Perhaps it would be necessary, in connection with this Bill, to say a word as to the intentions of the Government. The Bill is introduced to enable the lifetime of Parliament to be prolonged for a period of five years. I should say that that is our conception as to what the length of a particular Parliament ought to be. The Bill went to the Dáil with the figure of five years, and there it was suggested that in the Constitution there might perhaps be a greater latitude on the basis that the electoral law would provide a five years' Parliament. It was stated that conceivably, running towards the end of the fifth year, a situation might arise which would render it desirable to extend by some period at any rate the lifetime of Parliament, and that it might be wise to put six years in the Constitution on the undertaking that the electoral law would provide only for a five years' Parliament. We, consequently, made an amendment in the Bill fixing the maximum at six years and giving an undertaking in the Dáil, which we give here, that the period named in the electoral law will in fact be five years. If a situation arose rendering it necessary or highly desirable that Parliament should sit longer than five years it would be easier to alter the electoral law—to put through the Dáil and the Seanad a Bill amending the electoral law—than perhaps to alter the Constitution, because only after a period of eight years can the Constitution be altered, and we are now altering it by means of ordinary legislation.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT No. 4) BILL, 1926—SECOND STAGE.
Will this Bill have the effect of altering the periods at which large sections of Senators go out?
CATHAOIRLEACH
It does not touch them at all.
On the assumption that you have triennial elections for the Seanad in the future and Dáil elections every five years, then in the year 1937—ten years hence—you will have two elections falling in the one year. I think that would be very undesirable.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You think, Senator, that the country could not stand two elections in the one year?
What ground has the Senator for assuming that every Dáil will last five years?
I said on the assumption.
I think Senator O'Farrell may make his mind easy that that contingency will be met in another way.
I do not at all agree with the period in this Bill, and I do not know why this should be done. A Committee was appointed to draw up the Constitution and it decided on four years. What has put it into people's minds that the period should be changed to five years I do not know except perhaps that Ministers may like a little longer run for their money.
That is unfair, because this Bill does not apply to the present Parliament at all.
No, but Ministers are predicting that they will be returned again this time. We all know that after a little bit that whatever Ministry is in—whether this Ministry or any other, and whether in England or in any other country—the country gets tired of its Ministers and wants a change. I think that the people should have the opportunity of doing that. I think, too, that that tired feeling comes about the fourth year. I might say that I am speaking now in a purely non-partisan way. I do not know that the Ministers will be returned again this time. It is quite possible that they will not. It may perhaps be the party to which I belong that may have to go out in five years' time. I do not take a partisan view of this matter at all. I think, however, that four years is quite long enough for the lifetime of Parliament. About the end of that time Ministers and the country get tired. I am in favour of the present period of four years, and I say that quite apart from any party feeling in the matter.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Between now and the Committee Stage of this Bill, I would suggest to the Minister to consider a very serious matter that has occurred to me with regard to its phraseology. Remember that we ought to be very careful in our wording where we are dealing with an alteration in the Constitution. Section 1 reads:—"The Constitution shall be and is hereby amended." Now, if that stood alone the effect of it would be that on the date of the passing of this Act the Constitution would be ipso facto amended, but that construction is contradicted by the second clause, which says the Act is not to come into operation until some indefinite date. While the Act is hung up until some indefinite date, nevertheless the first clause has amended the Constitution. It seems to me that that is an oversight. I would suggest to the Minister that on the Committee Stage he ought to bring in an amendment to Section 1, somewhat on these lines: “The Constitution shall be as from the date of this Act coming into operation amended,” and leave out the words “is hereby amended,” because if you leave the words as they are you have a direct contradiction between the first clause and the last clause. The Bill, according to the first clause, amends the Constitution automatically when it passes, but it is not to come into operation till an indefinite date. But meanwhile the Constitution has been amended. I think that has been overlooked, and perhaps the Minister may think the matter of sufficient importance, and do something with it on the Committee Stage of the Bill in this House.