 gives the Government of the Irish Free State the right to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the country. Surely these words give an extra-territorial effect to the laws of the country. If they do, surely our nationality laws have an extra-territorial effect, and there is no limit by reason of this. If the word "only" was put in there might be some reason in saying that a definite construction must be put on it. I never heard a doubt raised about it, and I should like to hear of a case in which a doubt was raised.
I have never heard anybody, except the Deputy, who would attempt to maintain that interpretation. What is the use of putting in these words? Why were they there at all? Surely they had some purpose.
And that view is maintained in the teeth of quite a number of constitutional lawyers, and none has denied it.
I do not know what views the Deputy may have been able to get to maintain that they are in the teeth of anybody. It is quite possible to hold an opinion no matter what views may be expressed to the contrary.
The important words I used were: "Nobody denied it."
In any case, personally I regard it as a complete straining of the Article, and I see no reason, when we have power to delete the words, why they should continue to remain.
I am not objecting, but I think it is futile.
We are not a court of law going to try any particular interpretation that may be suggested.
Question put and agreed to.
When will the Committee Stage be taken?
To-night.
I have no objection if the Dáil is prepared to take all the stages now.
Put it through; it is not worth talking about.