Section I makes the formal arrangement for the deletion of existing matter and the insertion of new matter in the Constitution. The details of the new matter are contained in the Schedule. A debate on Section I would inevitably be repeated to a very large extent in a debate on the Schedule. The Chair cannot permit duplication of debate. Accordingly it is proposed that the question on Section I should not be the subject of debate but that on the question "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill" debate should cover the proposal to delete the existing matter and to substitute the provisions contained in the Schedule. The Schedule is selected rather than the section since a number of amendments are tabled to the Schedule. I presume this course is agreeable to the House.
An Bille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht—An Coiste. Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958—Committee Stage.
Does that mean that following the debate on the Schedule and arising from whatever decision the House may come to on the Schedule the section can be reconsidered.
The Schedule will be put to the House.
But on the Report Stage the Schedule could be reconsidered?
The Schedule will be put to the House after the amendments to the Schedule have been considered by the House.
And following the Committee Stage discussion on the Schedule, the section could be reconsidered on Report?
Yes.
Might I make this point? Section I proposes particular amendments and the insertion of other things which appear on the Schedule. If Deputies feel, as I feel, that there should be no amendment surely I am entitled to make that case on Section 1? I do not want Section I to go through and I do not want to be put in the position of Section I being passed and then having to see what form of Schedule is——
Of course the Deputy may vote against it.
I shall vote against it but I also want to speak against it.
What I want to prevent and what I am sure the House wants to prevent is that there should be duplication of debate on the section and on the Schedule, and it seems to me that it would be impossible to avoid that if we are going to discuss Section I and the Schedule separately.
Surely, if we pass the section, the House is faced simply with the question as to what form the Schedule will take? In other words, the House is put in the position of having agreed that there must be an alteration in the Schedule. I do not agree that that should be the position.
The House can effect any alteration it desires in the Schedule.
But if the House wants no alteration, surely the only stage at which that can be argued is when the section is under discussion.
Or the Schedule.
Would the Chair please indicate at this stage whether or not the Schedule can be discussed section by section?
There is no "section by section" procedure on the Schedule. It is a unit, like a Schedule to any Bill.
That may be so, but people may take exception to particular sections in the Schedule, whilst being in favour of other sections. Is it suggested, therefore, that all the discussion on the Schedule should take place at one time, rather than move from section to section, giving those Deputies opposed to certain sections an opportunity of speaking on them, while not requiring them to take up the time of the House on other sections?
The motion will be: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill." The various amendments will be moved before that motion and the various amendments can be discussed individually before the motion.
In the case of Deputies who have not submitted amendments to the Schedule, but still desire to discuss the Schedule they, of course, will be permitted to discuss any particular section of the Schedule on the motion?
The Schedule will fall for discussion after the amendments have been discussed, that is to say, the Schedule will be put to the House and can be discussed as a Schedule.
On Section 1, I feel it is necessary to elicit certain information. First, I believe it is necessary for us to get it clear as to whether the omnibus proposal in Section I would bring about certain circumstances in which, for example, in the case of a constituency where an election takes place and, let us say, the Fianna Fáil Party got 8,000 votes. Fine Gael got 6,000, Farmers got 5,000, Labour got 4,000 and others got 2,000, then the people who got 8,000 votes out of 25,000 votes would get the seat and be the representatives here. I want to get a clear statement as to whether that is so or not.
Secondly, Section I here, in dealing with the whole Schedule, deals with a certain number of composite things, that is, the wiping out of the multiple seat constituency, the wiping out of the single transferable vote, the importing into the Constitution of a formally set out type of commission with powers that are removed from the majority control of the Dáil and removed from the courts. I want to know whether these things are not proper to be elicited by question and answer and by a certain amount of argument on Section 1; and that Section I can be voted against without interfering with the normal discussion of the proposals to amend the Schedule.
Section I can be voted on, of course, without interfering with the procedure for discussion on the Schedule or the amendments to the Schedule. Anything that may be discussed on the section will fall for discussion on the Schedule. I am not limiting the discussion at all. What I am anxious to prevent is a duplication of discussion.
I am anxious only to ask clarifying questions as far as Section 1 is concerned, for the purpose of showing what the whole amending proposal there is intended to do. We can argue it on the Schedule.
The Deputy may, of course, put that on the Schedule.
Is Section 1 before us at the moment?
I want to know from the Chair—when we come to Section I, and with the Chair clear in its mind as to how the discussion on the Schedule and on the Bill generally should be approached—am I precluded by the Chair's ruling, or by the proposal which the Chair wishes to make on the matter, from asking any such question as I have put now with regard to the effect of the general proposals in Section 1, first, that it brings about a situation in which the 8,000 votes cast for Fianna Fáil in a 25,000 poll can get the seat, and that that fact, by the form of the Schedule and the way in which it is being presented to the voter, is mixed up and obscured with other matters which have nothing at all to do with that?
I am not preventing the Deputy from asking a question. What I want to prevent is a duplication of debate—a somewhat similar debate on the Schedule as there is or would be on the section. If the Deputy wishes to ask a question and the section then is allowed to be put without debate, all the debate that would fall on the section will take place on the Schedule.
In reply to Deputy Norton, you said that the Schedule is to be taken as one question. You have already ruled that you will not accept amendments to Clause 2 of the Schedule. Therefore, having refused to accept the amendments to Clause 2 of the Schedule, if we are to have the whole Schedule taken as one Schedule, it means that we can discuss that only in the context of the whole general Schedule. That seems to be an entirely unsatisfactory method. Surely, if we are to pass from Section I, apart from the point Deputy Michael O'Higgins makes, the method should be that we take the Schedule clause by clause. If we do not do that and you have already ruled in relation to amendments on Clause 2, there will be a chaotic debate on the Schedule itself.
No. The Schedule is always taken as a unit.
This is a peculiar Bill.
I cannot depart from precedent.
The Schedule is the Bill.
Sections 1 and 2 are, in fact, only the machinery for making the Schedule the Bill. I think there are two principles in the Bill and might I suggest that if there are two principles in the Bill, the House must get the opportunity, if it so desires, of discussing each principle separately and having a decision on each principle?
The discussion on the principle took place on the Second Stage and was decided.
Did the Chair say "the" principle?
I should be glad to know what the principle is in the view of the Chair.
The Deputy has been given it—the question of the non-transferable vote and the single member constituency. That is what I have ruled.
That makes two principles.
If the House is prepared to have the Schedule discussed clause by clause, would the Chair be prepared to allow the discussion to proceed on that basis?
The Schedule will be debated as a unit. I am not departing from the normal practice.
If the House should request you to permit a discussion on a "section by section" basis, would you be prepared to permit it, in view of the most peculiar and extraordinary circumstances surrounding this piece of legislation?
May I direct attention to this, Sir? Last night, on the Referendum Bill, we discussed the way in which the whole machinery of the Bill was being changed in order to suit this Bill. This Bill was drafted apparently to put us in the position in which we find ourselves to-day, that is, that we cannot take the separate items here in this proposal and discuss them in Committee, because, if a principle is passed in the Bill on Committee Stage, it brings us to the point in which we face one another here and, by question and answer and looking into the whites of one another's eyes, can discuss what exactly is proposed by the principle of the Bill and what the effects will be. Here we have this proposal to go before the people and, if your judgment is carried out, we are put in a position here that we cannot discuss the various issues involved.
That is an argument in respect of the Bill, not in respect of order.
I understand. Sir, you have ruled that there are two principles in this Bill: one, the single seat constituency and, two, the abolition of the non-transferable vote. May I suggest, with respect, that, having made that ruling, your ruling that you will not accept amendments to Clause 2 of the Schedule means that Deputies who might be in favour of one but against the other are not being given an opportunity of segregating their opinions? The House should be given some opportunity of expressing its views on every principle. One point of view on a principle against me was expressed and there must be an opportunity of expressing the other view.
This has been decided by the House and I cannot allow what has been decided by the House to be reopened.
We are asked to take decisions in regard to details of the Bill. At what stage in the discussion can we take a decision as to whether we agree or disagree with the introduction of the single member constituency? At what stage can we take a decision as to whether or not we favour the introduction of the non-transferable vote as against the transferable vote? At what stage can we take a decision with regard to the setting up of the commission? At what stage can we take a decision that that commission's works and actions will be outside the jurisdiction of this House and outside the jurisdiction of the courts? If this is a Parliament, then it ought to know at what point on Committee Stage it can take decisions on these three separate and unrelated items, however they may be related by the Government's policy.
Obviously, on the amendments that are set down.
May I suggest there is an amendment down to the Schedule to delete Articles 2 and 7, and I understand from the discussion that we will not be able to move that amendment so as to have the discussion on Articles 2 and 7 as separate sections of the Bill?
The Deputy can vote against the Schedule.
I want to consider particular items involved in Article 2 and particular items involved in Article 7. We are told, as a matter of order, that we cannot discuss these things separately, although we have moved to delete them from the Schedule.
That has been decided already by the House.
Is it out of order now to delete in Committee a section of a Bill that has been passed by the House? We are proposing to delete Article 2 of the Schedule and we are told that we cannot discuss that here for the purpose of removing it from the Schedule—that we cannot discuss it or vote on it.
The Deputy can discuss the Schedule.
That particular part of the Schedule?
The whole will be open for discussion.
May I put this point, Sir? If a Deputy wants to vote against a particular section of the Schedule, surely he ought to have an opportunity of doing that separately, without having to vote against the whole Schedule? He may be in favour of the bulk of the Schedule but opposed to one particular section. If it is ruled he must vote against the whole Schedule, then he is being asked to vote against something, with a substantial portion of which he agrees, in order to indicate his opposition to one particular section of the Schedule. This is a most unusual Bill. This Schedule is the Bill. There is no Bill here at all except the Schedule. It is most unusual. I have never heard a decision of the kind now given offered to the House before: that we cannot discuss the Schedule in separate sections seeing that the Schedule in this case is the vital part of the whole Bill.
A Schedule is not presented to the House in sections.
But this is an unusual Bill.
Have Deputies ever been put in the position that in order to avoid duplication, they are not allowed discuss or consider the first section of a Bill? I understand that the basis of that ruling is the fact that the substance of the Bill is contained in the Schedule. We are being put in a position that, when the House pass Section I of the Bill, we are then unable to alter the Schedule. We have to take the Schedule as a whole or reject it as a whole, notwithstanding the fact, as Deputy Norton very properly put to the House, that there may be Deputies prepared to accept portion of the Schedule but not other portions of it.
I do not consider I have any power to disintegrate or take apart the Schedule. It has not been done.
May the House consider the position in which the voter is being placed? If that is the position with regard to those who are voting on this matter in the House, are we, who are forced into that position, not constrained to take into consideration what the position of the voter will be who goes into a polling booth and has to say "Yes" or "No" to this particular——
That is a matter for the Bill.
May I put this last point? Suppose I am in favour of the constituency commission and suppose I would vote for it on the Schedule, surely because I am opposed to the abolition of the single transferable vote and want to record my vote accordingly, I should not be forced into voting against the Schedule which contains a provision of which I am in favour? Therefore, the only fair way of preserving the rights of Deputies is to give them an opportunity of voting for the part of which they are in favour and voting against whatever they are opposed to. Why should I be compelled to vote against the Schedule——
The same argument could apply to any section of any Schedule attaching to any Bill.
But this is a different Schedule altogether.
I think I had better proceed with the Bill.
I want to clarify my own position, Sir. I have an amendment down to Article 7 of the Schedule. I understand you have ruled that the Schedule must be discussed as a whole. Am I entitled to move my amendment separately and have it discussed separately?
Of course the Deputy may.
Can we have a decision on it?
Can I have a separate vote and a separate decision on it?
Yes.
That is not what I understood you to say.
May I ask will the question be put on the basis that the words proposed to be deleted by amendments will stand part of the Bill?
To what amendment is the Deputy referring?
Are all the amendments to the Bill to be smothered in the proposal that the words proposed to be deleted stand part and, when that is carried, the Schedule will then be regarded as the only thing to be voted on?
May I say that all I have taken from your decision. Sir, to-day is that, wherever amendments are in order to the Schedule, they can be discussed separately and they can be put to vote separately?
That is right.
But the first amendment has been ruled out of order.
Why did the Opposition not draw up amendments which are in order? I cannot help the Deputies.
Would the Minister help us by giving us some reason why the amendment to delete Article 2 from the Schedule is not in order?
Ask the Ceann Comhairle that.
I thought the Minister for External Affairs was trying to help the Ceann Comhairle and help us.
ALT 1.
Tairgeadh an cheist: "Go bhfanfaidh Alt 1 ina chuid den Bhille.
On the section, I wish to make some observations not in any way relevant to the question of the principles which have already, in accordance with your ruling, been established by the vote on the Second Reading, but on the form of the amendments. I want to register a protest on the particular form in which this Bill has been drafted, has been put before this House, and will be put before the people at the referendum. The House should recognise the fact, and recognise it very seriously, that this is the first time in which the people will have experience of a referendum. Up to this, they have had no experience whatsoever. This is something entirely new and we are, in this procedure, creating a precedent now, not for the House but for the country. I understood the object of the rules of order was to keep debate in order, but not to prevent discussion. Be that as it may——
I hope the Deputy is not saying that I am endeavouring to prevent discussion.
Discussion is being prevented, no matter who is doing it.
Be that as it may, I want to put before the House the result of that when the people come to vote. Because of the form of this Bill and because of the precedent it will create, not merely in reference to legislation dealing with referenda but in reference to all Bills and, in particular, to the Bill we discussed yesterday, certain results must ensue. There is a schedule here in relation to which amendments to the Referendum Act of 1942 are made by way of reference in that schedule. All that the Government has to do now to avoid discussion, in accordance with this ruling, on details of repeals, amendments, alterations or changes in legislation is to put those into a schedule and that schedule will have to be discussed as an entity.
Deputy Norton has referred to the position. Take the case of the Housing Acts from 1919 to 1952; suppose it is decided to amend, all that need be done is to say that these Acts shall be amended in accordance with the Schedule and one will then be compelled to vote for the whole Schedule even though one may only approve of nine-tenths of it. It seems to me that is reducing order to a state very closely bordering on chaos. It is for that reason that I protest against the form. I am not protesting against the principles.
What should have been done, if the intention were to inform the House, and not merely the House, but the people, so that they might have a proper understanding of what it is proposed to do, was to introduce three separate Bills amending the Constitution instead of just one and, in that one, putting all the amendments of the Constitution into a schedule. I understand that the ruling has been made that there are two principles in this.
No. I ruled only one principle.
In our opinion there are three: (1) the abolition of P.R.; (2) the electoral system of the single non-transferable vote; and (3) the setting up of this boundary commission. Those are the three principal matters in the Bill. As I understand the ruling, we are not permitted now to put down an amendment to the effect that, while being in favour of the abolition of P.R., we want some other principle such as the transferable vote in the single member constituency. I understand we are precluded from putting down an amendment to that effect. I understand there is quite a volume of opinion in favour of the transferable vote if P.R. is abolished.
An elector coming to vote on this referendum will find himself in the position that, although he is in favour of the single transferable vote, he must vote in favour of the abolition of P.R. and the non-transferable vote. He cannot therefore express his view properly. He cannot show that he wants another system within the proposed system. In that state of facts, there ought to have been, in my submission, three Bills. Putting all this into a schedule is merely evading the entire issue and creating a precedent for future legislation, a precedent against which I enter a very strong protest.
I want to join in this protest. I think this Bill is a piece of parliamentary trickery, and nothing else. Here we have what is called a Bill. There are two sections in the Bill——
Before the Deputy proceeds, I asked the House that the discussion of the amendments and of the matter contained in this section would be referred to the Schedule to the Bill. If the discussion continues on the section, surely we shall have duplication of the discussion on the Schedule and that, of course, is entirely against the rules of order.
Surely, it is quite proper to protest against the form of this Bill which makes provision for the amendments that are to take place in the Schedule? This has nothing to do with duplication. I am protesting against the form of Section I which provides that amendment to the Constitution shall be put into a schedule. That will have a certain effect both on this House and on the country.
That is how business is always done.
When was it done before?
That is how it is always done.
Order! If Deputy Norton is making a formal protest I am prepared to hear him, but I cannot allow discussion both on the section and on the Schedule.
On a point of order. Speakers will want to give their reasons why they are opposed to this section. I certainly want to give my reasons.
Surely that is discussing the Schedule.
If I want to make a reference to the Bill and to the form of the Bill, then surely I am entitled to do that on Section I of the Bill. Otherwise, where am I allowed to talk?
On the Schedule.
What I want to say is not relevant to the Schedule at all. Where then can I talk except on the section of the Bill? I want to say now that this whole Bill is a piece of parliamentary trickery.
That is nonsense.
Of course it is trickery.
That is just pretence.
The Schedule is a comprehensive Schedule covering a variety of matters and it is drafted on to a section of the Bill. We are told that we cannot have separate decisions on the separate parts of the Schedule and the only way then in which we can give expression to our point of view is to vote against the entire Schedule, even though we may be in favour of 90 per cent. of it. This House has never been presented with this kind of Bill hitherto and I want to protest against the way in which this House is being gagged in relation to discussion on this amendment.
Sir, the Taoiseach wants to explain matters.
I want to explain nothing. This is a matter of order, and order is in the hands of the Ceann Comhairle.
Gracious. Did he draft the Bill?
Yes.
He did, did he!
The Bill was drafted in the ordinary way by the parliamentary draftsman.
With the aid of Machiavelli.
With the aid of no one.
I take it Section I is under consideration and is under consideration in the atmosphere of the Taoiseach standing up and saying that he wants to explain nothing.
That is just——
Sit down.
Do not be so precocious over there.
We will be precocious if we like.
The Minister for Education, if he had any decency, would resign. He ought to resign.
There should be some respect.
I want to give the reasons why I object to Section I of this Bill and why I propose voting against it. I do not intend to discuss the principles of the Bill and I believe there is more than one principle involved.
No principle at all, except to keep this Government in office.
This Bill is so drafted as to make it virtually impossible to amend. If this Bill were being dealt with in the ordinary way, what would happen is, there would be a number of different sections, each proposing the appropriate amendment to Article 16 of the Constitution. The Leader of the Opposition has already pointed out that, under Article 16 of the Constitution, various provisions are made: there is the provision for the multi-seat constituencies; the provision for the single transferable vote; the provision regarding the revision of constituencies and the number of persons who will be represented by each Deputy in the Dáil. All of those are separate and distinct matters, which should and could be discussed and considered as separate and distinct matters in this House if this Bill were framed in the way in which I suggest it should have been framed.
I suggest that it is quite wrong that we should be met with a Bill drafted as Section I is drafted, which lumps all of those things together into a schedule which is referred to in Section I and having regard to the ruling of the Chair—the ruling which the Chair feels it must give in accordance with Standing Orders and precedents of this House—Deputies are put in the position where they are not allowed to do anything except discuss the Schedule as one unit, notwithstanding the fact that various amendments to Article 16 of the Constitution are being proposed.
I think, and I cast no reflection on the Chair when I say this, the blame lies entirely at the feet of the Government who have introduced this legislation in this form. It is quite unfair to the Dáil and it will be quite unfair to the country that the country should be put in the position of having to accept or reject a block proposal which contains within itself several different ingredients, all of which are of importance to the people of this country. I do not think it is good enough that the Government should be allowed to get away with this kind of thing. Would the Taoiseach give any explanation of the extraordinary drafting of this Bill?
Up to the moment, this has been a question of order, discussed with the Chair, and I said I had nothing to say in regard to it except this, that as far as the drafting of the Bill was concerned it was drafted like any other Bill; it was sent to the draftsman; it was drafted by him without any instructions as to the form which it should take; the form which it took was the usual form in which, when there is a number of separate items, these are listed in a schedule; and it was open to every member of the Dáil to put in amendments to these sections, if he wanted to, and to have these amendments discussed, if he wanted to, and, as I understand it, voted upon, if he wanted to. If, because the Opposition have no amendments that they would stand over——
Do not be absurd.
That is the position.
The Taoiseach would do well to listen to the Chair.
There is a net issue between the two sides of the House as to whether the Constitution should be amended in this way or not. Of course, it goes as a block.
Why "Of course?"
Because this is one idea.
Nonsense.
It is one proposition to the people which the people will have to decide upon.
Where is the unity between the commission and the other amendments?
There is no nonsense about it. There is no such thing as absolute unity in any Bill. There is a number of things contained in any Bill. The Bill is put to this House and finally passed after discussion. It is passed as a whole and the people will have an opportunity of dealing with it as a whole and, if they are objecting to it sufficiently in any one thing, then they will vote against it. If they are in favour of it as a block, they will vote in favour of it.
It is all logic-chopping and nonsense with regard to a lot of this matter here. The same thing could be brought up in regard to practically any Bill in which there is a schedule. The principle of the Bill was decided here, that the Constitution should be changed so as to substitute for the present arrangement of multiple-member constituencies and the transferable vote a system in which there will be a straight vote, under which, when it comes to the voter to act, instead of putting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, on the ballot paper, he will select the candidate he thinks best and put an X in front of his name, or after it, according to the arrangement on the ballot paper.
This is more like a Second Reading discussion, which we were not permitted to have. We were prevented.
I am meeting an argument that has been put up.
It has not been put up. We were not allowed to put it up.
The Deputy is referring to the discussion of the Schedule?
May I say a word on this? I want to join with other Deputies in the criticism of the section we are now asked to pass. Whatever may have been the motives behind the framing of the Bill in this form and whoever may have done it——
The Government always gives the instructions.
——I think it is rather naive of the Taoiseach to wash his hands, like Pontius Pilate, here and suggest that it is somebody else who did it.
There is nothing wrong about——
The heads of this Bill and the Bill itself were passed by the Government.
And submitted by the Government to the draftsman.
Of course. It goes from the Government for drafting, as any Deputy who has any experience of Government knows, and as the Taoiseach knows well. It is from the council chamber that it goes to the draftsman to be drafted. Here we have a Bill affecting the fundamental law of this Republic, a Bill which contains two sections, one operative section, which merely provides that the Constitution shall be amended in accordance with the Schedule. Because the Bill takes that form, we in the Opposition here are presented with a ruling, which we must accept, that we cannot discuss the details, the different portions of the proposed amendment, section by section.
I protest, Sir, that in this Dáil this form of Bill should be introduced. I feel that it lays down a most undesirable precedent, that henceforth we may be faced with similar Bills affecting the lives of the people, wherein a section seeks to enact a schedule and that discussion in this House will be stifled. The Taoiseach said it is the usual form. That is a great phrase of the Taoiseach's but it means nothing. I assert that in my short experience in this House over the last ten years I have never seen a Bill presented in this form. I have never seen a Bill presented in this form with the entire Bill in the Schedule. Of course, schedules are in many Bills but they are details and the Schedule to a Bill is designed and intended to deal with details that may not properly be dealt with in sections in the Bill.
A Bill of this kind, where everything effective in the Bill is in the Schedule, is in my short experience, I agree, unusual. I feel it is something that should be taken note of in this House. It suits the Taoiseach and apparently the Fianna Fáil Party at the moment but they will be in opposition again. Let there be no mistake about that.
Says you.
If I do not say it, the people will say it. May I remind the House that here to-day a precedent is being established which, if persisted in and followed, may in future stifle worthwhile discussion in this House?
We were conscious of the dilemma which faced the Chair when we were considering amendments to this Bill. The Taoiseach says no amendments were put down. The Taoiseach knows well that there were difficulties about putting down amendments. We put down an amendment. It was an indicating amendment to Section I of this Bill that the section should be amended in accordance with the amendments proposed to the Schedule. It was indicated to me by an officer from the office of the Ceann Comhairle, who was considerably helpful in this difficult matter, that he did not think an amendment should be printed. He would regard it as being handed in to indicate the spirit in which the Opposition were facing this Committee Stage.
We were perfectly prepared to put down any number of amendments to Section I of the Bill. We would have done so but we felt that, by indicating to the Chair the manner in which we were putting the amendments to the Schedule, we could ensure a full Committee discussion on the Schedule. I think by reason of the attitude taken by the Taoiseach that the Opposition is being treated in a scandalous manner in this respect and that the House itself is being stifled.
I oppose the form of Section 1. It is wrong. I think the form it takes contains nothing but danger to future discussions in this Parliament. I do not think the Taoiseach can get out of it by acting Pontius Pilate and saying it is the fault of somebody else.
Deputy Costello said that the people have no experience of a referendum. That is not a fact. The people have had experience of a referendum. It was the constitutional referendum. The Constitution itself was put to the people.
That is a different matter altogether.
That was the referendum.
It shows how little Fianna Fáil know about the matter when they start to laugh at that.
We had the experience of a referendum. It cannot be denied by any arguments here that they had not had experience of referenda and they are going to have another with the help of God.
What an experience.
There is a lot of little tricky argument that because there is more than one section in this Schedule the people will not be able to make up their mind about it. They want not one referendum but three or four referenda on the subject matter of the Schedule. On that basis we would have had 101 referenda on the Constitution. The people will make up their mind as to whether they see in this proposition sufficient merit to warrant the Constitution being changed. I make a present of all the arguments that the various members of the Opposition can raise against any one or all of the sections of the Bill. Let them get as many people as they can to vote against the constitutional amendment because they object to one or two clauses. We will make them a present of that advantage. We with our responsibilities are prepared to put to the people this proposed change if and when it passes through the Dáil. We are prepared to put it to the people and say to them: "The Constitution should in our opinion be amended in this way. Are you prepared to accept the change or not? If you do not want the Constitution changed——"
What about——
A Deputy
Shut up.
I will not shut up and nobody can try to make me shut up.
If they are not prepared to accept the change because of any of the arguments put up by any of the members of the Opposition, well then they can vote against it.
Is this in order?
Let us discuss this matter. That is the line we are going to take. We will get into this discussion in good form. They are going to put this business to the country because they believe it is desirable that the people should have an opportunity of considering it and giving their judgment upon it. What I want to know is, what are they going to put to the people? What is it the Minister for External Affairs feels that this section entitles them to put to the people? We are discussing Section 1. I am told that the courage and confidence of the present Government is such that they have no hesitation in approaching the people on this issue. I want to examine that proposition.
The issue upon which I understand they are going to the people is tripartite—the abolition of P.R., the abolition of multiple constituencies and the establishment of a commission. I call the abolition of the single transferable vote the abolition of P.R. I want to recall to the memory of the House the interesting fact that there was a time when the present Taoiseach was himself the splinter of a splinter. There was a time when the present Taoiseach was leading the. civil war Party in this House.
What has that to do with this?
If the Minister for External Affairs can discuss it, cannot I do likewise?
There was a time when the Deputy was kicked out of the Fine Gael Party.
It was put to the House by me that in order to facilitate discussion and avoid repetition the first section to this Bill should be put without discussion, that any discussion should occur on the Schedule and that anything which would be relevant on Section I could be discussed on the Schedule. That was put by me in order to avoid repetition and duplication of discussion. Deputy Dillon is widening the debate.
The Deputy is taking it back to the civil war in which he had not the guts to participate.
Dundalk barracks.
What was put to the House was whether Section I should be put to the House without discussion and that the matter which would fall relevant for discussion on Section I would be discussed on the Schedule. I would ask Deputy Dillon to consider that.
I merely followed the observations made by the Minister for External Affairs. I know the Chair will insist that if the Minister for External Affairs makes a case opportunity will be afforded to the Opposition to meet that case. That is what I am seeking to do. The Minister for External Affairs has told us that so great is the confidence of the Government in the validity of their case that they are prepared to go to the country and he implies that we are not, that we do not want the people to pass judgment. It is on the merits of that issue that I want to say a word.
I did not say any such thing.
That is what I understood you to say. I am entitled——
Back to the civil war— that is what the Deputy wants.
No, no.
Yes, that is what the Deputy wants.
I remember the day perfectly well, in 1927, when the Taoiseach told his supporters that he proposed to come into Dáil Éireann——
Surely that does not fall for discussion on this?
It does fall for discussion, if what the Minister for External Affairs has said is true. I want to put it now that if the Taoiseach was not in a position to say that he had the opportunity of coming into Dáil Éireann at that time, his own supporters might have said: "You must remain in the wilderness because Parliament is closed against you", and it is because Parliament was open to him, as a minority, that he is in the House to-day.
If the Deputy will not relate his remarks to this section, I must rule him out as irrelevant.
You did not rule out the Minister for External Affairs.
I did not hear the Minister for External Affairs make any statement of that kind.
Did the Minister not say that so great was their confidence in their case that they were anxious to go to the country, not on one issue only, but on three issues?
On the Schedule—the proposed amendment.
The point made by the Minister was——
I said the proposed amendment.
He said: "If we accepted the proposal to put three separate issues to the country, our position would be much stronger, but we are electing to go on the three issues; you can argue against us on any one of the three and if you can get the people to vote against us on any one of the three, we shall accept defeat on all three."
I understood the Minister to be referring——
The Minister himself said that.
The Schedule to the Bill.
He was referring to Section 1.
I understood. he was referring to the Schedule to the Bill, because both are interrelated.
He was referring to Section 1. I shall interrelate my observations in the same way and I claim the right to deal with the same issue raised by the Minister for External Affairs and to rebut the case he made. The Minister has said that so great is their confidence in their position he is prepared to face. defeat on one of them as defeat on all three. If that is his case, surely I am entitled to say that his case is thoroughly rotten and fraught with great dangers for this country. Far from having confidence in it, he should, by his own experience, know that the case he is taking to the country is disastrous.
I want to put it to him, to you, and to the House, that my information is, that the Government have decided within the past week that they are not prepared to face the country on one of these issues or on three of them on their merits. I am told that the Taoiseach is to be thrown into the fray. I am told the Tánaiste and the Minister for Health have decided to put him up as a candidate——
If Deputy Dillon persists, I must ask him to resume his seat. He must relate his remarks to the matter before the House.
I understood the Minister for External Affairs to say that the Government's position is that they want to go to the country on the three issues, so great is their confidence in their case. I am making the case that that is not true and I am saying that the Minister for External Affairs makes the case to this House that they elect to go on these three issues jointly because they are so confident. That is not true. The truth is that they have no confidence and they are not going on those three issues. They are going to throw the Taoiseach into the fray as candidate for the Presidency in order to sustain——
That has already been ruled out of order.
What does Deputy Dillon care what is ruled out of order? He will break all the rules.
I am not breaking the rules of order.
The Deputy never does anything else when he stands up in the House.
I shall have to ask Deputy Dillon to deal with the matter before the House.
Deal with him properly.
If Deputy Dillon persists in his present line of argument, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
Perhaps the Minister for External Affairs will intervene again in this discussion and tell us what he meant to say. Certainly, he was understood by me and my colleagues to say something which it now transpires he did not say. Would the Minister be good enough to tell us what he did say? Did he discuss the merits of the issues to be put before the country or did he not? It sounded here as if he did. What was the purpose of his intervention? What did he intend to say? I think he ought to tell us because, apparently, some obscurity has arisen and we should all like to know. He apparently did not say what we understood him to say, because it is not now relevant to rebut what we understood him to say.
I intended to say——
Order! Deputy Norton.
This Bill in Section I says that the Constitution is being amended in the manner set out in the Schedule and, therefore, it has been ruled that the amendments which are indicated in the Schedule are amendments which must be discussed in globo.
Discussed individually and put as against the motion "that the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill".
And in such a way as to deprive a Deputy of the opportunity which he has had on former Bills of voting against a particular section, even though he is in favour of the whole Bill.
The Schedule to the Bill.
The position is that on an ordinary Bill a Deputy can say: "I like the Bill but I dislike Sections 40 and 41. I want, therefore, to vote against Sections 40 and 41, but, on the whole, I will vote for the Bill, subject to my right to express my views on the sections with which I disagree." In this Bill, we do not get an opportunity of voting against sections of the Schedule because it has been ruled by the Chair that the Schedule must be taken as a whole and that any amendments which we might have will be put against the Schedule as a whole and not against individual sections.
If the Deputy will allow me—the Chair is not making any new ruling.
I am not suggesting that the Chair is doing so, but never before in my fairly long experience of this House have we had a Bill of this kind in which there are two insipid sections constituting the Bill and the real worth of the Bill is in the Schedule. If this procedure is to be permitted as a guide for the future, we may in future get a Bill dealing with, for example, our housing legislation in which there will be one or two sections saying that the purpose of section so-and-so is to amend the Housing Act and the amendment will be set out in the Schedule and the Schedule will amend the whole code of housing legislation. In the ordinary way, we have an opportunity of dealing with such an amending Bill section by section. With this new device, we may get a one-section Bill with a long schedule, a schedule amending the whole code of previous legislation, and Deputies will be deprived of the rights which they have now to express their views on the separate sections of the amending legislation.
Why the House should be committed to approve that kind of procedure merely because the Government have chosen to draw up a schedule in the way this has been drawn is puzzling to me. All Parties in the House who are concerned with having this Bill thoroughly debated have asked that they should be allowed to discuss the Schedule section by section and in the end get a vote on the entire Schedule and they ought not to be deprived of an opportunity of getting an individual vote on each section of the Schedule, in the same way as they would get that individual vote, if in fact the Schedule were sections of a separate Bill.
I desire to ask the Taoiseach a question arising out of an observation made by the Minister for External Affairs. The Minister for External Affairs criticised me and got some laughs from his own followers when he said that the people had experience of a referendum and that that was the Constitution. Does the Taoiseach accept that? I understood the theory behind the Constitution, and the Taoiseach's contention, to be that the Constitution was enacted by the people—not approved of by the people after enactment by this House—which is a referendum.
We are getting now into that sort of nonsense which is disagreeable, to say the least of it. We have some work to do here and we are wasting a great deal of time.
Who started it? The Minister for External Affairs started it.
The people did enact the Constitution.
But it was not a referendum, then?
It was a referendum in that sense. The people had to come to a decision.
A referendum is a proof that something has been done.
That is a technicality, mere verbiage.
What about the Oxford Dictionary?
As far as I am concerned, I have no objection whatever if you can deal with this Schedule section by section. There is no question whatever of any attempt on the part of the Government to deprive the Dáil of the fullest opportunity for discussing these in detail.
Má's maith é, is mithid.
Ní raibh aon bhaint agam-sa leis an rialú a thug an Ceann Comhairle. The Ceann Comhairle knows that I did not try to influence or interfere in any way with the judgment which he would give on how this matter was to be dealt with in accordance with the rules of order. If the Ceann Comhairle can see his way to do it and if there is anything in the Standing Orders—these Standing Orders can be changed by the House, I understand, or by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges—as far as I am concerned, I am quite willing that this thing should be dealt with in detail.
In view of the difficulty you find yourself in, Sir, and the suggestion that has now been made, would the Chair suggest to the Taoiseach to withdraw the Bill and reframe it in a way that would be intelligible to and workable in this House and, therefore, more presentable to the people?
The Chair has no right to do that——
I take it you have as much right as any——
Can the rules of order not be suspended, in response to the Taoiseach's suggestion?
As I see it, there are two ways of dealing with this matter. One is the way suggested by the Taoiseach, namely, if it is at all in the power of the Ceann Comhairle, to allow this discussion to take the lines as suggested by the Opposition or. alternatively, that the suggestion of Deputy Mulcahy should seriously be considered by the Taoiseach. I appreciate that the Ceann Comhairle has, to a great extent, to go by precedent and practice in this House. However, when the Taoiseach has made it clear in his remarks on two occasions here this morning that the Government are anxious to allow discussion upon all aspects of this Bill, and when we find that the rules of procedure are such that individual Deputies are stymied in their attempts to pick out and have certain aspects of the Schedule dealt with, the trouble in my opinion then lies with the drafting of the measure.
I have always understood that it was not correct or fair practice in this House to criticise officials or civil servants. I have always understood that when it came to a question of criticism of that nature the Minister responsible for the Department or the Government —the political heads—took responsibility for any blame that could be laid with regard to amendments not being properly drafted, or legislation generally. In this case, I should not like to have it agreed upon or suggested in this House that the fault in connection with this measure could be thrown on the parliamentary draftsman. I should like it to be clarified by the Taoiseach whether or not that was his intention when he suggested that the members of the Government had no part in the drafting of the Bill and that it was drafted by the parliamentary draftsman. If that is the case then I think the Government and the Taoiseach should at this stage accept Deputy Mulcahy's suggestion, that is, withdraw the Bill and put it again to the parliamentary draftsman so that it can be drafted in a manner which will make it possible for Deputies to discuss the provisions in a satisfactory manner.
On a point of order. I have been unable to find anything in Standing Orders which provides that a schedule must be taken as a whole and not section by section as in the Schedule. I accept the ruling of the Chair that the procedure of the House is that the whole Schedule goes en bloc to the House. However, I would refer you to paragraph 136 of Standing Orders which provides as follows:—
"Any Standing Order or Orders of the Dáil may be suspended for the day's sitting, and for a particular purpose, upon motion made after notice: Provided that in cases of urgent necessity, of which the Ceann Comhairle shall be the judge, any such Order or Orders may, with the unanimous consent of the Dáil, be suspended upon motion made without notice."
I respectfully submit that you have power to accept the motion from the Taoiseach—that, if there is such Standing Order or precedent that requires the Schedule to be taken en bloc, the Standing Order be waived and the Schedule be taken section by section. That appears to be the unanimous wish of the House now in view of the fact that the Taoiseach has accepted our view in opposition. I would ask you, Sir, to accept his motion and to take the Schedule section by section.
If the Ceann Comhairle is prepared to accept that, I am willing to move it. May I say, with regard to Deputy McQuillan's remarks, that I did not blame anybody? I do not think there was blame. I said it was suggested it was a Government trick—that we had specially gone out of our way to design it so that we might present a difficulty to the Chair. We did nothing of the kind. The draftsman drafted it in the usual way and the Chair was dealing with it in the usual way.
Objection has been raised. I am quite ready to meet any objections by moving that, for this particular purpose, the Standing Orders be suspended, if that is what is compelling the Chair to give his ruling.
If there is unanimity of the House——
Apparently there is.
——that the Schedule be discussed——
Let us be clear on what we are about to do. The Schedule is numbered, say, 2 to 7.
Each paragraph.
Now, are we to have each line, each word?
Is it not the proposal that we put the Schedule in Committee?
It is in Committee, in any case.
As if the sections of a Bill——
Yes, there are subparagraphs in each section.
There are subparagraphs in sections, too.
The Schedule is set out in paragraphs and subparagraphs.
Nos. 2 to 7.
But there are three different items.
There is paragraph 2 which is the proposed amendment of Article 16. There is then paragraph 3 with subparagraphs, paragraph 4 with subparagraphs, and paragraphs 5, 6 and 7. I suggest that we take these paragraph by paragraph.
That is, Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Wait now. To illustrate it, in the first section, Section 2, there are three paragraphs.
The three will be taken together.
One creates single member constituencies. The next provides for the single non-transferable vote and the third provides for the population requisite in relation to constituency representation. Those would appear to be three different matters.
As I understand it, you have paragraph 2 and subparagraph (2) before you meet paragraph 3. I take it No. 2 is a unit and that the paragraphs will be taken in this order: Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
In your reply to Deputy O'Higgins, you indicated that there were two principles involved in this and one of these principles is separately enshrined in paragraph 2, sub-section (1) and another enshrined in paragraph 2, sub-section (2). I suggest that as far as paragraph 2 is concerned, there are three very separate matters there. At any rate, there are very different matters in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2).
There are in a Bill what are described as sections. There are also divisions of sections i.e., sub-sections, and in dealing with a Bill you would not take these divisions; you would take the sections. I take it it is agreed to take Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
I take it a discussion on the sections carries with it the right to vote against any section as a separate issue, if a Deputy is so disposed, so that he can indicate his assent and dissent as he goes through the Bill.
There is no purpose in doing this at all, if that is not the case.
Is it not a fact that the proposal in the Schedule in relation to the voter is that in a constituency in which there are 25,000 people casting a vote, it is intended that in the circumstances in which, say, the Fianna Fáil candidate would get 8,000, the Fine Gael candidate 6,000, the Labour candidate 4,000, the Farmer candidate 5,000 and some other candidate 2,000, the Fianna Fáil candidate getting 8,000 would be declared the elected representative for that constituency?
That is not relevant to the section.
I am asking if that is not a fact under Section I of the Bill.
It does not seem to be relevant to the section.
It is clearly the purpose of the whole Bill.
Surely Deputy Mulcahy is entitled to have clarification of the point put by him, that if Section I is passed through this House, with the references to the Schedule in it, may not the result be as envisaged by him? Surely some member of the Government has given this Bill sufficient consideration to be able to answer a question like that?
All this was discussed on the Second Reading.
We are discussing it now.
All this was discussed on the Second Reading, and the meaning of the direct vote and the non-transferable vote was discussed in detail, taking a considerable length of time. One can always think up examples to show that the system will not work, but the fact is that the straightforward system has worked successfully in the countries where democracy has been most effective and stable.
Is the Taoiseach talking about England?
And about Canada and New Zealand.
The Six Counties.
In the countries whose system we know and whose conditions we understand best, it has proved to be satisfactory. The main purpose is to prevent the multiplication of Parties which brings democracy to disaster ultimately, to try to see that there will be stable Government in this State. The electors, when they are voting, will take note of that and, instead of bargains being made behind the people's backs, efforts will be made before the election to try to ensure that cases such as Deputy Mulcahy has been suggesting could happen will not happen. The Parties will know the state of public opinion and will soon find out whether or not they have got the majority vote.
The whole principle is contained in the fact that you have a single vote by the individual and that in looking at the names of the candidates before him, the voter will decide which one of these, in all the circumstances, it is desirable to have, and you may be perfectly certain that you will not have voting such as that imagined by Deputy Mulcahy. I do not think we ought to go into this again because, as I have said, the whole principle of the Bill was decided on and passed by the House.
The Taoiseach says he will not speak on this again. I am taking advantage of the fact that we are asked to pass Section I to ask, in an atmosphere without argument, for facts. I have asked for a simple clarification as to whether I am right or wrong in saying that, if Section I is passed with the Schedule, and single member constituencies are set up, in a constituency in which 25,000 votes are cast, with 8,000 cast for Fianna Fáil, 6,000 cast for Fine Gael, 4,000 for Labour, 5,000 for Farmers and 2,000 for any other Party the Fianna Fáil candidate with 8,000 votes will be elected.
The Fine Gael candidate who gets 8,000 or the Labour candidate who gets 8,000.
We can go into that when we go into arguments on the descriptive side of things on the section. Is it the intention that the 8,000 vote man, whatever Party he belongs to, although he gets only 8,000 out of 25,000, will get the seat? Could we have a "yes" or "no" to that?
I understood there was to be no discussion on Section 1.
No.
No; it was not understood there would be no discussion on Section 1. The Taoiseach has just made reference to the question of South Africa. He has stated it as one of his reasons.
I did not mention South Africa.
I am sorry; it was the one he did not mention, and I just wanted to point out to the House the significance of the experience in South Africa of single member constituencies and the single vote. I think it is of considerable significance that the Taoiseach has not made reference to the experience in South Africa for this reason: that in the 1953 election the United Party got 598,685 votes, 49.6 per cent. of the votes cast, and they got 92 seats. The Nationalist Party and Labour got 608,166 votes, 50 per cent. of the votes cast, and got 43 seats, and that experience in South Africa has justified the fears which we have experienced.
I feel the Deputy is getting away from the point at issue.
The Taoiseach referred to it.
The Taoiseach did.
I cannot allow any discussion on those lines.
But the Taoiseach——
Would the Deputy please listen to what I have to say? I understand the House agreed that there would be no repetition and no duplication and, at any rate, the Chair would not allow any duplication of debate. This duplication would arise when the Schedule is being discussed.
We are now on Section 1.
I did not regard myself as on Section 1. I regarded the decision of the House, and the decision of the Chair as being that it was going into the Schedule.
We are now on Section 1.
I was asked a question by Deputy Mulcahy.
Was this by chance also?
And the Taoiseach did not answer my question, yes or no, in a simple way.
The Chair cannot allow any extended debate on Section 1. It was agreed that the Taoiseach would answer a question put to him on this section, and the remainder of the debate would normally arise on the Schedule.
In accordance with Standing Orders we are now considering Section 1.
That matter has been ruled on, and the Chair has ruled that there should not be any further discussion on this section.
We are on Section I and the Notice Board says that we are on Section 1.
There is a ruling by the Chair.
I do not know if you. Sir, are referring to the Chair or yourself. Certainly, the Ceann Comhairle made no such ruling.
He did make the ruling.
I understand the position is that the House has taken a decision that the Schedule will be taken section by section and, after taking that decision, we are now on Section 1.
Section by section of the Schedule. We are now on Section I and the Chair is ruling that there should be no further discussion on Section 1.
Then this ceases to be a Parliament.
Do you mean, Sir, that you are ruling that?
It has already been ruled.
On a point of order, such a ruling cannot be made. If the Chair now rules that the House cannot discuss Section 1, I affirm that Parliament has ceased to function. If we are not allowed, with that notice on the Notice Board of Dáil Éireann, to discuss Section 1 of this Bill, Parliament in this country has ceased to function. I now claim my fundamental rights relevantly to discuss the section, displayed in Dáil Éireann on the Notice Board of Dáil Éireann, which is Section 1 in Committee. I suggest that there is no power in Ireland entitled to prevent me from doing so, so long as I represent a constituency in Ireland. There is no power in Ireland, under the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann, and under the Constitution of this county, to prevent my discussing Section 1, and I propose to do so.
Does the Deputy intend to raise the point——
Is this on a point of order?
On the question of order.
Does the Taoiseach want to raise a point of order?
If the Deputy wishes it in that form.
I shall give way to the Taoiseach on a point of order alone.
On this question of order my understanding was that the Ceann Comhairle had ruled that there was not to be duplication of discussion, and that the discussion would have to take place on the Schedule. Then there was an objection that the discussion could not be dealt with on the Schedule and I mentioned that, if the Ceann Comhairle felt himself constrained by Standing Orders, that we should suspend Standing Orders, in order that the Schedule should be dealt with section by section. That was agreed by the Ceann Comhairle and by the House. Now, however, we have a turn on the side that you are to have duplication, to avoid which I put the motion. We will have duplication by having a debate on Section I and again on the same subject when it comes to the Schedule.
The Chair has ruled that there can be no duplication of debate.
You must have a debate before there is duplication.
If everybody ceases to fuss this matter will be peacefully disposed of. There is the fundamental matter that we are at present discussing Section 1 of this Bill in Committee and, so long as it is universally conceded and admitted that there is no power in Ireland adequate to prevent an elected Deputy of Dáil Éireann discussing Section 1 in Committee——
Except the Rules of Order.
Deputies know the Rules of Order allow that a Deputy may discuss Section 1 in Committee.
Whenever a Deputy is in order.
When we concede that, the dangers which seem to haunt the Taoiseach's mind evaporate. He should not speak as if he were in the presence of ghosts; there are no ghosts abroad and, if everybody would pipe down a bit, things would sort themselves out. It was the Taoiseach who, in avoiding the giving of a direct answer to Deputy Mulcahy's question, drew in, for the purpose of avoiding a direct answer, what happened in Canada and what happened in New Zealand and elsewhere. Now, he is an old, shrewd, Machiavellian practitioner and he would not want to go on the records of Dáil Éireann as saying that a person with a minority of votes would get the seat Therefore, he brought in Canada and New Zealand and held them up, without saying "yes" or. "no" in answer to the question put to him. That drew from Deputy Declan Costello the remark that the Taoiseach was careful to take the cases which suited his own case, and to omit all reference to the cases that did not.
I do not believe that that discussion is likely to expand very widely, but the important thing is that it should not be terminated on the ground that Deputies have not the right to discuss Section I of this Bill. That is the one point I wish to make at this stage, and I would go a long way to indicate my right to discuss this section.
So far as the Chair is concerned there is no question of taking away the rights of Deputies to discuss it; but they must speak in accordance with Rules of Order.
I am much obliged.
In the discussion on Section I the same statements made would be repeated on the Schedule and, to avoid duplication of debate, there should be no further discussion on Section 1.
I do not want to repeat the reasons why we, at any time, object to Section 1 but I argue that I am entitled to put a question to the Taoiseach on a point arising out of his remarks on Section 1. I want the Taoiseach, to make it clear to the House and to the country that the proposal under Section 1 of the Bill which incorporates the Schedule is that the people of the country are being invited to jettison the system of electoral law which has been the Irish system for 36 years and to adopt instead the English electoral system and the system used in various other parts of the British Empire. Will the Taoiseach say "yes" or "no" to that?
Why should I say "yes" or "no"?
Hear, hear!
Because it is a simple question and you are the Taoiseach asking the people to make the change.
It is a very simple question to ask: have you left off beating your wife yet?
Does the Taoiseach agree with me that what he is doing is asking the people to adopt the English system instead of the Irish? That is a simple question.
The Deputy knows the answer.
I know that the answer is "yes", but I want the Taoiseach to say it.
The answer is we are adopting a system which has been proved——
In what country?
In the countries where democracy has been most stable.
The Six Counties, for instance?
In the countries where democracy has been stable.
Democracy has been stable in the Six Counties.
Very stable.
The point is we are proposing that a system which has led in other countries to instability be replaced by a simple system. That system has worked over a long period of years and has militated against the multiplication of Parties which is recognised as the outcome of this system of P.R. The result of that in these countries has been to tend to get public opinion so organised that——
On a point of order.
I fear that we are getting away from Section 1 and that the discussion is being widened unduly.
On a point of order, I am sorry to have to interrupt the Taoiseach, but I think the House would not care to see this debate get completely out of hand. The Chair has ruled that there should not be a debate on Section 1. That does not prevent Deputies from asking questions with regard to Section 1. The Taoiseach was asked a question in relation to the section and, in reply to that, he proceeded to make a speech which might be relevant to Part II of the Schedule. If such a speech is made, it is implicit that a speech of that kind must be replied to by Deputies on this side of the House. Accordingly, it appears to me that the course adopted by the Taoiseach is leading to a departure from the ruling the Chair has made.
The Chair has ruled that there be no further debate on Section 1, and I shall have to put the question.
The Chair has ruled that it is permissible for Deputies to ask questions of the Taoiseach and the Taoiseach replied that he was not obliged to say "yes" or "no". But the whole authority for this debate is to give the people an opportunity of expressing their views, and the Taoiseach is going to ask them to say "yes" or "no". He himself will not say "yes" or "no". We spent all day yesterday dealing with the Bill to set up the machinery to get the people to say "yes" or "no". Can the Taoiseach explain his consistency in refusing to say "yes" or "no" in the House, while he looks to the electorate to say "yes" or "no"?
The Deputy is making a speech.
I am making a point on a point of order.
I think the Deputy is making a mistake. He thinks this a Parliament.
That is possibly the mistake I am making. In any event, the Chair has ruled that any Deputy is entitled to ask a question of the Taoiseach. Surely if Deputies are entitled to ask questions, they are also entitled to receive answers?
Not at all.
I implore you, Sir, to pause before you do what you are doing. What Standing Order is there which prohibits debate on a section in Committee of the House? These are desperately grave matters. The whole individual liberty of our people depends on Parliament functioning. We all know that Parliament is a difficult system to operate, but it will operate only if we all obey the rules. I put it to the Chair that one of the rules is, and I know how difficult it is to administer it in Committee, that the humblest member of the House can speak as often as he likes, provided, firstly, that he is relevant and, secondly, that he does not repeat himself.
I beg of the Chair not to make the ruling that nobody can speak further in Committee on a section of the Bill because, if that ruling is made, it will become a precedent of the House and an appalling abuse of the parliamentary privileges of Deputies. It shocks me that Deputies do not realise where we are going. I must say it is a shocking thing that in a matter of this kind, which, after all, is fundamental, we have managed to get ourselves into a procedural dilemma which suggests that the Government are in a state of bewilderment. My fundamental and urgent point is: I admit that repetition must be avoided, but I want to submit that repetition cannot arise in anticipation. The Chair cannot rule that nobody else can speak on Section 1.
In my submission, any Deputy in the Fianna Fáil Party or on the Independent benches is entitled to address a question on Section 1, and nothing in Standing Orders, and no power which anybody has, can stop him. Might I urge on the Chair not to make such a ruling? If it is made, it will become a precedent of the House and, in my submission. Parliament will no longer be Parliament. Does no other Deputy feel the gravity of the matter?
Yes, we all do.
The Chair is establishing no precedent. There cannot be repetition.
There cannot be repetition if there is no debate.
Is the Chair ruling that there is to be no further debate?
The Chair is ruling that the matters can be raised on the Schedule, and this appears to have been agreed upon earlier.
Is the Chair ruling that there was repetition in a debate that has not taken place?
There will be repetition.
How can there be repetition by Deputies who have not spoken?
Has this trouble not arisen from the fact that the Taoiseach instead of accepting the Chair's ruling, makes an exception of himself and enters into a debate instead of answering a question and saying "yes" or "no"?
The House agreed that there was to be no debate on the section.
No, no.
We were approaching the matter in a commonsense way by general agreement——
On a point of order, the Chair has ruled that there should be no further debate on Section I; yet the Taoiseach, I presume, is to be treated as a member of this House in the same way as other members. The Taoiseach has made statements referring to the alleged results——
Two speeches.
——of a particular type of vote in certain countries, statements that will, of course, go on the record of this House and be published as statements in this House. If the Taoiseach is entitled to make statements of that character which to my mind, are clearly contributing to debate, surely other members of the House are entitled to question the Taoiseach as to the correctness of his statements and to comment on the statements?
The Chair understands the Taoiseach was answering questions——
He was asked to answer "yes" or "no".
——and there should be no further discussion.
I claim the right to speak on Section 1.
Sit down.
The Chair is now finishing the work that the Taoiseach is carrying on.
The question is that Section I stand part of the Bill.
The Chair is using the order of this House to prevent——
A vote has been challenged.
Section I does not stand.
A division has been called for.
There can be no question of a vote on this. We defy the precedent——
The Deputy must resume his seat.
I shall not.
The the Deputy must leave the House.
I shall not.
If General Mulcahy leaves the House, every other Deputy here will also leave.
I shall not leave the House because of an outrageous decision of the Chair.
The Deputy will resume his seat.
I shall not.
Then I shall send for the Ceann Comhairle.
This is what the Opposition have been looking for all morning.
No.
You planned this all the morning and it has worked out according to plan.
The Deputy was removed by Civic Guards in Inish-owen and he should remember that.
The Chair has insisted, without any motion from anybody, on the closure of the debate; has insisted on putting the question and called a division. I defy that ruling as an outrageous precedent to establish here and as a thing that could never have been contemplated when this House was established by the people.
The Ceann Comhairle having taken the Chair,
A Cheann Comhairle——
On a point of order, may I explain, Sir, the discussion——
I wish to point out to you, Sir, that Deputy Mulcahy has disobeyed the rulings of the Chair, first, to resume his seat and secondly, to leave the House——
I wish to offer an explanation.
Is it in order for the Deputy to make a speech?
Sit down. Deputies opposite should have respect for the Chair.
Deputies
Chair!
Will the Chair hear me?
The procedure is that the Chair takes the statement of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and, in accordance with that, it is my duty to name Deputy Mulcahy to the House.
This is all the Taoiseach's fault and it will end Parliament.
It was all planned.
Yes, you planned it for months.
May I ask a question?
I will hear the Deputy.
Am I entitled to let you know, Sir, that an unprecedented decision was given here by the Chair that Section 1 of the Bill be put without any desire on the part of anybody to closure the discussion——
On a point of order——
I protest, Sir, against a section of a Bill being put by the Chair without any motion to closure the debate from anybody.
I have named Deputy Mulcahy to the House for refusing to obey the directions of the Chair.
May I raise a point of order?
There is no point of order in this. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has informed the Chair——
He has misinformed the Chair.
He has completely misinformed the Chair.
If so, there is a way of dealing with that.
The duty would usually devolve on me to move that the Deputy be suspended, but I think it is only right that the Ceann Comhairle should know the circumstances.
This is entirely irregular.
I was not allowed to speak. Apparently there are special rules for certain people here.
I am not prepared to discuss the rulings of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
But you have not been told of them.
When he is in the Chair, his rulings must be obeyed.
You have been misinformed.
The ruling cannot be challenged in this ad hoc fashion. I have already named Deputy Mulcahy for insubordination.
There is no motion following that, so suppose we just carry on.
I was about to——
I have no objection to the Taoiseach speaking, provided that other Deputies are allowed to speak.
I cannot throw the rulings of the Chair into the House for discussion. That would surely create chaos.
I will give the Taoiseach an hour, or a week, so long as we all get the same rights.
I shall not allow anybody to discuss the rulings of the Chair in this ad hoc fashion.
May I refer to Standing Order 51 which provides:
"Whenever any member shall have been named by the Ceann Comhairle immediately after the commission of the offence of disregarding the authority of the Chair, then, if the offence has been committed by such member in the Dáil, the Ceann Comhairle shall forthwith put the question on a motion being made—no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed—‘That ... be suspended from the service of the Dáil'."
So it was planned since last night.
It was not.
Order!
The only other thing I want to point out on that Standing Order is this: first of all, there is no debate and secondly, there must be a motion to suspend Deputy Mulcahy. I wish to know whether the Taoiseach is moving a motion to suspend Deputy Mulcahy.
He is not.
I am being put into an impossible position in regard to this matter. I think there has been a misunderstanding and I wish to explain it, but I am prevented from doing so——
If I allow the Taoiseach to make a statement in respect to the rulings of the Chair, then I must allow everybody else to do so.
Is that unreasonable?
I am not prepared to throw the rulings of the Chair into the House for discussion. Clearly, that would create chaos any time the Dáil wanted to challenge the Chair's rulings.
May I suggest that you have already allowed the House to suspend Standing Orders and I think that perhaps a very few, one or two simple speeches of explanation, would clear the atmosphere here? Would it be in order to move the adjournment of Standing Orders on that point and I will make my statement or explanation?
Clearly, that would allow the rulings of the chair at any time to be thrown into discussion.
Are we given two different rulings? All this arises because of the way the Leas-Cheann Comhairle mishandled the matter.
No, he did not. He gave the same decision as the Chair.
Ruling with his temper instead of his head.
It was the same ruling.
I cannot move the motion. I feel I cannot do it. Unless I can try to settle matters——
Under Standing Order 52, I am adjourning the House until 1 o'clock.
Business suspended at 12.30 p.m. and resumed at 1 p.m.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
With reference to the incident which occurred earlier in the debate here today, I wish to make it clear to the House that I did not give any ruling that was intended to curtail in any way discussion of Section I or indeed of any other section of the Bill. During the course of the debate, I made it clear to Deputies that I was not curtailing debate, nor did I wish them to refrain from referring to Section I in an orderly way.
When I took over the Chair, I understood that general agreement had been reached to deal with Section 1 formally, and my understanding was reinforced by the knowledge that the Taoiseach had earlier given a big concession regarding the type of debate that would take place on the Schedule. The concession, however, may have led to misunderstanding, and Deputy Mulcahy may have misunderstood my ruling and my motives in the matter. This statement is made in order to remove any further doubt in this question.
I would repeat that there was no question of curtailing debate or of not allowing Deputies to make any statements they wished on Section I, so long as the Chair felt that those statements were made according to the rules of order.
I may say, a Cheann Comhairle, that I have no wish to have a member penalised if there has been a genuine misunderstanding in the matter.
A Cheann Comhairle, I wish to make it clear that the objection from this side of the House to the ruling of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was not in reference to curtailment of debate but in reference to his having put the section to the House and having announced he was not going to allow any further discussion. I gather now from what the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has said, that there was a misunderstanding about that in his mind. We therefore accept that explanation and hope that no further trouble will arise.
Arising out of the statement made by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I was present in the House when the incident took place. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle said that he was going to put the section. He put the section and called for an oral vote and had declared the section carried and then agreed that there would be a division on it. I take it now that that process has been reversed, that the right of Deputies to discuss Section I is now reopened and that the limitations imposed by the premature closing of the discussion will be rectified.
I think we shall get ourselves into a further muddle if we are not careful. My understanding was that the Schedule would be discussed and dealt with, clause by clause, as if the clauses were sections of the Bill. I understood also that the Chair did not want to have repetition. It seems to me that the only way that could be done is by postponing the decision on Sections 1 and 2 until the Schedule has been dealt with, if that can be done. If we deal with the Schedule and then have a discussion on Sections 1 and 2, it seems to me that that discussion will mean going over the principle of the Bill again. When the matter will have been dealt with, if it is permitted to be dealt with in the way I suggest, it would be repetition to deal with it again on Section 1 of the Bill. Consequently, it seems to me that the proper way of handling this, from the point of view of order, is to deal with the Schedule first, without coming to final decisions with regard to Sections 1 and 2; and when we come to Sections 1 and 2 it will be understood, as it has often been understood in regard to other matters in this House, that when a matter has been fully discussed it is merely a formal question when it comes to the section and a division is taken upon it.
Could we not take the position that Section I could be passed over and go straight over to the Schedule and discuss it?
That is what I say.
But not pass it.
We discuss the Schedule and then we recommit Sections 1 and 2 at the end?
Sections 1 and 2 would be postponed.
I understand that in the nature of things, it would be repetition to go over the arguments on Section I that will have been gone over in regard to the Schedule.
Let us cross that bridge when we come to it.
It seemed unfair to the Chair that there would be the same discussion on the Schedule after Section 1 has been discussed.
When we come to deal with the sections, we might bear that in mind.
We pass over the section and go straight to the Schedule.
I take it that Section 1 is open for discussion?
Afterwards.
It has not been declared carried?
Ordaíodh: Go mbeidh sé mar threoir don Choiste ar an mBille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1958, go bhfuil cumhacht acu tuilleadh breithnithe ar Alt 1 den Bhille a chur ar atráth agus an Sceideal a bhreithniú alt ar alt; agus go bhféadfaidh an Cathaoirleach an cheist a chur ar gach alt: “I gCodanna I agus II go bhfanfaidh an t-alt sin (nó an t-alt sin mar atá sé leasaithe) mar chuid den Sceideal.”
May I make a further suggestion? We have had a somewhat angry morning. I suggest we should adjourn to a quarter past two.
Some members of the House would like that, but, after all, the business has to go on, has it not?
I think it would be a proper thing to do.
I urge this point on the Taoiseach. The business of the House is likely to be done more peacefully if we have this adjournment. I urge on the Taoiseach the view put forward by Deputy Costello. The business will be dispatched more promptly, and probably more peacefully, if we could have an adjournment until 2.15, so as to allow every Deputy to have lunch.
Adjourn now? I be your pardon. I thought that the point was to continue now and adjourn at a quarter past two.
No; adjourn until then.
I am quite agreeable to that.
Business suspended at 1.20 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.
Further consideration of Section 1 postponed.
Section 2 postponed.
AN SCEIDEAL.
SCHEDULE.
The Schedule will be taken in sections, as agreed to. The first amendment to the Schedule is out of order. The second amendment is in the name of Deputy Russell.
Tairgirn leasú a 2:—
I gCuid I, Alt 2. 3º línte 8 agus 9, "fá bhun dáil-cheanntair amháin i n-aghaidh gach tríocha míle den daonraidh ná" a scriosadh, agus i líne 10 "fiche míle" a scriosadh agus "cúig mhíle fichead" a chur ina ionad;
agus
I gCuid II, Alt 2. 3º, línte 13 agus 14, "less than one constituency for each thirty thousand of the population or at" a scriosadh, agus i líne 15 "twenty" a scriosadh agus "twenty-five" a chur ina ionad.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In Part I, Section 2. 3º, lines 8 and 9, to delete "fá bhun dáil-cheanntair amháin i n-aghaidh gach tríocha míle den daonraidh ná", and in line 10 to delete "fiche míle" and substitute "cúig mhíle fichead";
and
In Part II, Section 2. 3º, lines 13 and 14, to delete "less than one constituency for each thirty thousand of the population or at", and in line 14 to delete "twenty" and substitute "twenty-five".
Section 4, sub-section (1), proposes to give to the commission power to determine and revise the boundaries of the constituencies. In other words, as I understand it, it is intended by this proposed amendment of the Constitution that the only body that will have the right to decide on the size of the constituencies is this proposed commission. As the Constitution stands at present, it would be possible to arrange the constituencies in such a way that this House could consist of a minimum number of 96 Deputies and a maximum of 144. In the first place, I feel that far too wide discretion is being given to this commission. Secondly, I feel the maximum number of 144 Deputies, which we have tended to keep since the State was established, is far too great in present circumstances. I believe there is a general feeling throughout the country that the representation in the House should be reduced to a more sensible and realistic number.
Various reasons are put forward for this opinion. One, which I do not support very strongly, is on the grounds of economy. The argument is that, if we had fewer Deputies, the taxpayer would be saved a substantial amount of money. It is true there would be a saving to the taxpayer if the allowances of Deputies were to remain at the same figure; but, having regard to the general overall cost of running the country, I do not think the cost of Deputies, as such, can be regarded as very high. There is another body of opinion which believes that, for the amount of service and time they give to their constituents. Deputies are not overpaid. I do not hold very strongly with that argument. There is a further point of view that a smaller Dáil would be a more efficient Dáil and I agree with that.
I have had only short experience of Leinster House, but I do not think I am casting aspersions on any side when I say that the average attendance at Dáil debates is, to say the least of it, disappointingly small. Possibly, there may be a good reason for that—that Deputies are about their constituents' business. But as I understand it, the primary purpose of a Deputy is to legislate, and legislation is, or should be, enacted in this House. The first duty of a Deputy is to represent his constituents here and contribute to the discussion of the various Bills, or other Government business, that come up for debate here. If we had a smaller House, I think we would have, from that point of view, a better and more efficient House and probably a better attended House.
There is, too, the belief that a smaller number of Deputies would lead to a higher standard of representation. That may or may not be true, but it is an argument that has been advanced, and I think there are certain grounds for the argument. It is interesting in relation to other countries —in putting this forward, I appreciate that comparisons are not always effective arguments—to compare the representation in other countries with our representation. If we take the larger countries,' our representation looks almost ridiculous; but obviously there is a minimum number below which one cannot go and to hold that-we should be represented on the same percentage basis or the same ratio as the United States of America or Great Britain is to reduce Dáil representation to an absurd figure.
In Great Britain, with a population of some 50,000,000 people, the 600 odd Members of Parliament each represent roughly 80,000 of the population. The United States of America, which has a population of some 170,000,000, has 436 Members in the House of Representatives, or roughly one member for every 400,000 of the population. In Metropolitan France, there is roughly one Member in the Chamber of Deputies for every 120,000 of the population. We then come to the smaller countries comparable with our own. Holland has 225 Members in its Lower House, or roughly one to over 48,000 of the population. In the case of Belgium, there is one representative for every 42,000.
In smaller countries still, the comparison is even more interesting. Finland, which has only one Chamber, has 200 representatives for a population of 4.3 million, giving a ratio of approximately one to every 21,000 of the population. In Denmark, which has only one House and a population of roughly 4,500,000, there are 179 representatives, giving a ratio of roughly one to every 25,000 of the population. Finally, in Dáil Éireann, with 147 Deputies, the ratio is a little over one to every 19,000 voters.
There is the strongest case for reducing the maximum number of Deputies and I suggest in my amendment that we should dispose of the minimum and maximum number and fix a maximum number only. The suggestion has been made that the present arrangement will allow the commission to vary the size of the constituencies so as to allow for greater representation in the rural areas and possibly lower representation in urban centres like Dublin, Cork and Limerick. If my amendment is adopted, it will still leave the commission free, if they so desire, to give bigger representation to the rural areas, but it will definitely limit them to drawing the boundaries in such a way that this House cannot consist of more than 115 members on the basis of the last census of population taken in 1956. The present time offers a suitable opportunity to limit the size of this House. If we fail to avail of the opportunity now, it may not easily offer itself again. Even if there were no question of the abolition of P.R., constituencies would have had to be revised before the end of this year.
In the course of the debate this morning, Deputy Mulcahy, I think, gave the example of 25,000 people voting in a constituency. I did not want to interrupt the debate for various reasons this morning, but, according to the Constitution, one could not possibly have 25,000 people voting in any constituency where the maximum number is 30,000 and assuming that some 60 per cent. would be over the age of 21. In order to get away from the argument that a large number of people will be disfranchised if the maximum number is limited to 25,000, of whom 10,000 to 12,000 would be voters, that would give an opportunity to an Independent or to the member of a small Party to secure election.
I believe my amendment is a reasonable one and the proposed alteration could be incorporated in the Bill. I am prepared to accept any alternative suggestion the Taoiseach may have along the lines I have suggested. My idea, quite frankly, is to reduce the number of Deputies, because I believe, and so do many others, that we are over-represented at the moment.
I think the Deputy misunderstands the position. It is not the commission that is to determine the number of Deputies. That is to be determined by law, and the Commission will have to work within the limits fixed by law. What we are doing is, indirectly, fixing a maximum and a minimum. Taking our population at round about 3,000,000 people, the proposal in the Bill would give a range from 150 members down, roughly, to 100 members. The question is, is it desirable to leave that latitude for the Legislature to determine what the exact number should be?
There have been, of course, time after time, suggestions that the number in the House should be reduced. Those who suggest that have done so, mainly, I think, on economic grounds, but the Deputy does not seem to want to base his proposal on economic grounds. On whatever grounds you may base your argument for a reduction, you have always to bear in mind that you have to get a Government from the House and, if you divide the House into two parts, assuming that there would be two groups. Government and Opposition, and that they are approximately equal, then, out of half the total number you have to get a Government and Parliamentary Secretaries. It would be undesirable to have the number of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries too high a proportion of the side of the House that would support them. Therefore, we have to take a number of considerations into account when we are determining that matter, but we are not at the moment determining but simply leaving limits.
The Deputy's intention appears to be to narrow the limits and to lower the maximum. In my rough calculation of the population at 3,000,000, the maximum under his proposal would be 120. Is that not right? He wants to limit the number of members to 120. I do not think we should do that in this Bill. That would be a matter, undoubtedly, for consideration when the question comes up as to what would be the number of constituencies in the country and, therefore, what would be the number of members.
I would urge the Deputy to leave the possibilities between the number 100 and 150 open. My own view would be that, when the Dáil would come to consider that question, you would bear in mind the various things that have to be borne in mind and you would try to limit it to the smallest number that you think would be effective.
The Deputy has very properly pointed out that there would be no point in taking proportions, that our numbers here should be reduced to the number we would have if we had the same proportions as they have in Britain or the United States of America or elsewhere. Obviously, you want to have a sufficiently large number in an Assembly like this to make it representative and to enable it to do the national work properly. One consideration, undoubtedly, that has to be borne in mind is the necessity to get, let us say 12—take that number as a rough number—at least 12 Ministers and a few Parliamentary Secretaries out of one-half of the House.
I would urge the Deputy, therefore, not to press this amendment. It is not the commission that will decide the number of members, but the Legislature.
I should like to support Deputy Russell's amendment. I think it is reasonable. In reply to the Taoiseach's remarks on the amendment, I would point out that we are the most over-representative parliamentary democracy of the known democracies to-day and, in our limited circumstances, I cannot see why there should not be a very considerable reduction in the numbers attending this House.
First of all, there is the question of economy, which Deputy Russell has mentioned. That is important. But, what is more important, is the lack of confidence the people have in this House. That lack of confidence arises from the over-representation here and the fact that Deputies, because of the numbers attending here, can take their duties rather casually.
Again, a Deputy's main function is to take part in the debates on whatever legislation is going through the House but the greater part of a Deputy's time, when he comes to Dublin from the provinces, is taken up doing things that are necessary for his constituents but which he should not be asked to do.
This is an opportune time to discuss this matter and to try to get the Taoiseach and his Ministers to encourage a direct approach between the people and the Departments of State so that a Deputy will not be asked to do the errands that he has to do every day that he attends here and which preclude him from attending full-time in the House.
My first impressions of this Parliament were very disappointing because of the very sparse attendance from hour to hour. The average hourly attendance of Deputies here is startlingly low. I am as guilty as anybody else. I admit that readily. That is because a Deputy's time is broken up and taken up with matters outside his real functions as a Deputy.
Deputy Russell's amendment, if accepted, would reduce the number of Deputies to about 115. The Taoiseach says that the number of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries very considerably reduces the number of the rank and file. With a House of 115, allowing for 15 or 16 Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries there is still a big number of Deputies available to take part in debates or to be back-benchers.
It is a pity that this matter has to be discussed on a Bill of this kind. Paragraph 3º of Section 2 of Part II of the Bill says:—
"The number of constituencies shall be determined from time to time by law"...
These words alone are sufficient for the Constitution. Since the number of constituencies shall be determined from time to time by law, it would be the function of the House, then, to go into this matter occasionally outside the Constitution altogether and to decide what the number of constituencies will be. That would be the more businesslike way. Once the fact is inscribed in the Constitution, that they should be determined from time to time by law, that should be sufficient and it would be more in keeping with common practice and practical measures and realism if all the other words were deleted and those words remained so that this House could take up the question of the revision of constituencies at any time. That would be the sensible thing.
I do not see the sense in having the rest of this section enshrined in the Constitution. There may be many other views, but at all events we are very limited in our circumstances here. It is now common knowledge that the expenditure on administration in this country is abnormally high. If we are ever to make any impact on that high proportion of expenditure, I think we would strike a very effective blow by starting with this House itself. I should not like to see any Deputy lose his seat in this House. Many will certainly lose their seats if this Bill becomes law and we go back to the single seat constituency. It is an opportune time now, as Deputy Russell says, to make this reduction because it will be less hurtful now perhaps than at a later period.
I am afraid I must disagree entirely with this amendment. I think the Taoiseach was perfectly right in what he said concerning the numbers in the House. I, in company with every Deputy, have read from time to time in the papers and I have heard it said that 147 Deputies compared very unfavourably with the numbers in the American Congress. I have forgotten the numbers in the American Congress, but at any rate, on the basis of a percentage per head of the population, they represent far more people per head than we do.
When we are considering a Parliament, we must realise that there is an irreducible number of members who can carry on the functions of Government and the functions of the Opposition. You must have on the Government side Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. On the Opposition side, in the various Parties, you must have Front Bench members who have the time and the skill to carry out that work.
It is very onerous work on both sides of the House. It is not easy to find good Ministers for a Government. It is not easy to find good Front Bench members of the Opposition Parties. If you cut down the number of Deputies sitting in this House, you will run the risk—a very grave risk, in my opinion —of making the Parliament a very inefficient instrument for carrying out the wishes of the people.
Another matter which every Opposition has been up against is that there are various committees which, by tradition and so on, have sometimes as their chairmen members of the Opposition. Also by tradition, a certain proportion of those committees are Opposition members. If you cut down representation of the House, in the case of the Opposition, if it is a small Opposition you may make it impossible adequately to man those various posts and the whole question of democracy will be imperilled.
It is all right to say that there seem to be too many Deputies in the House and that that costs a certain amount of money. It does, of course, but the whole establishment here must be kept up. No matter what number of Deputies you have in the House, the building must be maintained and so on. You would have a great number of overhead costs which would not be reduced, if you reduce the number of Deputies. By doing so, you would very gravely imperil democratic institutions and parliamentary life in the country.
I should like to agree entirely with Deputy Dockrell and to express my agreement with the Taoiseach. I feel it would be entirely wrong and not in the best interests of the country in general to reduce the number of members of Dáil Éireann, to restrict or cut down in any way. Deputy Manley referred to the fact that there was a certain loss of respect for Deputies in the country. A Deputy leads a very strenuous and difficult life. Most of us in this House have been cut out for that life and, according to the old saying, the back is made for the burden. I feel that if there has been a certain loss of respect in the country for Deputies, it has been brought about by ourselves and particularly by Governments. We place such a low valuation on ourselves that we cannot expect the people to have respect for us.
Whether P.R. is abolished or not, I hope that whatever Government is in office will focus special attention on the activities and the duties of the members of this House, particularly with reference to the allowances paid to members of the House, in view of the fact that the chief rat-catcher for the Dublin Corporation is probably better paid than a member of this House and any builder's labourer in the City of Dublin, or even a casual builder's labourer down the country, can earn more in a week than any member of this House receives. I do not see how the general public can have respect for us because of the low valuation we place on ourselves.
The Taoiseach realises that to be a member of Dáil Éireann one must be a person of independent standing or should be a person of independent standing. Yet I venture to say that the right type of person will not be available to stand for Parliament in the years to come. The reason the right type of person will not be had to stand for Parliament is that the people who would be interested and who would like to offer themselves for Parliament are not able to afford it. There will be a return to the days when only the well-to-do classes and those who can afford to come up here for two or three days a week on their own incomes can sit in Parliament, take part in the debates, read in the library and answer correspondence, if they think fit to do so. Being people of independent means, they will not care whether they will answer their correspondence or give service or not.
I think we are heading in this Parliament for a very dangerous time. Within the next ten or 15 years, I venture to say that the lifetime of most of us in the public life of this country will have ended. We will not be replaced by the same energetic type of Deputies as we now have on all sides of this House. I am afraid that the Government in office now, the Governments of the past and those of the future must accept responsibility for that.
There are many Deputies to-day who are here at great financial loss to themselves. There are Deputies to-day who are in debt and who are in this House at this very moment on borrowed money. There are Deputies who are giving service to their constituents and the people at great financial loss to their own families and with loss to their business. They are losing business connections. I think that is wrong.
Now that there is a stocktaking of the Constitution with reference to the election and the establishment of Dáil Éireann, I hope that the Government will take some steps to make the member of Dáil Éireann an independent individual. Whatever his allowance is to be, it should be a decent, substantial allowance, so that he will not have to come here at a financial loss to himself, and at the risk of ruining his own business by having to leave it to come here, with the result that when that happens, or the electors get tired of him, he has neither his business nor this House to look after. That is why so many ex-Deputies have died in workhouses. That cannot be denied— the records of the House are here. Collections had to be made for their wives and families and I subscribed to them.
I cannot see how the question of Deputies' allowances can be argued on this.
The Government should see to it that whatever number of members are elected, they will be independent and that a decent, substantial allowance will be given, because I am very sorry to say that whereas the duties of Deputies are primarily to deal with legislation and the making of laws, a system has now grown up where the Deputy is a pennyboy for the people, a twopence-half-penny "lap-trap" to give people lifts to Dublin, to answer correspondence, and to be at the beck and call of every Tom, Dick and Harry in his constituency.
We know quite well that no member of the House of Commons would be asked to do the things we are asked to do. We are here to legislate and to pass laws for our people and not to be penny-boys for them. I am afraid that Governments, and particularly the present Government, must take the entire responsibility for the atmosphere that has grown up with regard to Deputies since 1932, because they have given rise to a feeling in the electorate that people cannot get what they are entitled to under the laws of this land, unless they use the influence of a Deputy. That is entirely wrong.
There is nothing in the amendment about that.
I would ask, then, when this is receiving further consideration by the Government, that these matters be borne in mind. It would be wrong and dangerous to limit the numbers of members in this House because the only manner in which the views of the people can be expressed is through their elected representatives. It would be entirely wrong and not in the best interests of any democratic institution that members of Parliament should be tied down to any particular number. It should vary in accordance with the population. If the numbers are reduced, the ordinary people are deprived of the only means they have of expressing their views, that is through their elected representatives.
I do not agree with the amendment. In my opinion, it is not in the best interests of the country. The whole Bill is not in the best interests of the country, but nevertheless I hope no steps will be taken by the Government to implement the terms of Deputy Russell's amendment.
There is one factor which should be borne in mind in examining the points that have arisen on Deputy Russell's amendment. There is no doubt that he is reflecting a certain volume of opinion in the country, but as he pointed out himself in fact, most of that opinion was advanced on economic grounds and, on examination, there is not much substance to be found in that contention.
We must remember that this is still an infant State. We have not got the traditions, the long period of government, which those other nations have whose representatives are fewer in number in their Parliaments in proportion to population than ours. After all, it is only a little over a quarter of a century since the first Government in this State had to start, without any precedents whatever, with no existing laws, to build up the whole administrative machinery of the State from the word "go".
It is only natural after a period such as that from which we are only now emerging that the country should call upon a greater number of its population so as to find within that number the type of representative who can come into Parliament and do the work which is so essential so that the backlog in the framing of legislation, the amending of legislation and the administration of the laws can be dealt with. Consequently if we had as those other countries like Denmark, Holland and others had a long period of calm atmosphere in which to build up the whole structure of legislation, then there would be something in Deputy Russell's amendment.
It is true, as other Deputies have said, that the members of this House are now, and have been for years, frustrated by the fact that so many people regard them as their private secretaries, that they are obliged to do these people's errands when they come to Dublin which these people could do themselves. Who is to blame for that? Are we not ourselves to blame, because in three out of four cases, is it not a fact that a person who applies for a grant or seeks assistance is entitled to it by right but the practice has grown up of members of this House implying to the people that unless they go to a Deputy, and unless the Deputy goes to a Department, they will not get it, and when they get it, the Deputy claims that it was he who got it?
That has grown up and that is why you have the situation to-day in which the Deputy who makes his name in a constituency is not the man who sits in these benches and applies himself to the business before the House, but the Deputy who slips out the word that somebody is to get a grant. He is the man who builds up the reputation. If we are not progressing here as legislators, that is contributing to it.
Deputies have referred to that fact. May I also refer to another? Not only is a Deputy expected to do that type of work as well as giving his attention and consideration to the various Bills introduced here, but he is also expected to be a member of a local authority. Is that not a reflection on the public life of this country, that so few are obliged to carry so much and that more are not prepared to attend to local politics? Is it not an awful load to place on the shoulders of any member of the Dáil? He is required to do all this trotting to Departments, plus attending to his primary duty, which is giving attention and devoting himself to the work of this House, and as well, he is expected to be a member of a county council, corporation or urban council.
In these circumstances, when we are examining this question, it is true that if the members of this House were permitted to devote their entire attention to the important work which is done here, which we are not permitted to do at the moment, we could possibly carry on with some slight reduction in the membership. I would agree with the amendment if that state of affairs existed, but in present circumstances I think it is desirable that we should permit that elasticity as between 20,000 and 30,000.
I quite sympathise with the Taoiseach in his contention that having to draw upon the membership of the House to fill the various Ministries and Parliamentary Secretaryships, one could come up against a situation in which it would be difficult to find the personnel to fill such Cabinet posts. After all, it is not long since the Taoiseach, with the greatest membership any Party ever secured in this House, had to go outside the House in order to secure a member for his Cabinet.
Tugadh tuairisc ar a ndearnadh; an Choiste do shuí arís.