Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Jul 1925

Vol. 5 No. 13

CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT No. 1) BILL, 1925—COMMITTEE STAGE.

Sections 1 and 2 put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

This Act may be cited as the Constitution (Amendment No. 1) Act, 1925.

Mr. BROWN

I move:—

Before Section 3 to insert a new section as follows:—

"The Constitution shall be and is hereby amended by the deletion at the end of Article 34 of the words ‘Provided that the sixteenth member shall be deemed to have filled the vacancy first created in order of time and so on' and the substitution therefor of the words, ‘Provided that the sixteenth member shall be deemed to have filled the vacancy created by the death or withdrawal of the Senator, or one of the Senators, the unexpired period of whose term of office was greatest at the time of the election and so on.'"

The object of the amendment is to amend the Constitution in a matter that affects the order in which certain of the Senators who will be elected at the triennial elections will fill the vacancies. As Article 34 of the Constitution stands at present it reads as follows. It is a proviso at the end of Article 34:—"Provided that the sixteenth member shall be deemed to have filled the vacancy first created in order of time," and so on. At present it would or might work very unfairly as regards members after the fifteenth who are elected to the remaining vacancies. As it stands, the person who comes sixteenth in the voting would get the place of the first who had fallen out and who had created a casual vacancy. It so happens at present that the first casual vacancy that would be filled would be one in which the member would be elected for nine years, and there are vacancies for which members are elected for twelve years. The result is that the person elected sixteenth would be elected for a shorter term than the person elected seventeenth or eighteenth. That, I think, was never intended and it would work out in an unjust way. The candidate who gets the most votes should be elected for the longest term. The amendment strikes out that proviso, and puts in the proviso set out in the amendment. Provision for one of the Senators is put in with the object that there might be two of them whose term is the same, and the amendment makes provision for that.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Ought it not be the unexpired period or term of office which was greatest at the time of his death or withdrawal?

Mr. BROWN

Yes.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think it should be that.

Mr. BROWN

It ought to.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

What you are aiming at is that the Senator who is elected to the sixteenth place should fill the longest period, and that would be determined by the unexpired period?

Mr. BROWN

It comes to the same thing.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

It would, but the other seems more logical.

Mr. BROWN

I am prepared to adopt your suggestion, but it would work out the same. I think it ought to be the term of election.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Very well; you have considered it and I have not.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I have nothing to urge against the principle or the soundness of the amendment, which is perfectly reasonable. An anomaly exists in the fact that as the Constitution stands the sixteenth elected candidate might have only a three years period, whereas the seventeenth elected may have a six, or even a nine years' period. Therefore I admit immediately the soundness of the amendment. My objection is on somewhat different grounds. It is our view that every amendment of the Constitution ought to be dealt with in a separate Bill, except in so far as consequential amendments would be involved. We would not, for instance, consider it good business to amend Article 35 of the Constitution, which deals with money bills, and in the same Bill deal with Article 14, which bears on the question of the franchise. This Bill was introduced for one purpose. It makes it clear that the panel can be formed, and the voting take place before the 6th December, that is before the date on which the vacancies actually occur. Consequential to that it provides that a Senator elected to fill a casual vacancy after the panel is formed will stay in office for six years after the 6th December. That is in the scope of the Bill, and that is covered by the long title of the Bill. The subject matter of Senator Brown's amendment is different, and is not necessarily or inherently connected with the provisions of the Bill itself. It has no reference to the date of the elections, or the date of the panel, and it does not, I submit, fall within the long title of the Bill, which is our first proposed amendment of the Constitution. I put it on that basis. I admit the anomaly, and consider that it ought to be met, but that it ought to be met otherwise than in this Bill. It ought to be met by separate legislation. For a period of eight years from the time from which the Constitution came into effect it might be altered by ordinary legislation, and there are many matters in the practical working of the Constitution which have struck us at any rate as requiring consideration. One can feel that before, and possibly long before, the eight-year period will have expired, a Committee of some kind will have set to work to examine the Constitution and to see in what respect it seems to call for alteration. Here undoubtedly there is a flaw, an anomaly, that ought to be met in some comprehensive measure dealing with the points of the Constitution that have come under unfavourable notice, but I do not think it ought to be met in this Bill.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I agree with the Minister that it is highly undesirable to introduce a large number of different matters in one Bill which amends the Constitution. I am in agreement with that, but I fail to follow his arguments in view of the fact that in the second Section of the Constitution (Amendment No. 1) Bill it actually alters the term of the holding of office by certain co-opted members under certain circumstances. In doing that we are dealing with a matter which at least is sufficiently close to the main object of the Bill. It seems to me that the aim of the Bill is to remedy certain defects, and to remove certain anomalies and difficulties that might arise as regards a person who had been co-opted a member of the Seanad after the panel was chosen. The amendment seems to me to be similar in so far as it deals with an obvious anomaly. If we were to look at this from the reverse point of view, and if some member were to introduce next January or February a special Bill to do what it is desired to do in the amendment, he would be asked by many persons: "Why didn't you do it last June or July, when you had the opportunity on a similar Bill?" I do not think myself that the difference in the term of office as regards the sixteenth, seventeenth, or eighteenth is a matter of great importance. It may be that the Senator who has moved this amendment may find after the elections that he has suffered from this. I think it is an anomaly, and that we ought to take this opportunity of righting it.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I would ask the Senator who moved the amendment, under what portion of the title is it relevant? I am not excluding the amendment on that account, but if it passed it would require an alteration in the title.

Mr. BROWN

I respectfully agree, and I was drafting a necessary alteration in the title.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

In reply to what Senator Douglas has said, this Bill was brought in really to meet the administration requirements in view of the forthcoming elections to this House, and because the counting of the votes, and so on, would take some considerable time, and it would be undesirable to have a period during which the Oireachtas would not be properly and fully constituted. We decided to seek power to hold the elections on a date before which the vacancies would actually occur. That is the main object of the Bill. In seeking that power we had to envisage a period after the formation of the panel, and before the elections, and to realise that within that period a casual vacancy might occur, but therein lies the relevancy to the concluding portion of Section 2, to which Senator Douglas drew attention:

"A person who, after the day appointed by law for the completion of the formation of the panel of candidates and before the conclusion of the three years period running on that day, is chosen under Article 34."

That would be as between to-day and the 6th December next. If a vacancy were filled under Article 34 of the Constitution "caused by the death, resignation or disqualification of a member of the Seanad, other than a member about to retire at the conclusion of the said period shall hold office until the conclusion of the next three years' period and shall then retire." It does seem to me that if you accept the position that there is any need to hold an election before the vacancy actually occurs, then you have to contemplate that possibly a casual vacancy arising, and having to be filled during that period, and then how long is that person to be a member of the Seanad. Specific provision was made for that, and it comes more naturally under the Bill rather than the subject matter of Senator Brown's amendment.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I intended to make the point that there is a great deal to be said in favour of making this amendment right at the beginning, and not after the first election when certain anomalies have been introduced, and certain members will have benefited or lost thereby. If you get it done now it would be much better than doing it between the coming election and the final election.

Mr. BROWN

The Minister has admitted that this is an amendment that ought to be made in the Constitution. It is only a question of when it should be made. It deals with the subject matter of the Bill, and there is nothing outside the proper scope of the Bill. I suggest that the title may be added to—the long title—by making an alteration in it, that the sixteenth and subsequently elected members shall be deemed to have filled, etc. If you add that to the title you get this amendment provided for. I would suggest that it would be better to make this alteration at the beginning of things and before we have the election.

Mr. de LOUGHRY

I support the amendment. If we are to bring this change into effect it is better that we should do it now. I had an amendment on similar lines, and I discussed the matter some time ago with the vice-Chairman, and he told me that if I attempted to alter the Constitution in any way he did not know what would happen. Now that there is a Bill before us it is possible to remove this anomaly, and I think the Minister should try to meet this amendment.

Amendment put and carried.

Question—"That Clause 3 as amended, and Clause 4, stand part of the Bill"—put, and agreed to.

Question—"That the Title stand part of the Bill"—proposed.

Mr. BROWN

I move that the title be amended by adding to it the following words: "and make an alteration in the vacancies which the sixteenth and subsequently elected members shall be deemed to have filled." You will find that follows the wording of the present proviso in Article 34 of the Constitution, and perhaps you ought to add "elected in each triennial election." It would probably be implied, but it would be better to add that.

Amendment put, and agreed to. Bill ordered to be reported.