An Bille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1958—An Coiste (Atógáil). Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958—Committee Stage (Resumed).

AN SCEIDEAL—ALT 2.

Tairgeadh an Cheist arís: "I gCodanna I agus II, go bhfanfaidh fo-alt 2 mar chuid den Sceideal."

SCHEDULE—SECTION 2.

Question again proposed: "That in Parts I and II, sub-section (2) stand part of the Schedule."

Mr. Larkin

At the conclusion of the debate last evening, I was indicating that this sub-section (2) would, in my view, have the effect of limiting very severely the choice of the electorate. If that sub-section were passed by the House, and if the Referendum Bill were subsequently accepted, the tendency would be to introduce a system of election by which, basically and mainly, the electorate voting in a general election would have a choice only of voting for one of two candidates.

In the course of many contributions from many Ministers, the Government indicated that that view might not necessarily be correct, but having regard to the fact that the Taoiseach and members of the Government have laid such stress on what they term the success of the direct voting system in Great Britain and the experience in that country, the general pattern of elections over a number of years has been for the electors there to be offered a choice as between two candidates.

The position here is that, since this State was formed and parliamentary government inaugurated here, the general electorate have had a choice. How they have utilised that choice down the years is a matter for each of them individually. There may be certain views on all sides of the House as to whether they utilised their choice wisely or unwisely, but nevertheless they had the choice and they were not compelled to say: "We will vote for this candidate because we have no alternative but to vote for one of two candidates."

The change in the system of voting can also have the result which was indicated already, that in a constituency in which 15,000 electors vote and in which there are candidates representing a number of political Parties, and possibly an Independent candidate, a situation could quite conceivably arise that out of 15,000 actually voting in the constituency, the votes of 4,000 would elect a representative for that constituency. The Minister for Defence agreed that this was possible when he spoke in the House yesterday. He said it was not likely but it was possible and I do not think I am being unfair to him when I say he expressed the view that it was not only possible but correct and proper, that where out of a number of electors totalling 15,000 taking part in an election in a constituency, 4,000 or a small minority voted for a particular candidate, that candidate should come into the House as the spokesman for that constituency.

Of course, that is quite understandable coming from the Minister for Defence and from the Government. It is quite understandable because it has been quite clear from the beginning, from the time this debate opened, that the main objective in the minds of the Government, in the mind of the Taoiseach, and in the minds of those who follow him like sheep, is to try to secure a situation in which 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of the electorate in any constituency would return the Deputy for that constituency.

The Minister for Defence was worried about the situation of some 163,000 voters who, he said, were injured because of the way the single transferable vote operated in previous elections. He was concerned about what he termed an injustice to 163,000 out of 1,238,559 voters. He was concerned about them and held that they were injured because these 163,000 voters and their votes did not contribute to the election of a Deputy.

If, next week or next month, an election is carried out on the lines proposed in this Bill, the situation would fall between these extremes— if we accept for the moment that exactly the same number of electors participate in the election: with all the 1,238,559 voters casting a vote, if, in each constituency, 51 per cent. of the votes went to a particular candidate—in other words, the majority—the result would be that 500,000 votes would not contribute to the election of a Deputy.

If, however, as is quite likely and as is quite possible under the simple scheme produced now by this Fianna Fáil Government, in most of the constituencies, there were more than two candidates, then it is quite possible that 30 per cent. of the voters would vote for successful candidates, leaving 70 per cent. of the voters whose votes would not contribute to the election of a Deputy. In other words, those 750,000 people taking part in the election would have cast a vote which was not effective in so far as it did not result in the return of a Deputy and those 750,000 people can be set off against the 163,000 persons whom the Minister is talking about under the present system.

The Minister for External Affairs is very fond of referring us to the position outside the country. He is particularly good at telling us how successful the direct vote is in Britain. He failed to tell the House of the number of constituencies in Britain in which, for the past 30 years, although there has been a contest, it has been a contest in name only. Everyone in such a constituency and, in fact, everyone in the country who takes any interest in affairs and anyone in this country or in any part of the world knows that there are a very large number of constituencies there where the contest is just a sham contest because the majority in the constituency is so great that whether it is a question of one candidate or six candidates contesting the sitting member seat, there is no effect: the hereditary system is operating very well in some of these constituencies in England. They are called "safe seats".

The Minister for External Affairs has not adverted at any great length to the benefits this proposed system has conferred on the Irish people in Northern Ireland. Perhaps he may again intervene and give us his views but I doubt very much whether, in the light of the circumstances of Northern Ireland, in the light of the oft-expressed views of the Taoiseach and his Ministers over many years regarding that section of the country, anything he says in this debate in that regard will convince anybody that it has any merit.

Speaking in Longford on Sunday, the Minister for Health was reported at great length in the Irish Press of the following day. Reading the report, one gets a certain view of what is in the Minister's mind. It appeared to me as if his contribution would come under two main headings. It would seem that he is of opinion that any person who dares to go forward as a candidate and who is not a member of the Fianna Fáil Party or the Fine Gael Party is a crank or a crackpot. It would seem that any person who at present has certain rights and feels he or she should assert those rights by going before the people in a general election and asking for their support would be described by the Minister for Health of this Government as a crank or a crackpot. It would also seem that any citizen of this country, man or woman, who forms the opinion that he or she should support a candidate other than the candidate of the Fianna Fáil Party or possibly the Fine Gael Party, to that extent, goes against the popular feeling at the time and that, therefore, it is a crime.

One gathers from that speech that there is something wrong about our citizens supporting candidates of political Parties other than the Fianna Fáil Party or the Fine Gael Party— supporting candidates of minority Parties or minority groups. Is the Taoiseach, who is present now, prepared to assert that at all times the minority must be wrong? His colleague, the Minister for Defence, indicates that if an elector does not see eye to eye with the people living next door to him, with his fellow citizens, he is doing something wrong. Therefore, I take it the Minister for Defence means that the electors by right have only one choice, to move along like a herd of sheep, going this way when the shepherd wants them to go this way and going the other way when the shepherd wants them to go the other way. I wonder whether the people whose memories are venerated in Ireland would subscribe to the view that the Irish people or a section of the Irish people are not entitled to use their God-given intelligence and to take an active part in the affairs of the nation. The Minister for Health appears to have a great regard for sheep. It is quite clear from his discourse to the Fianna Fáil conference in Longford that he must have been talking to a flock of sheep.

In the course of this debate the members of the Government have taken some opportunities to advert to the position of the Labour Party. The position of the Labour Party is very clear. It has been defined again and again and on this issue it has also been defined. However, in case the Minister for External Affairs is still confused, as he is about so many things, let me say that the Labour Party believes that the citizens of Ireland should have the chance of deciding who should represent them in this Dáil. The Labour Party believe the choice should not be limited in the way it is now proposed to limit it. The Labour Party will be represented in this Dáil as long as Labour supporters decide to give the Party support and the condemnations or the strictures of various Ministers of the Government will not affect that position one bit.

The Labour Party are an independent political Party in this House and, as I mentioned on another occasion, they appreciate the fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, possibly in one of his more lucid moments, expressed the view that the Labour Party was the Party in this House that had a political and economic concept different from that commonly held by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. It was a separate and distinct political entity before we were born and will continue to be separate and distinct.

An Ceann Comhairle

The history of the Labour Party does not seem to be relevant to this discussion.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister for External Affairs had a great deal to say about the Labour Party and I make that point. I want to ask the Taoiseach whether he will accept the invitation tendered to him to explain to this House and to the people the reason for this hasty legislation, what he considers the justification in January, 1959, for introducing and coursing through the House a Bill which will deprive our citizens of rights they have enjoyed under the Constitution introduced by him in 1937. In asking those questions I should like to revert once more to some figures. The Minister for Defence indicated his concern over 163,000 votes. The figure of 163,000 is very closely comparable with the total figures of unemployment and emigration, 81,000 plus approximately 61,000.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not relevant to the debate.

Mr. Larkin

This is my final question to the Taoiseach. Can he explain in regard to this Bill where his concern for those people has gone since March of 1957?

Mr. Jones

I am opposed to this sub-section as I was opposed to the previous one because it will limit the choice which the people can exercise in an election. The advantage of the transferable vote is that if the candidate for whom some of the electors have given their first preference is not elected, they will get the candidate most acceptable to a majority of the electors. If a candidate returned to this House is to claim that he represents a constituency in which he was elected, surely he should have the votes of at least a majority of the electors taking part in that election, if not of the majority of the people in the constituency as a whole?

It is presumptuous, to my mind, even to the point of arrogance, to claim that a candidate returned to this House by a straight vote—where he is returned on a minority vote—could be said to represent the people. It would also be presumptuous to think that the people in that constituency could readily approach such a person as their member. I do not think that anyone who wants to be quite honest about the facts could say that a member so returned would have the absolute confidence of the people in that constituency.

It has been said that the Opposition Parties should coalesce prior to an election. It is not natural to coalesce prior to an election and I doubt if it would be absolutely fair to the people, who in the long run must have the right to determine for themselves what programme they wish to adopt as being the best suited to their needs. The various Parties propose their programmes and put up their own candidates in support of such programmes. Surely it is to be left open to the people to decide for themselves which programme—or, by exercising the transferable vote, which programmes—would give them the fairest choice.

Our people cannot be segregated here as they are in other countries. We have not that segregation into labour and property people as there might be abroad. Our people are of a more homogeneous kind and our best efforts have always been achieved when all sections of the community, whether at parochial level or national level, have been brought together to work together for the common good. In the system now proposed by the Government there is a tendency to create a division between the sections of the community, a disunifying rather than a unifying influence.

One of the Deputies who spoke yesterday—I think it was Deputy Cunningham—mentioned the straight vote as exercised in other bodies—for instance, in labour organisations and, as mentioned by another Deputy last night, in sporting organisations. I do not see any comparison whatsoever between the election of members to such bodies and the election of members to a legislative assembly. Surely, when people are elected to positions concerned with, say, the administration of the day to day affairs of a labour party or of a sporting organisation, it cannot be asserted that those people are doing other than directing the ordinary mass of the people on matters of policy which have been decided already? A Parliament, however, legislates for the people. It affects the lives of the people in an intimate fashion. Consequently, there could be no comparison as between using that system to elect a body of people to direct an organisation and using the same system to provide a Legislature which will affect the lives of the people.

In that respect, it has happened and is happening constantly in the case of local authorities, where the members have to exercise a choice of a candidate for a post or posts and where there is a multiplicity of candidates. Is it not the accepted practice that the transferable vote is used in the local assembly on a single day, where the candidates with the lowest vote in the beginning go out and once more the members exercise their right, until eventually they provide themselves with the people they think best fitted for the post?

The question has been mentioned here already that this change is being made at this time because it might be the last opportunity there would be to present such legislation to Parliament. I do not doubt that contention. Perhaps it is the last time. As a matter of fact, if this legislation passes this House and if the country accepts the proposal put in this referendum, who is there to say that it will not be the last time and that a House elected under a straight vote system in the single member constituency will ever give our people the right by legislation to change that system again? Would it not be stretching too far the bounds of imagination to think that members who would come in here under this new system would not at least be very chary about doing anything which might give back the right of choice which the people now enjoy?

Although an intimate constitutional knowledge is not the property of the ordinary citizen, it is an absolute fallacy to say, as we hear so often, that it is a question of the will of the people. How can a citizen vote in the forthcoming referendum if he is not equipped with that knowledge of the minorities' rights and of all the other intricacies of the Constitution? Even a student of political thought at present might write a learned treatise on our Constitution and its workings and, at the end, find that he had left out quite a lot which he ought to have said. I suppose there is no point in being too academic about it, since evidently the Government Party have made up their minds that this measure is to pass; but I think there will be many people—even people who in the ordinary way do not give much thought to these things—who will have to give serious thought to the matter put before them on this occasion.

Members of this House and the people generally might read with profit a letter which appeared in to-day's Irish Times, where a member of the New South Wales Legislature refers to the system of P.R. He points out that in Tasmania that system was adopted 50 years ago. After the last election there was some criticism of that system and a Select Committee of that House was set up to inquire into it. After a very exhaustive inquiry, they reported that the system of the transferable vote and P.R. was the best in the world.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but the issue is narrower now than P.R.: it is the issue of the single transferable vote.

Mr. Jones

The proposition is made that the system of the single transferable vote should be changed. I submit that in this section we are attempting to restrict the right of the electorate in the choice of candidate which they have exercised up to this, in both the multi-member constituency and under the transferable vote. I regard the single transferable vote as electoral justice for the people in any constituency. If we take away that from them then we are limiting their choice of candidate and certainly making it difficult for the people in those constituencies to approach, with any confidence, a member who might be elected on a minority vote of the people taking part in that election. It would be a retrograde step and in regard to our Constitution I think we might adopt the old dictum that the best way of dealing with it is to leave alone what the people have freely enacted.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I intervene for a second time on this sub-section to reply to some of the remarks made last night by Deputy N. Lemass. The House will recall that at the very inception of the debate on the Government's proposals to amend the Constitution the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Costello, posed a very pertinent question to the Taoiseach. He wanted to know at what time did the Taoiseach come to the conclusion that the system of election under P.R. was not the perfect system for this country and, on an interjection mentioning the year 1948, the Taoiseach said—"precisely". However, Deputy N. Lemass was more precise last night than his Leader, the Taoiseach, and he recited for us some of the occasions on which the Taoiseach stated that he had some doubts about the advisability of retaining P.R.

I agree, but briefly I will say it is an extraordinary thing that these dates that were submitted by the Deputy last night were dates that followed immediately upon three reversals in three by-elections under P.R. and which created a general election in that winter of 1947. These remarks were made in the course of the campaign that followed on the retirement of the Taoiseach and his resignation consequent on the losing of by-elections under P.R. At any rate, in the years that have elapsed since then, this subject has been left severely alone, not only by the members of the Government but by the Deputies who now sit mutely behind the Government and who propose to vote loyally in support of this measure. During those years not one of those Deputies expressed any concern about the system of election.

The details of this system are being discussed under this sub-section (2) now before the House. There is no doubt but that the group of people in the country best equipped to discuss the merits or demerits of the Government's proposal are the members of this House who so often have contested elections under the system of P.R. and naturally whose interest it would be to study alternative systems. We find that notwithstanding the variety of proposals contained in the Bill, which if passed by the Oireachtas will be submitted to the people, the fact remains that within the large Party on the Government Benches there is a remarkable silence, a remarkable disinterestedness in the varying points that could be put forward if there was democracy within the Government Party, which would permit Deputies opposite to give their views in relation to the varying points contained in the Bill. We are discussing at the moment the——

Mr. Moher

The single non-transferable vote.

Mr. O'Sullivan

——the question of the transferable vote. We still await the intervention of Deputies like Deputy Moher, who did not talk on the First or Second Reading and who has solely confined himself to some interjections which are not quite intelligible. There is no doubt that if he had any intelligent contribution to make he would do so, if he were so equipped, as he was in opposition, for making lengthy dissertations on all subjects. So would have many of his colleagues on what they considered attractive in the substitution of the single transferable vote by the non-transferable vote, which they have used so effectively down through the years.

No speaker on the opposite side has advanced any cogent reason for the change. No speaker has said that the people have not used with good effect the transferable vote whenever opportunity presented itself. Even much later than the enactment of the 1937 Constitution the Taoiseach evolved the system of election to the Upper House used up to the present and which is now the subject of inquiry by a commission. There, the Taoiseach maintained P.R. and the transferable vote, in a case which certainly tested the ingenuity of the voters far more than it would be tested in the election of a member to this House.

We await an argument from the Government presenting any reason whatever to make the change more attractive or more beneficial to the country. We cannot understand why the people who have used their voting right under P.R. to such good effect and exercised such a degree of choice on every occasion they were given the opportunity should now be deprived of that right and be forced to revert to the extremely simple process of taking a ballot paper, putting a symbol before one name on it, and recording that there, and there alone, is the name of the only person on the ballot paper that they want to represent them in the Dáil. After that the remainder are all "black sheep." There is no preference after that. If the people thought that was the system of election best for the country, what they could have done down through the years was to take the ballot paper in any polling booth at any general election and place No. 1 in front of one candidate and then stop short and vote no more.

Mr. Moher

The step-brother's part——

Mr. T. Lynch

I shall read out even better figures.

Mr. O'Sullivan

——and 98 votes went to the late Deputy Seán Moylan. The entire 7,911 people wanted to express this view. The surplus was merely indicative of what prevailed right through the entire vote of 7,911 people and it proved that every person who voted in that bloc showed they wanted to carry on their preference for some other candidate, 80 per cent. for my Labour Party colleague and varying degrees of support for the only other two candidates on the ballot paper. Where is the bitterness there?

Mr. T. Lynch

Where was the bitterness in the Dublin election when the Minister for Health was depending on Fine Gael votes to put him in, and got them?

Mr. Galvin

That was the time when Seán Collins said that P.R. was "a cod."

Mr. Coogan

The Deputy should mind his blood pressure.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Deputy will have this afternoon a splendid opportunity to make his maiden speech after all those years if he wishes to do so but he will not be allowed to do so while I am standing here.

Mr. Galvin

The Deputy's grandfather ran away from the Fenians. Did the Deputy hear what I said?

Mr. O'Sullivan

I think I did.

An Ceann Comhairle

I suggest that these pleasantries be reserved for Cork.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Deputy will not say any of these things outside this House for a particular reason. In West Cork two Fianna Fáil candidates were submitted by the Fianna Fáil Convention to the electorate of West Cork. The electorate were to choose the candidate they thought would make the best representative and Deputy Cotter was selected and on the elimination of Mr. Finn, Deputy Cotter had a surplus of 1,717 votes. The Fianna Fáil voters very intelligently desired to express further preferment among the remaining candidates and it was only natural that they should select from among them the candidate selected independently and not pledged to oppose Fianna Fáil subsequent to the general election. How wise they were in choosing Mr. Wycherley for their surplus votes. Out of 1,717 surplus votes, 1,254 went to Mr. Wycherley and elected him, defeating the Fine Gael candidate. Then Mr. Wycherley voted for Mr. de Valera as Taoiseach in this Government. There was an intelligent transfer of votes by Fianna Fáil supporters after they had voted for their own team of candidates.

The proposal in this sub-section is to deny them the opportunity of making a choice in a panel of candidates of their own Party submitted to them. Never again will they have such an opportunity. In future it must be done behind closed doors, the closed doors to which the Minister for External Affairs suggests the Opposition should resort for backroom intrigues if they are to have any possible opportunity of securing election in any constituency.

In that case it was conducted in the light of day and the men and women went in and took ballot papers in their hands in the secrecy and protection of the polling booth and exercised their choice between the number of candidates on the panel. We are doing away with that because with P.R. gone and without the transferable vote, as will be the case if this Bill goes through, voters will have used for the last time the choice they enjoyed down through the years. Never have I heard any man or woman, elected to this House on transfers from another candidate, saying that they deplored the system of the transferable vote. I have never heard any Deputy elected here saying that he or she was not entitled to speak in this House because of not having a proper mandate, due to the fact that the system of election under which they were returned was, in their opinion, a system which should not exist and a system which they would desire changed.

There are hundreds of examples which could be quoted in defence of the system we have known for so long, a system which has brought to this country a degree of stability, of reasonable stability, that could not be found in any other democracy. There is stability, of course, to be found behind the Iron Curtain, but, apart from that type of stability, we have experienced here in this House, over so lengthy a period, such stability in Government as has not been experienced elsewhere. We say one of the contributing factors to that was the fact that we gave to the people the advanced system of election which they have enjoyed through the years, the system which they have used so well, and which contained, as one of its most attractive and most important features, a choice for the voter, a selection, when he or she entered the polling booth.

In consequence of the fact that the Taoiseach is retiring from politics and that it is his desire to bequeath to his Party some few additional years in office, the House is compelled to examine every section of this Bill at length, and with every possible contribution that could be made to bring to light the iniquities that will flow from the enactment of this measure. We have to bring that subsequently to the people so that they will, as surely they will, when given the opportunity, say to the Government that they have enough of this, that there are other propositions to which the time of the Government and the House should be devoted, matters which are far more important than the enactment of legislation such as this for which there was no demand, and in respect of which the people who are supporting the measure have not provided any proof whatever that there was even a section of our people who wanted this done.

They are doing it in circumstances in which they are losing their king-pin, in the Leader of their Party, and in those circumstances, they desire to be cushioned against the impact of his retirement. It is in such circumstances that the people are asked to throw away what was fundamental, what was the most attractive feature we had to offer in this country, the fact that the people could exercise their preference on the ballot paper, and it is because of this iniquitous proposal that we intend to oppose this section and from there, at every opportunity presented, to bring it home to the people that they in turn should endorse what we are doing in this House, and condemn the proposal as one which is as injurious as it is unnecessary.

Mr. Cunningham

Judging by the tone of the Opposition speeches on this sub-section, it is clear that they are more worried about the fate of candidates in a general election than about the fate of policies. In the main, the purpose of a general election is to give the people an opportunity of electing a Government with a policy. The main purpose of an election is not to select individual candidates. The theme of most of the speeches, yesterday and to-day, was this: a constituency is chosen and as an example, it has 12,000 voters. The example is given where Labour get 3,000 votes, Fine Gael 4,000 and the Fianna Fáil candidate 5,000 votes. The argument is followed that, therefore, when the Fianna Fáil candidate is elected, he is elected on a minority vote, that the combined votes of Labour and Fine Gael are lost; that those votes, 8,000 in number, are not sufficient or are not enabled, therefore, to be represented here by a Deputy.

Why should they be when we take it that the Labour candidate is put up as a representative in that constituency of a policy proposed by Labour, when the Fine Gael candidate is the standard bearer of a policy proposed by Fine Gael, and the Fianna Fáil candidate, in the same way, represents the Fianna Fáil policy? If any of those policies gets a majority, then it is clear that the overall picture in the country is that the policy which has the greatest support is the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party, or the policy of the Fine Gael Party, as the case may be.

General MacEoin

Or a Communist Party, if they got the same thing.

Mr. Cunningham

It is the will of the people that the policy which gets the greatest support in the country is the policy that should be carried out. We know that the Opposition are worried about individual seats. We know that they are worried about the fortunes of individual candidates, but I think the system proposed is one which, rather than directing the attention of the electorate to individuals, will direct the attention of the electorate to policies, so that it is the policy which is best, in the eyes of the electorate, that they will vote for. Thereby, we shall have a Government which will be representative, which will carry out the policy desired by the greatest number of the electorate in each constituency.

It is true to say that in a constituency, an example of which I have given, the policy of Labour may contain some of the Fine Gael policy, and the Fianna Fáil policy may, on the other hand, contain part of Fine Gael policy, but the overall picture will be that one of the policies will have a number of points in it which will be attractive to the greatest number of people, and no other policy will attract so many people. That is one point which has been missed or, at least, purposely not adverted to by the Opposition speakers. They are worried about individual candidates which is not the important point in this at all. The provisions of this sub-section will, to my mind, give a better Government than one which will allow the sort of coalition system which has come into being under the existing P.R. system.

Mr. T. Lynch

If I may say so, in reply to Deputy Cunningham, we are not talking about candidates at all. We are talking about people, people who are to go into polling booths and be handed a ballot paper. If they do not vote for the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes, they are to be disfranchised. This matter of talking about policies shows the whole failure of the Government. Deputy Cunningham said this Government were elected because their policy appealed to the people. They were elected on a three-card trick; that is what their policy was. They told the women to vote and have their husbands working the following Monday morning.

What my colleague says is true; that is what we should be talking about. I have listened to an Ulster Deputy backing up the system of election in the Six Counties. Wherever Lord Brookeborough is, he will be delighted. He has another convert. The Government's conduct in relation to this Bill is deplorable. I was not in the House yesterday, but I read that a Minister stated that the Taoiseach was seldom absent from the debate. I have sat a good many hours listening to this debate, and the Taoiseach has a very bad record of attendance for the Bill he is moving himself, but when they have the Press controlled, they are able to get away with that. As far as the single non-transferable vote is concerned——

An Ceann Comhairle

I hope the Deputy will continue on that line.

Mr. T. Lynch

I shall continue on it. Deputy Moher talked about the transfer of Fine Gael votes. I have before me the results of an election in 1954. There were three seats. Two candidates were elected fairly quickly and that left two candidates with nearly the same number of votes. There were 1,068 Fine Gael votes to be distributed. Some of those people decided to vote for the Fianna Fáil man and some to vote for the Independent. Even though they were of the same political persuasion as myself, I do not think they were right in the way they voted; but they exercised their rights as electors and, as I said in an interjection here this evening, they gave 201 Fine Gael transfers to the man who is now Minister for Health, making him then Deputy Séan MacEntee. They brought him to 6,391 votes; his opponent had 6,273, leaving him with a majority of 112 including 201 Fine Gael votes. That was the will of the people; he was elected without reaching the quota, and there was a good deal of sneering when that was mentioned in the House.

I am surprised that the members of the Fianna Fáil Party did not take a greater part in this debate. I have come to the conclusion that many of them do not want this, but, being faithful to the Party, they just let it go. It was said here by Deputy Wycherley that it would be as well if this Bill were taken out of the House and an agreement reached. I can only say that Deputy Wycherley is an innocent man. He wants that kind of peace at any price. The Leader of the Government Party will always tell you he wants peace, but it has to be at his price and under his conditions.

Mr. Booth

What about the single non-transferable vote? Would that not be interesting?

Mr. T. Lynch

It would.

Mr. Booth

Have a shot at it.

Mr. T. Lynch

I think I have a right to reply to what other Deputies say when they are speaking on this.

The Deputy should really confine himself to sub-section (2), and not merely mentioning it now and again.

Mr. T. Lynch

I remember a time in this country when the Nationalists were divided. I remember reading that, before my time, when the Nationalists were divided and two Nationalist candidates for a constituency polled 7,000 or 8,000 votes between them, a Unionist candidate would get the seat. That was because of the single non-transferable vote.

I am sure that the people when they come to vote in this referendum to amend the Constitution and in the election of the President, voting "X" in the referendum and voting by P.R. in the election of the President, will see that this whole thing is a fake on the part of this Fianna Fáil Government. The main objection on the part of the Government to the single transferable vote appears to be the fact that it is possible under that system to have a Coalition Government elected. According to the Government, that is a mortal sin. The Fianna Fáil Government do not want to have any small Parties. They do not want to have any minorities. There was a time when they were prepared to deal with minorities in a very direct way. As I said earlier, I was on a boat out of Cork; there were 90 people on it—90 electors leaving this country—and they never came back.

Mr. Larkin

Very briefly, I should like to comment on the contribution made in support of this sub-section by Deputy Cunningham. The sub-section we are dealing with states: "The members of Dáil Éireann shall be elected on a single non-transferable vote." I take it that this first sentence is the governing principle underlying the proposed system of election of members to Dáil Éireann. The election will not be for the purpose of deciding who shall be Taoiseach, who shall be Tánaiste, who shall be Minister for Health, who shall be Minister for Industry and Commerce, and so on. The election will be for the purpose of deciding who shall be members of Dáil Éireann.

Deputy Cunningham suggested that he believed the electors should have before them at a general election the opportunity of indicating their support for policies; I take it he meant specific political policies of specific political Parties. I take it also that Deputy Cunningham's contribution indicates quite clearly that it should be incumbent on political Parties seeking support for their candidates in a constituency to place before the electorate a specific political programme and policy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of policies or programmes does not arise on this sub-section.

Mr. Larkin

I am dealing with the contribution made by Deputy Cunningham in which he said that, in his view, the electorate should vote on the basis of policy and not on the basis of personality. I take it that expression of opinion carries with it the suggestion that no one should be a candidate in an election unless he is a member of a political Party with a definite political programme to put before the electorate. Deputy Cunningham is a member of Fianna Fáil. He is a member of a Party with more than 70 seats in this House. He is a member of a Party which has brought this Bill before this House. If it is the view of his Party that a citizen should not stand for election to Dáil Éireann unless he is a member of a political Party, why do they not say so clearly? Why do they not say that Fianna Fáil, as a Party, hold the view that no Independent candidate should be permitted to go before the people? That is the logical interpretation of Deputy Cunningham's contribution.

The Deputy also stated that the concern of Deputies taking part in this discussion was a concern with their own position in future elections. A concern such as that might be a concern of members of any Party here. Such a concern might be a worry to many members of Fianna Fáil at present. I do not know whether it is or not. The issue that it has been attempted to put before the House is not that the position of a Deputy is important in this matter but that the position of the electorate is important. So far as this sub-section goes, Deputies enjoy the same right as any other member of the electorate. A Deputy as an elector has the right of exercising his choice in an election. I want to emphasise once more the fact that differences of opinion exist and citizens, as electors, are entitled to express their preferences and to try to give effect to them.

Deputy O'Sullivan pointed out that there is some importance to be placed on the fact that electors casting votes under the system of the single transferable vote operate their full franchise by voting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Personally, I do not think that is of any importance. The significant change which the Government seeks to make is to remove from the elector the right to indicate a choice. Under the single transferable vote system, if an elector chooses to vote for only one candidate, that is his right and nobody here can quarrel with it. If he chooses to give his second and third preferences, that also is his right. If he chooses to indicate preferences right down the panel of candidates, that also is his right. The effect of this sub-section is to remove that right and to substitute for it the right to put an X against the name of the candidate whom the elector favours.

Deputy Cunningham indicated fairly clearly that, in his view, when elections take place, the people should be asked to support the candidates on the basis of some policy but the Minister for Health, in the course of at least one contribution, indicated that under the proposed system the candidate would have to be one who would know his locality, be in close contact with the people in his locality and be popular with them. On the one hand the argument is put forward by a Deputy that the candidate represents purely a political programme and, on the other hand, a Minister of the same Party, while seeking for continued control of this House by Fianna Fáil, indicates that the candidate must be well known in his constituency and one who will get support, not on a political programme but on his personal reputation and local knowledge.

Finally, I want to say that it is a little bit late in the day for any representative of Fianna Fáil to make a contribution to this debate on the basis that candidates in general elections should get support on the basis of a political policy and programme when, as I have already mentioned and will repeat, the Taoiseach, who hopes to go out of the political arena, has indicated quite clearly on more than one occasion that a policy or programme can be made only after an election and when a Government is elected and that then the policy can be put to the people. Which are we to have?

"I put that case and I withdraw nothing from that."

Now he is blaming us. He went on to say:—

"...but, what I do say is this: that in the circumstances of this country though such might have occurred under P.R. it has not occurred, and our people have sufficient intelligence, political capacity and political education to know how to deal with the situation."

Let us try to find out what, in the name of all that is wonderful, Deputy J.A. Costello means. He says these defects are inherent in the system of P.R. and the single transferable vote. He adds that he put that case in 1937 and withdraws nothing from it. Then he goes on to say that it did not actually happen.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Correct.

Mr. Booth

And we agree that it has not happened yet.

Mr. O'Sullivan

A glorious admission. Glory hallelujah! The cat is out of the bag. It has not happened yet.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Booth

There is no cat to jump out of any bag at all. Deputy Ó Briain is well able to look after himself.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Do not draw me on you. If I start, you will be sorry.

Mr. Booth

Let us get back to the matter under discussion.

I am very sorry I provoked anybody. I must say that it is really Deputy J.A. Costello who was guilty of the provocation. I am only quoting his words. I want to drive it home that Deputy J.A. Costello is against P.R. and the single transferable vote. He admits he said so in 1937 and he withdraws nothing from that. That is the end of it.

Let us forget about Deputy J.A. Costello for the moment and go on to Deputy Dillon. I quote from column 2147, Volume 171, No. 15 of the Official Report where the Minister for Health quoted Deputy Dillon as follows:—

"Personally, I think P.R. is a fraud and a cod, and that it ought to be abolished. I believe in the single member constituency, with the transferable vote, so that the man who gets the support of the largest number of people living in the constituency will represent the constituency. The constituency should be of a size to enable the T.D. to familiarise himself with all its problems."

At column 2148, Deputy Dillon is quoted again:—

"Under that system you would get a clear majority in this House, with a good strong Government and with no doubts about it after a general election...."

Unless you can say something.

General Mulcahy

We are to shut our mouths and we are to keep quiet. I refrain from asking the Ceann Comhairle whether it is in order for a Deputy to speak to his colleagues in this House and tell them to shut their mouths. I sympathise with the Minister for External Affairs, in the light of so much of his past, that he has to have the support of Deputy Cunningham and Deputy Booth in the manner in which he has got it this afternoon.

Deputy Larkin rather exaggerated the import of Deputy Cunningham's intervention. Deputy Cunningham intervened here in order to give support to the Minister in keeping his eyes shut to what has happened in the Six Counties under this scheme that the Minister is proposing. The single non-transferable vote—as has been fully explained by the Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Health, just to reduce the matter to simplicity—is intended to have the effect that if, in County Louth, a Fianna Fáil candidate gets 5,000 votes, a Fine Gael candidate 4,500 votes and a Labour candidate 4,000 votes—they are three Parties that may naturally be expected to contest the Louth constituency—the supporters of Fine Gael and the supporters of Labour, irrespective of Party, are cranks and the candidates they put up are crackpots.

In a constituency like Mayo, if a Fianna Fáil candidate gets 5,000 votes, a Fine Gael candidate 4,500 votes and Clann na Talmhan 4,000 votes, the supporters of Fine Gael and Clann na Talmhan candidates in Mayo are cranks and the candidates they put up are crackpots. The Government will be carried on by Fianna Fáil candidates selected in that way in Louth and Mayo.

That is, from a simple point of view, what the single non-transferable vote here is to be and that is the position from which the Minister expects to reap an immediate harvest. The situation is that as this country has evolved in its economic, social and political development, there are many groups of people expressing themselves in every aspect of the nation's work in different ways, all knitting together in a great national picture. There has been the same kind of grouping in politics as elsewhere, but the greater the differential in relation to efficiency, clarity of expression, of experience, of proposals and policy, the more the hard core that Fianna Fáil think is right in the country is going to sail in as the first horse past the post.

That is the net position, with all the talk we have heard from Ministers and the back-benchers who have spoken in this debate, which they want to put across the country. I say the country ought to be wide enough awake to its interests to withstand that; but it is a very curious thing that at this hour of the day in present domestic and world circumstances, we should be treated to the kind of talk on an issue like this that we have just heard from Deputy Cunningham and Deputy Booth.

Mr. Norton

In the course of this debate, we have been invited by the Government Benches, by quotations from material written by people, some of whom have never set foot in Ireland, to abolish P.R. and to strangle the principle of the single transferable vote and, instead of what we have been familiar with for nearly 40 years, to introduce the British and the Six-County method of election. We have been told by writers from America and elsewhere, that we ought to get rid of what we are familiar with, what the Taoiseach has said gives us stability, balanced legislation and a virtual insurance against the violent swing from one side to the other, and we are invited, as I say, to adopt the British method, and the Six-County method, as the best methods of electing a Parliament in this portion of the country.

As against these invitations to adopt methods of election with which our people are unfamiliar and which are untried in the case of persons under the ages of 58 or 60 years, surely it is preferable, as the Taoiseach said in 1937—and I believe he was right— that we should instead adhere to a method of election which has the merit that Parliament is representative of the strength of the different elements which constitute the Irish electorate; in other words, you have your representation in this House in accordance with the electoral strength of the Party or the group in the country.

Ask the Proportional Representation Society. They will tell you. They are the experts.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy does not believe that that is an answer to what I have said? The reason is that this would not fit in with the Fianna Fáil "hoofle" which is enshrined in this Bill. Fianna Fáil feel that perhaps with the next election, perhaps with the election after the next, they will be able to remain the one Party with a majority, the Party who can poll a greater number of votes than any other single Party. If this scheme lasts for another five years, it will teach a lesson to some people in this House who otherwise, at the next election, would get their walking papers from an irritated electorate.

I did not interrupt the Deputy.

Mr. Norton

The Minister made a good effort.

Mr. Aiken

He will have to listen to me in reply. At that time, as is well known and as has been published in many memoirs, there was an effort to starve us into the war.

Let us now get back to the sub-section.

Mr. Aiken

I shall come back now to the sub-section and I shall take Deputy Norton up on what he said on the single transferable vote. The reason Deputy Norton does not like the straight vote and wants the single transferable vote is that he wants to make what he calls a deal, but he wants to make the deal behind the backs of the people after the election, not before it. I want to quote from column 1077, Volume 171, No. 8, of the Official Report of the 26th November, 1958. Deputy Norton said, having dealt with the straight vote:—

"If you elect one (that is, one member) in the single member constituency on the single transferable vote, then two Parties can make a deal and their combined votes will put out the other person. The Taoiseach proceeds on the basis that you cannot put out the other fellow.

It is because even that door is closed that I am more convinced than ever that this Bill is a political hoofle."

Deputy Norton wants the single transferable vote because he wants to make a deal after the election, and we want the straight vote to compel him, if he is going to make a deal, to make it before the election so that the people will have an opportunity of seeing what the type of deal is.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The busted flush.

Mr. Blowick

If you only knew who he did tell off.

Mr. Aiken

——what he said in 1947. What I suggested was that the two of them should go off to another room, and there Deputy Dillon could tell Deputy Costello off, or Deputy Costello could tell Deputy Dillon off.

General Mulcahy

He is only titillating his imagination.

Mr. Aiken

He was one who did not see the abolition of the single transferable vote as political dictatorship gone mad——

——that brought the Labour Party up in England. Why do they want to hold on to the system of voting that brought the Irish Labour Party down practically by half, from 22 down to ten or 11? They would need to believe in themselves but they do not do that. They want to run after and tag on to Fine Gael.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

"My dear Sir Basil."

Mr. Aiken

Mr. Dockrell

We have a right, and more than a right, a duty, to put before the people and to discuss here the complete case for the merits of P.R. which we believe in.

Mr. Aiken

Yes, surely.

Mr. Dockrell

I would suggest and, indeed, more than suggest—I would say—to this House that the measure of impatience of the Minister with the democratic way in which this Bill has been discussed augurs ill for this country, if we are to have one large Party in it. Surely the essence of this sub-section is to take away from your fellow-men who may differ from you politically the right of expression, the right of representation in Parliament? Do we wish wantonly to withhold that right from them? That is what the Government Party are trying to do in this Bill, for, perhaps, a temporary advantage. At the most, it will be a temporary advantage because time will deal with that.

However, all these matters have been put before the House at great length and I think it is a very wise thing that they were put before the House at great length because it is of vital importance that our electorate should understand the real issue. We have a Government who wish to put forward a system of election which inevitably forces an injustice on anything up to and sometimes over 50 per cent. of our population. Now, it seems nice to do that, perhaps, if you are on the winning side, but nobody will be on the winning side for ever and least of all the Fianna Fáil Party. I think they will get a knock that will show them that they cannot play fast and loose with the Irish people.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister for External Affairs tells us that Fianna Fáil will be sure to win the next election. Might I put one simple question to him? If they are so sure of victory in the next election, why is there this panic to get this Bill passed so that it will become law? If the Fianna Fáil Party are so cocksure of themselves, of getting in at the next election, why change the system of voting? Is the truth of the matter not that the P.R. system was a wonderful system up to 1948 and then it went wrong, according to the Fianna Fáil view, because a change of Government was possible under the P.R. system. There was another election in 1951 and Fianna Fáil got back into office, but in 1954, disaster happened again. That was too bad and that should not be allowed to continue. I am afraid that, from the Fianna Fáil point of view, we must place the blame on P.R. and so P.R. must go.

The Minister went further——

I am coming to the sub-section and I propose to correct the misrepresentation.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Norton

I have as much right to speak as the Minister for External Affairs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What happened during the war is not relevant to the sub-section.

Mr. Norton

I will refer to misrepresentation and you will not prevent me doing it. Is that clear?

Deputies

Shut up!

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please resume his seat for a moment?

Mr. Norton

Mr. Norton

I do not want to pursue it and if the Minister for External Affairs had not mentioned it, the matter would not now arise. As a member of the Labour Party I participated in the Defence Conference and in that conference we did everything we could to back up the policy of national neutrality. We spoke at meetings and in this House in support of the recruiting campaign. We urged the people to come into the Defence Forces, into the L.D.F. and L.S.F. We did everything possible to strengthen the stability and economy of the country and we resisted the pressure brought to bear on this country to enter the war. We defended the Government's policy against participation in the war. I want to say in the face of these undeniable facts that it is just contemptible for the Minister for External Affairs to try to misrepresent the position in such a way as to distort the truth in the manner he did here this evening. The people can judge for themselves. The Labour Party speeches are on record and I hold from the Minister for External Affairs a document in which he thanked me for my services on the Defence Council during the war. I am sure there must be a copy of that document in the Minister's own Department if he were not too lazy to look for it.

Now, I wish to pass on to the sub-section. The Minister for External Affairs asked the Labour Party why we will not accept the British system of election. He said the British system suited the British Labour Party and therefore it should suit the Irish Labour Party. He says: "Why do we not adopt the British system of election?" In other words, why do we not adopt the Six-County, the Stormont, method of election? That is what the Minister is advising. If the Minister were travelling for the British method of election and if he were paid commission, he would have earned a fortune these days because he is eulogising the British method of election much more than the British themselves have ever done.

People with influence in public life in England have doubted the wisdom of the present method of election there and have said it is unjust that a Party should poll 2,600,000 votes in Britain and yet get only nine seats for that number of votes. But notwithstanding the introspection which the present method of election may give rise to in the British people the one person who is breast-high for it, and breast-high for the Six-County method of election, is the Minister for External Affairs. "Break the connection with England" used be a national slogan in the old days. Now, the connection seems to be becoming more riveted upon us than ever. We now follow Lord Craigavon in the Six Counties and follow the British system of election and abolish the single transferable vote.

I want to ask the Minister for External Affairs a simple question. He asks us: "Why do we not copy the British method of election?" In reply, I say: "Why do we not retain the method of election which was so strongly recommended to us by the Taoiseach in 1927 and again in 1938?" Why cannot we copy the method of election in operation in the small democracies of Western Europe which are giving their people a high standard of living? Or have we reached a stage now in which the only recipe this Government can find for holding on to office is the recipe of the British in the Six Counties where the Stormont group exists or the recipe produced in Britain to fulfil purposes wholly different to what an electoral system ought to fulfil here?

Britain is a highly organised country, a highly industrialised country. Circumstances here are entirely dissimilar. In Britain you have a possessing class and a dispossessed class. Here you have varieties of these elements. For many reasons P.R. is much more suitable for application here than the English method of election. In European countries under P.R. single Parties have been able to command majorities. They have been able to do so here under P.R., as the present Government has the majority. It is not necessary to abandon P.R. in order to secure an overall majority. It is necessary to maintain P.R. so as to ensure that there will not be minority control over Parliament and a minority Government, with minority control over the electorate as a whole.

If all the Minister for External Affairs seeks is to carry on the masquerade that this Bill is being introduced for the purpose of giving other Parties a better chance of getting more seats here, nobody will be deceived by those false pretences. The Government's argument in favour of this Bill was so poor and miserable that any argument, without even being distilled to see its strength, is being used by them in an attempt to justify its provisions.

The Government say they want to consult the people. The Taoiseach has a simple remedy; the Minister for External Affairs has a simple remedy— they can both go up to the Phoenix Park to-night, see the President and ask him for a dissolution and we can have a general election within three weeks. If they are bursting to consult the people, why do they not go up to the Park to-night and get a dissolution of the Dáil and put this issue to the people? I am making this promise personally that, if they dissolve the Dáil to-night and get a general election and if they are returned to power in that general election held within the next three weeks, I will pass the remaining stages of this Bill without opening my mouth for one single minute. But they know perfectly well that as good a hiding as a political Party ever got awaits them if they have a general election. The hoary old boys on those benches do not want to run the risk of a general election. They can have it to-night if they want it; they can consult the people within the next three weeks. They have a majority now. Let them go to the Park and get a dissolution. We can have a general election and in two months' time there will be only a small train necessary to bring them here.

Cuireadh an cheist.

Question put.

Rinne an Coiste votáil: Tá, 73; Níl, 52.

The Committee divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 52.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Bartley, Gerald.
Blaney, Neal T.
Boland, Gerald.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Browne, Seán.
Burke, Patrick.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carty, Michael.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Corry, Martin J.
Cotter, Edward.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Eamon.
de Valera, Vivion.
Doherty, Seán.
Donegan, Batt.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Padraig.
Flynn, Stephen.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Griffin, James.
Haughey, Charles.
Healy, Augustine A.
Hillery, Patrick J.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kenneally, William.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Loughman, Frank.
Lynch, Celia.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Maher, Peadar.
Medlar, Martin.
Millar, Anthony G.
Moher, John W.
Moloney, Daniel J.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moran, Michael.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ormonde, John.
O'Toole, James.
Russell, George E.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Sheldon, William A.W.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

Barry, Richard.
Belton, Jack.
Blowick, Joseph.
Browne, Noel C.
Burke, James.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan D.
Costello, John A.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donnellan, Michael.
Everett, James.
Fagan, Charles.
Finucane, Patrick.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Giles, Patrick.
Hogan, Bridget.
Hughes, Joseph.
Jones, Denis F.
Kenny, Henry.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Larkin, Denis.
Lindsay, Patrick.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
MacEoin, Seán.
Byrne, Tom.
Carew, John.
Coburn, George.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corish, Brendan.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McMenamin, Daniel.
McQuillan, John.
Manley, Timothy.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, Michael P.
Murphy, William.
Norton, William.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Palmer, Patrick W.
Reynolds, Mary.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Spring, Dan.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tierney, Patrick.
Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Spring.

Question declared carried.

Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.

An Ceann Comhairle

Sub-section (3) was discussed previously on an amendment by Deputy Russell. I take it that sub-section (3) is agreed?

D'aontaíodh le fo-alt a 3.

Sub-section (3) agreed to.

AN SCEIDEAL—ALT A 3.

Tomás Ó hUiginn

Tairgim leasú a 1:—

I gCuid I, roimh alt 3, an t-alt nua seo a leanas a chur isteach:—

Ní foláir don Oireachtas na dáil-cheanntair d'aith-mheas uair ar a laighead insan dá bhliadhain déag do réir córach agus cothroime agus i gcoimhréir le bunrialacha an cheartais chomhdhaonnaigh agus, sa mhéid gur féidir é, le hatharruighthe ar shuidheamh na daonraidhe, agus leis na gnéithe geografacha agus leis na ranna riaracháin agus na críoch-ranna atá bunuighthe cheana agus le mianta an toghluchta sa límistéir nó sna límistéirí a bheas i gceist agus i gcoitchinne ar an modh is fearr a dheimhneochas go mbeidh ionadaíocht chothrom leordhóthanach ag gach aicme agus roinn den phobal.

agus

I gCuid II, roimh alt 3, an t-alt nua seo a leanas a chur isteach:—

The Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once in every 12 years on a fair and equitable basis and in accordance with the principles of social justice and, in so far as it is practicable, with changes in the distribution of the population, and the geographical features and the established administrative and territorial divisions and the wishes of the electorate in the area or areas to be affected and generally so as best to ensure that all classes and sections in the community shall have fair and adequate representation.

SCHEDULE—SECTION 3.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 1:—

In Part I, before Section 3, to insert the following new section:—

and

In Part II, before Section 3, to insert the following new section:—

This amendment in the names of Deputy Declan Costello and myself refers to the article in this Schedule which seeks to establish what is termed a constituency commission. Deputies will appreciate that under the Schedule in this Bill more is sought to be done than merely to abolish or change the present electoral system. The proposal in this Bill involves not only a change in the electoral system, as defined and determined in the Constitution, but also seeks to put into the Constitution a new body which is not there at the moment and which is to be styled and known as a constituency commission.

It is interesting to note that under the Constitution itself there is a provision that, upon the submission of a proposed amendment of the Constitution, no other question shall be joined with it. In so far as this Bill proposes not merely to alter the electoral system but also to amend the Constitution by providing for this new constituency commission, I assume the Government have obtained legal advice that they are entitled so to do. In any event, what faces us here now is a proposal that the revision of the constituencies arises not merely if P.R. is abolished but also that such revision as may arise from time to time shall be carried out by a body determined in the manner set out in this Schedule.

We are against that proposal. We think that this constituency commission should not be inserted into the Constitution. We are, of course, very conscious of the danger of gerrymandering. We have had bitter experience in the past of gerrymandering carried out by the Fianna Fáil Party. We have had in the past the experience of constituencies being carved up here to give a fictitious representation to the Fianna Fáil Party in this House. We believe that any effort at gerrymandering should be dealt with here in the Dáil and that any Minister, or set of Ministers, who seek to revise constituencies to their own political advantage, should be made answer here across the floor of the House for what they seek to do. We do not think they should be entitled to shelter behind anybody, any commission, or any authority, that cannot be made answerable here in this House. It is for that reason we object to this elaborate piece of machinery which it is sought now to insert into the Constitution.

For the purpose of this discussion, we are willing to consider the fine sentiments expressed by members of the Government who deny any intention on their part of seeking to gerrymander or revise constituencies to their own advantage. For the purpose of this discussion, we accept the expression of those sentiments but we want to examine home whether or not that expression is genuine, because we say in this amendment: "Forget about your constituency commission. Let any law revising constituencies be passed here through the Dáil. Let it be supported and defended in the Dáil. Let the Minister who seeks to introduce it take full responsibility for it in this House where he can be challenged in the broad light of day, with the Press looking on, and with the public entitled to admission." We say that is the responsible course for any Minister or any Government genuinely intending to do the right thing to adopt.

But lest what Fianna Fáil did before they might attempt to do again, we say to the Government in this amendment: "Put into the Constitution not a constituency commission, not an elaborate white-washing body, but put into the Constitution in black and white certain principles which, if adhered to, will prevent any form of gerrymandering, principles which, once they are inserted in the Constitution, will become part of the fundamental law of this State and principles which, under the division of authority provided for in the Constitution, will be protected against attack by the Legislature and by the courts of this land."

We say that, instead of these elaborate articles, there should be inserted in Article 16 of the Constitution a provision that the Oireachtas shall revise constituencies at least once in every 12 years on a fair and equitable basis and in accordance with the principles of social justice, and, in so far as it is practicable, in accordance with the distribution of the population and the geographical features in the established administrative and territorial divisions, and the wishes of the electorate in the area, or areas, to be affected and, generally, so as best to ensure that all classes and sections in the community shall have fair and adequate representation.

Those principles represent, if you like, a collection of the sentiments already expressed by different spokesmen on behalf of the Government in this discussion. They have said they do not intend to gerrymander. They have said that they are not out to oppress minorities; and they have said that they want constituencies so designed as to give uniform and equal representation to legitimate bodies of public opinion. The way in which to prove that these sentiments are not merely being spoken from the teeth out but are felt from the heart out is to accept this proposal and to put the principles into the Constitution and to allow Oireachtas Éireann, at the instance of whatever Government may happen to be in power, to bring in a Constituencies Revision Bill which, if it offends constitutional principles, can subsequently be declared unconstitutional by the courts of this land.

I do not know whether it may be suggested that the principles incorporated in our proposal are unworkable or impracticable and could not, in fact, be put into operation. In case that may be suggested, I should like to deal with that possible argument now. Our proposal declares that the revision shall, first of all, be done on a fair and equitable basis. That phrase is in the Schedule at the moment, but we want to ensure that it is not merely a phrase. We want to ensure that it is not merely a pious expression of opinion, that it shall be cloaked with some reality and that, not only shall the constituency revision appear to be fair and equitable, but that it shall be capable of demonstration that, in fact, it is both fair and equitable. We want to ensure in this respect that not only shall justice appear to be done but that, in fact, it will be done.

We go on to say the revision shall be in accordance with the principles of social justice. Deputies may ask: "What do the principles of social justice mean?" I doubt if the Taoiseach will ask that because in the Constitution, as it stands, there are provisions guaranteeing certain rights; rights of property, for instance, are guaranteed in accordance with the principles of social justice. Not so very long ago the Supreme Court of this land, when it was asked to consider whether a particular piece of legislation passed through the Oireachtas at the instance of the Fianna Fáil Party, affecting certain property rights was or was not constitutional, because it offended against the principles of social justice, the Supreme Court declared that it reserved to itself the right of deciding what those principles should be; and it declared itself quite competent to do so.

The principles of social justice mean that in our society, irrespective of what an individual or group of individuals may be, he and they are entitled to equal treatment before the law. But, lest the principles of social justice may not be capable of minute definition, our proposal goes on to say that the constituency revision shall be in accordance, in so far as is practicable, with changes in the distribution of population—that is already there—and the geographical features and the established administrative and territorial divisions—that is already proposed in the Schedule, with this difference: we do not think the revision should proceed, as is proposed in the Schedule, merely having regard to existing administrative and geographical features because, of course, if the phrase were "having regard to", any person revising in accordance with such a principle would first have regard to, and then disregard, the existing administrative and geographical features. So, we suggest that what should be inserted is "in accordance with, in so far as is practicable".

There is some weight and substance in our contention in this respect, because we can throw our minds back to the days when, under a Fianna Fáil Constituencies Revision Bill, passed through this House, which became an Act, the town of Youghal found itself in the constituency of Waterford, the town of Athlone was wedged on to Longford, to become a particular constituency and part of Galway was carved out of the County of Galway and put into the Taoiseach's constituency of Clare. We can remember how the political surgeon's knife carved and sliced different counties in order to make a particular constituency revision accord with the political convenience of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

That is all rubbish.

Mr. Rooney

It is a fact, all the same.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Therefore, we suggest that, coming from that source, it is just pious nothing to suggest that constituency revision now should have regard to existing geographical and administrative features. We want put into the Constitution the words "in accordance with, in so far as is practicable" and, further to safeguard the people against the Fianna Fáil political surgical knife, we suggest that the constituency revision should also be in accordance with the wishes of the electorate in the area or areas to be affected.

No doubt, some spokesman of the Government will say: "Well, that is not possible. Are we to go down to consult the local people before we revise the constituencies?" We say: "Certainly, you should." It was a pity that the people of Youghal were not consulted some 15 years ago when they found themselves taken out of Cork and put into Waterford. It was a great pity that the people of South Galway were not consulted some years ago when they found themselves in Clare. Why should they not be consulted? It is their county, their area, their country.

Lest perhaps it might be suggested that such consultation with the people is unheard of in political revision, let me remind Deputies on the other side of the House that in England—of course, England is their great example nowadays—whose electoral system it is suggested we should adopt, when a constituency revision is carried out, it is provided specifically in their legislation that such constituency revision shall have regard to the wishes of the electorate in the area or areas affected. In England, provision is made that when a proposal involving a change in a constituency is made—I am speaking from recollection—at least 100 electors or a local body in the area affected are entitled to object, and, when objection is made, there is to be held a local inquiry in the affected area at which those objecting to the proposed revision are entitled, and are given the opportunity, to make their case.

We suggest that a similar safeguard should be inserted now in the Constitution so that Fianna Fáil pledges made in 1959 may not degenerate into Fianna Fáil conduct of 15 years ago. The best way of proving the conversion is to accept a constitutional guarantee against a relapse into the sin of some years ago.

Our proposal goes further and provides that the constituency revision shall be carried out generally so as best to ensure that all classes and sections of the community shall have fair and adequate representation. There is some substance also in that provision. Of course, I do not attempt, and would not be permitted, to reopen the discussion we have had, but I think I am entitled to say that the fear has been expressed from these benches that the proposed change in the electoral law is intended to wipe out settled political Parties and to establish in this country a system which, in effect, will mean the complete dominance of one political Party, Fianna Fáil, and the establishment, virtually, of a political dictatorship. Our proposal is made by reason of those fears which we have expressed and which have been answered by Fianna Fáil spokesmen with the assurance: "We are against no one. Really, we are only thinking of building up the Labour Party or building up the Fine Gael Party." Those expressions have been used by different members of the Government.

Very well; let us test them. Let us put their expressions to the test here. Are they prepared to have guaranteed in the Constitution that no constituency revision shall be carried out in such a way as to deprive of parliamentary expression certain classes or sections of the community?

Some years ago, there was a very old and respected member of this House, a man who had given considerable service to the nation through his membership of this House, a man who presided over its deliberations from time to time. He was accustomed to have support in elections from certain areas in his constituency. He continued to be elected by the people of his constituency in election after election until the Fianna Fáil constituency revision of the middle 1930s. He then found that his constituency was so carved up and so divided that his own friends and supporters, those upon whom he had always relied, could no longer vote for him and elect him to Dáil Éireann.

I am sure that was accidental; it was a coincidence that the House was deprived of the membership of that Deputy. There are other Deputies who are as actively opposed to Fianna Fáil as that man was—Deputies who are as much disliked politically by Fianna Fáil as he was. We want to ensure that no kind of revision can be indicated on the ground of being a clear attempt to destroy a Deputy's quota or his right to representation in the House.

We also know that in the 37 years we have exercised our hard-won freedom here, in the 37 years of the life of this Parliament, in the 37 years it was winning the respect of those who tried to tear it down, there have been legitimate political movements, one of which is represented by the benches on my right—the Irish Labour Party who were in this House before Fianna Fáil were in it and who were the Opposition in this House before the Fine Gael Party became the Opposition.

The Irish Labour Party have been assured by Fianna Fáil members: "We are not going to touch you. Your fears are illusory. We do not intend in any way by this proposed change to throw you out of the Dáil." Let us make them prove it. Are they prepared, as proof of the sincerity of their sentiments, to have incorporated in the fundamental law of this land a principle that any constituency revision shall be carried out so as best to ensure that all classes and sections in the community shall have fair and adequate representation?

It is very easy to say that you intend no harm. Words once spoken disappear into the atmosphere but litera scripta manet, and it is the written word that remains after what has been spoken has disappeared. What is important in this important discussion is not the sweet expression of sentiments and opinions, but concrete words written down in black and white. We want to test the sincerity of the Taoiseach's proposals by asking him whether he is prepared to write into the Constitution in respect of existing political Parties or those who might succeed them a provision which will ensure that there will not be a Party political dictatorship established in this country.

We do not know whether our proposals in this respect will be accepted, but we are entitled to remind the Dáil, and, through the Dáil, the people, that under the proposal now in the Schedule, this important work of revising the constituencies is to be carried out by an ad hoc body, a constituency commission whose deliberations cannot be published and whose decisions cannot be questioned in the courts of the land.

We are proposing to establish some extraordinary body far above this Parliament itself, because this Parliament is subject to the Constitution. What we do in the Dáil and in the Oireachtas can be questioned in the courts, but the proposal here is that the decision of this constituency commission cannot be questioned by any court in the land and that Deputies can do nothing about it, unless two-thirds of them agree to set the decisions at nought. We think that is an extraordinary proposal and one which should not be accepted. I think that is belittling the judiciary. The Taoiseach smiles——

The Taoiseach

I smile at what was said by the opposite side.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I am glad to see the Taoiseach coming back into the debate. My submission is that this proposal tends to belittle the judiciary because some judge, if this proposal is accepted, will be asked to do what is primarily a political job. Our judges are appointed to dispense justice in the courts of this land. The revision of constituencies is part of the work of this Parliament and nobody else should do it. It is wrong to expect a judge, who cannot speak back, to preside over a commission of this kind which may be questioned, if not in this Dáil, throughout the country.

Why should a judge be asked to do things of that kind? It is no part of his functions. It is no part of his responsibilities or his duties. It is the responsibility of a member of the Government answerable to this House, and that responsibility should not be shirked in the manner suggested in the proposal in this Schedule.

I want to summarise. We have given considerable thought to this amendment. We feel that this constituency commission has no real part in this proposed amendment of the Constitution. It should not be in the Constitution. In fact, I think—this is only a personal view—its inclusion in this referendum proposal may raise questions elsewhere at some other time. In any event, be that as it may, this constituency commission should not be included in the Constitution. We think it is the Oireachtas itself that should revise the constituencies.

I do not want the Taoiseach to say: "Oh, well, if we did that, we would be accused of all sorts of things." Probably they would. I am sure if the Taoiseach—and I hope he will be spared to the House—were in charge of such a Bill and there were charges of gerrymandering made against him, he would be prepared to answer them, and on the strength of his answer at some stage, the people then would decide the issue. I can understand that, in view of the danger of such charges, a Minister, a member of the Government, might decide before introducing legislation into the House, to establish, by administrative act or by legislation, if necessary, a constituency commission, to use the term here, or a body of some kind to advise on and determine the constituencies.

Of course that could be done. Mind you, if it did not work out, it could be changed, it could be altered, because it would be done administratively or by ordinary legislation. Here this untried machinery is suggested for the Constitution itself from which it can be removed only by some referendum at some future stage. That, we believe, is wrong. We believe this commission has no proper place in the Constitution. We say: "Forget about your commission; forget about the sentiments you have expressed from time to time. Instead of that, write into the Constitution certain principles, which, if adhered to— and it is the courts who will see they are adhered to—will prevent any political Party gerrymandering the constituencies of this country."

We think that is a fair proposal. It is better than all this elaborate machinery suggested here and it will ensure that the thesis in the Constitution is honoured. Here in this State which at the instance of the Taoiseach adopted and enacted the present Constitution, the principle has been laid down that there would be a limited Parliament, limited in its authority by the Constitution itself and there would be—presiding over the written fundamental law of the land—the courts established under it. We do not believe it solves anything to create for a particular purpose a new body immune from supervision by the courts, immune from any challenge here except in some improbable circumstances, a body which is entitled to legislate without responsibility, a body which is to be presided over by a man who is a judge, whose duties and responsibilities lie in an entirely different direction. We think that is wrong and we suggest that our amendment should be accepted by the Taoiseach and by his Ministers, if they are sincere in what they have been saying in this debate up to this.

The Taoiseach

It is very hard to take this proposal seriously. We all know—everybody on both sides of the House knows—it is purely a propagandist amendment. If we had brought in an amendment of that sort or a proposition of that sort, I can well imagine what would be said about it from the opposite benches. We would, first of all, be charged with gerrymandering, and then we would be told that the task of working out the constituencies was such that the courts could not properly take cognisance of the principles proposed to be laid down and see where they would apply.

The task of dividing this country into constituencies, whether multi-member or single member, is difficult—and in the case of single member constituencies the task is somewhat more difficult. Let us say there are 100 to 120 constituencies. To determine them in such a way that the principles which are expressed here in the Bill will be carried out is a difficult task. You have to meet a number of conditions. You have, so far as possible, once the principle has been determined by law, to try to have the number of population in each constituency roughly the same. You have to take territorial conditions into account, and you have to take into account the wishes of the inhabitants, if they can easily be ascertained, and a number of other circumstances which, when you sum them up, make the task for any body who tries to do it extremely difficult.

No doubt, in the first instance, officials will have to get down to it, have regard to the principles, examine the country, examine the critical features and so on. These matters will have to be examined in the minutest detail.

The proposal here in the Bill as it stands is a sound proposal. What does the commission consist of? It consists of a committee of the Dáil, as it exists at the time of the revision, under the chairmanship of a judge. There will be three members from the Government side of the House and three members from the opposite side. These seven people will sit down together. They will probably get some rough draft supplied to them by the officials, and they will go through it in detail to see whether it meets the conditions laid down in the Bill.

In regard to the question of gerrymandering, surely if it is in any way working out in favour of one side, there are three people on the other side, with the opposite point of view, to examine it. We would have to have collusion—the sort of collusion that could be got only if some of the ideas expressed here for years past were adopted, and we had what is called an all-Party Government, hiding what was happening from the country as a whole and capable of doing anything they wanted, unless what they were doing created a new Opposition.

You will have three from each side of the House on the committee. I do not see under those circumstances how anything like gerrymandering is likely to be carried on, because the members would have to agree to it. A judge is chosen—judges have been chosen before, and it is all very well to talk about the judiciary in regard to work of this sort, but judges in this country have a position of independence. They have independence of the Executive they have independence to a large extent—unless under very special circumstances—of the Legislature. When they are chosen under conditions like these, they are chosen because there is a feeling that they are free to act decently and honourably, that there is no pressure which can be put upon them, and, unless we assume that everybody in a position like that is going to act dishonestly, I do not see how you can get in the community a person who will command greater public confidence than a judge.

The judge is to be nominated by the President, after consultation with the Council of State. Again, of course, there were suggestions. I was ashamed when I listened to some of the remarks from the opposite benches both about the judiciary and the office of President and whoever might hold it. I was ashamed when it was suggested that the President would be subject to political Party influence, that he would be prepared to gerrymander and to do any mean, dishonest trick.

In this, the President would nominate the judge. Somebody has to nominate the judge. If we were to suggest that a member of the Supreme Court were to do it, we would be told that possibly members of the Supreme Court had been appointed by one Party or the other and that they might act according to the political predilections, whatever they might be, they had when they went into office. The most impartial person for nominating a judge, it appeared to us, was the President. The most impartial person to nominate a member of the judiciary was in our view the President. That judge would preside and would go in detail, with the other members of the commission, over the constituencies and attempt, as far as it is humanly possible to do it, to get all these principles put into operation and determine the constituencies, with due regard to them all.

If there is any obvious case, any case in which the thing can be proved to be wrong, then the House itself can remedy it. They can put in an amendment, and that amendment becomes part of the report. From the start, I had not regarded this as a serious amendment. If we accepted it, if we were foolish enough to accept it, if we were foolish enough from the point of view of the Constitution and the political well-being of the country to do so, we would be told— notwithstanding—that we were out to gerrymander because the majority here could do it.

As to the courts, if the courts were allowed to come in, they could be brought in in respect of any of these principles. In the case of the directive principles in the Constitution, we have had to keep them outside the purview of the courts because there were matters in which the Legislature itself would have to decide whether it was acting in accordance with these principles: they were directives to the Legislature. These are directives for the commission. The commission is supposed to act in accordance with these principles. They are directives. But, apart from the Legislature here, they must be the judges as regards the application of the directives, because there will be conflicting considerations in some of the cases and they have to take all these into account.

Mr. D. Costello

The Taoiseach has said that this is a propagandist amendment. I believe that this commission is so ill-conceived, so badly constructed and so unworkable as to leave only one conclusion, namely, that it was put into this Bill to give a thin veneer of respectability to an unscrupulous political manoeuvre.

In the remarks he has just made— he has now left the House—the Taoiseach has not referred to the kernel of the objections to which we have drawn attention in this amendment and in the speech which Deputy O'Higgins made. We do not see any reason why the constituency commission should be put into the fundamental law of the country. The Taoiseach has not given any reasons why we should have in our Constitution a constituency commission. If it is thought desirable that a constituency commission should be established, it could be established administratively or by law.

As it stands, we are setting up an untried body and what I believe to be an unworkable body. We are putting it into the Constitution and ensuring it will stay there, unless it is abolished from the Constitution by means of a referendum. Perhaps the Minister for External Affairs, if he proposes to intervene in this debate, will explain why it is proposed that this commission should be put into the Constitution and why it should be put in along with a proposal to abolish P.R.

What has not also been answered by the Taoiseach is the particular form of this constituency commission. Even if it is thought desirable that such a commission should be established and should be in the Constitution, the Taoiseach has given no reasons why a special committee of this House, of six politicians, presided over by a judge is the best body to revise the constituencies—to revise the constituencies not merely subject to this Parliament but to revise the constituencies by law, because that would be the effect of the decision of the so-called sub-committee. Unless there is the unlikely event of a two-thirds majority of this House upsetting any of the findings of this commission, the commission's findings and the revision determined by the commission are to be the law of the land.

The Taoiseach has not given any reasons why six politicians, presided over by a judge, are the best body to determine the constituencies. We in this House want to avoid gerrymandering. The Government say they wish to avoid gerrymandering or suspicion of gerrymandering. The task of dividing up the constituencies, particularly the task of redefining constituency boundaries, if these other proposed amendments to the Constitution are carried at the referendum is, as the Taoiseach has said, a difficult task. It is a task politicians should be kept away from. It is a task into which political considerations should not enter. It is primarily an administrative task taking into account certain geographical considerations, taking into consideration existing administrative boundaries and taking into consideration other matters to which I shall refer later. It is not a task in which purely political considerations should have any influence.

What will happen when three Deputies from the Government Benches and three Deputies of the Opposition come to determine a given constituency? Is it suggested that political considerations will be forgotten? Is it suggested there will not be any political thought at all in the mind of any one of the six representatives? Is it suggested that it will be possible to find six Deputies from both sides of this House who will not be influenced, at any rate subconsciously, by political considerations if any marginal constituency comes to be divided up? Is it not quite obvious that a body such as this, composed of six politicians, will be influenced primarily by political considerations—and they are the worst type of considerations which could influence what the Taoiseach has said is the difficult task of drawing up constituency boundaries?

What will happen if a dispute arises on a given constituency as to whether, for example, the town of Youghal should be in Cork or in Waterford? Will the six politicians not decide it on political lines? I think there is only one answer to these questions. We are not angels in this House and we must be realists in tackling the very grave problems of redefining constituencies and redrawing boundaries. If there is any marginal constituency on which the division will affect them one way or the other the six politicians who will be picked from this House will decide on a political basis.

Who is going to arbitrate? A judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court. The scheme is that there will be no minority report, and that the members of this constituency commission can be removed. If there is no majority agreeable upon a given redistribution it is a judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court who will act as arbitrator.

I do not think it fair to a judge to ask him to arbitrate on what will amount to a political dispute; I do not think it is the task of any person sitting on the High Court or the Supreme Court bench to arbitrate on such a dispute. The effects of such an arbitration are bound to be bad. No matter what decision a judge may come to on the dispute that will arise, it will be regarded as partisan by the side against whom his decision has been given and it will bring the member of the judiciary into politics whether it is liked or not.

I do not think this constituency commission can do the work which has to be done fairly and in the interests of the community. It is an unworkable commission as the provision in this Bill is drafted. Is it suggested that the members of the constituency commission are to be sworn to secrecy? Is it to be suggested that any one of the three members of the commission from this side of the House, or any Opposition that may be on this side of the House are not to reveal afterwards what went on? If such a provision is to be made law and if there is to be an oath of secrecy you will not get anybody to sit on the commission.

If there is to be no oath of secrecy taken, what is the purpose of saying there is to be no minority report? If there are objections to the majority findings of the commission or of the arbitrator, surely the objections will be made in the Dáil and elsewhere and it will be pointed out where and how the majority on the commission have gone wrong. If it is to be so pointed out what is the point of refusing this commission the right to make a minority report?

The bona fides of the Government not only in relation to the constituency commission but in relation to the whole Bill are seriously suspect. I think the suspicions entertained are fully justified by the clause in this constituency commission provision which provides:—

"No court shall entertain any question as to whether the commission has been properly constituted or any question as to whether the determination or revision of the boundaries of constituencies as set out in their report has been properly carried out."

The Taoiseach purported to answer the objections we were raising to this provision by referring to the directive social principles in the Constitution, by stating that the constituency commission is to have regard to the principles laid down in regard to the division of the constituencies and that, just as the directive principles are not to be cognisable in court, so also the court would not take cognisance of whether the commission has properly carried out the revision in accordance with the earlier section of this Schedule.

This sub-clause goes further. It says: "No court shall entertain any question as to whether the commission has been properly constituted." What is the necessity for that clause? Suppose it is alleged, and seriously alleged, that in some way the court has been improperly constituted, that in some way one of the appointments was ultra vires, and, therefore, its proceedings and its eventual determination are ultra vires. Why should the courts be precluded from entertaining such an application? What is the necessity for putting in, at the beginning of this sub-section, that no court shall entertain any question of whether the commission has been properly constituted? That has no reference to the principles which guide that constituency commission. This is a reference to the constitution of the commission, and I suggest that the lack of bona fides of the Government on the whole measure can be demonstrated by the fact that they wish to write into the Constitution that no court in the land can, in any circumstances, question what the commission does or how it is constituted. I have yet to hear any reason why that sub-section is left in and, as long as it is left in, the Government's bona fides are seriously suspect.

We have suggested a method which we believe to be just as effective to ensure against what apparently is agreed by all sides in the House is undesirable, namely, gerrymandering. We have suggested that this commission is unreasonable, that it is ill-conceived. We have suggested that no commission should be written into the fundamental law of the State. If it is desired subsequently, it can be done by administrative Act or by law, but what we have proposed is that, instead of establishing the commission, there should be written into the Constitution certain principles by which whatever body comes eventually to redraw the constituencies can determine the manner in which the boundaries are to be drawn. The Taoiseach seeks to wave aside our amendment by saying that it is propagandist, but the Taoiseach has given no reasons to show (a) where it is propagandist, and (b) even if it is, why it has no merits.

What we suggest, in effect, is that the Constitution should lay down certain principles and this House, when it eventually comes to redraw the constituency boundaries, will have regard to them. If it is decided to establish an independent commission, by law or administrative Act, such independent commission would itself have regard to these principles. There is this protection, not only for Deputies, but for any elector or any group of electors, that if they believe these fundamental principles which we wish to see enshrined in the Constitution have been violated, there is the Supreme Court available to determine whether, in fact, in any given case, these principles have been violated. We have made certain suggestions as to the type of principles which we believe should be enshrined in the Constitution. If there are any others given by the Government, we should be glad to hear them, but, in default of any suggestions by the Government, the suggestions which we have made on these points, I submit, are ones which can ensure the type of safeguards which, at any rate, we all say we wish to have.

We have used the phrase "social justice," that regard should be had to the principles of social justice when the constituency boundaries are being drawn up. I do not intend to define what the principle of social justice is. I think that would probably be a task for a professional theologian or philosopher, but the fact is that the principles of social justice are referred to in Article 43 of the Constitution. They have, in fact, been interpreted, or applied, in the Supreme Court in a case not so long ago, and it does seem to me that in dealing with constituency boundaries, the principles of social justice are the type of principles of which account should be taken when redistributing constituencies.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, the phrase "social justice" is regarded by writers as having the same effect as the phrase "legal justice," which was used by earlier writers going back as far as the Middle Ages. In a recent book on the subject by Professor Newman The Foundation of Social Justice, he states that behind the calls for organised social life is the demand for social justice, and he says that a strong point in the idea of social justice is that individuals and groups may, within certain limits, follow their own method of approach to the common good. It seems to me that the principles of social justice referred to in Article 43 of the Constitution can be applied with equal force when it comes to determining the boundaries of constituencies.

Deputy O'Higgins has pointed out that this is an important amendment which is more than a mere drafting amendment, and the difference in the phraseology in our amendment compared with the phraseology used in sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Schedule. At the present time, the constituencies are to be divided on a fair and equitable basis, having due regard to geographical features and other matters set out in the sub-section. "Having due regard to" is a dangerous phrase and we suggest we should strengthen this clause by using the words "in accordance with the principles of social justice and in so far as it is practicable", with certain other matters. We recommend that the words "in accordance with" be used instead of "having regard to". We have adopted a phrase at the end about which some Deputies may have some concern. We suggest that the Orieachtas is to be responsible for the revision of the constituencies, that division is to be on a fair and equitable basis in accordance with the principles of social justice, that certain other factors are to be taken into account and also that revision should be in accordance with the wishes of the electorate in the area, or areas, to be affected, so as best to ensure that all classes in the community have fair and adequate representation.

Under the existing legislation in England, and under the House of Commons Redistribution of Seats Act, 1958, there is provision for the type of consultation with the people which we suggest in this amendment. It is a perfectly simple procedure. It is a procedure which should commend itself to anybody who wishes to see that gerrymandering is avoided. It is proposed that as in England, whose system of election the Government propose to take over, there should be some form of local inquiry where it is proposed to change any area into another constituency.

The British legislation provides that the boundary commissioners publish in a local newspaper a provisional ruling of a change of constituency boundaries, and that if a local authority, or 100 electors in the area, requisition that an inquiry be held, the commission then holds an inquiry. It seems to me to be an admirable system. It seems to me to be a way of ensuring that if, for example, the people of Youghal were to be brought into Waterford and, if they objected, their objections would be heard by the constituency commission before such an operation was carried out.

Their safeguard would be in the Constitution, and it could be pointed out subsequently that the commission's task, or the task of whoever was responsible for redividing the constituency, was to divide up the constituency on a fair and equitable basis, and in accordance with the wishes of the people affected in so far as practicable, and it would be provided that if you had a significant majority of people against the proposed change, it could be established to the satisfaction of a Supreme Court that, in fact, there had been a breach of the constitutional guarantee.

If the Government wish to avoid gerrymandering, if they are serious in their wish that these proposals should be fair and honest, I can see no objection to this amendment. We do not want a constituency commission written into the Constitution. Why put it there? It is apparently to protect the Opposition that a constituency commission is to be established. We do not want this type of commission because we believe it to be unworkable and we suggest, instead, certain principles to be put into the Constitution which can subsequently be reviewed.

I feel that it is a reasonable position to take up and if the Government are reasonable in their proposals at all, I can see no reason why they should not accept these proposed amendments. It may be that the Minister for Health will intervene in this debate. He was not here earlier when I was referring to one matter that I regarded as being of extreme importance in the whole framework of this constituency commission. It is quite clear that the Government are not bona fide when they have established, in their draft proposal, that no court is to entertain any question concerning the alteration of the constituencies. I can see no reason why this clause has been put in, or why it should be retained from now on if the Government wish to show that they are bona fide in their proposals. It seems to me to be a simple matter for them to accept this amendment and let the people vote simply on P.R. and not put what I think must clearly be a thin veneer of respectability on this political manoeuvre by putting in these unworkable proposals.

Minister for Health (Mr. MacEntee)

I am sorry that I was not in for the beginning of Deputy Declan Costello's speech. I must say that when I read the terms of the amendment which we are now discussing I was rather surprised because it seemed to me that here was a denial, on the part of Deputy Declan Costello, of the demand which the Leader of the Opposition seemed to have made in a speech which he delivered on the 1st October of last year. In the course of that speech——

Mr. J.A. Costello

The 30th of September. I have the cutting here before me.

Mr. MacEntee

I am quoting from the report in the Irish Independent for October 1st.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I actually made the speech on the 30th of September.

Mr. MacEntee

I stand corrected then. I am a day wrong. I trust that the report which appeared on 1st October was reasonably accurate.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I have never any occasion to write to the newspapers to correct reports.

Mr. McGilligan

At any rate he has not yet received a repudiation from the Press gallery that it was wrong.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order! The Minister for Health should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. MacEntee

It may be that the Deputy makes certain to deliver his scripts to the newspapers in advance.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I do.

Mr. MacEntee

I hope I shall be allowed to speak without further interruption. I do not propose to delay the House. But I want to say again, however, that I was rather surprised when I saw this amendment because it seemed to repudiate the demand which the Leader of the Opposition made on the 30th of September last. In the course of that speech, as reported in the Irish Independent for the 1st October, the following day, the Leader of the Opposition said:—

"Any such redistribution of constituencies or seats or the creation of new constituencies, or a change in the numbers of the members of the Dáil (which, incidentally, has no connection with the abolition of P.R. and could if it were desirable be achieved without such abolition) should be made only with the object of advancing the public interest and of securing that justice be done to all Parties and to all sections of the community."

Then Deputy John A. Costello went on to say:—

"These objectives can, we believe, only be secured if all matters relating to a change in the numbers of members in Dáil Éireann, the demarcation of electoral areas, the alteration of old constituencies and the creation of new ones should be committed to a body to advise on all these matters and constituted so as to secure public confidence in its integrity and impartiality."

Mr. O'Sullivan

Good advice.

Mr. MacEntee

Well now, the first question that would arise naturally is: would a revision of the constituencies, prepared according to the terms of the amendment by the Oireachtas command that confidence in its integrity and impartiality which the Leader of the Opposition desires? I think not. Indeed the one thing that has marked the speeches made here in the course of the debate upon this Bill has been that the Opposition have no confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the majority of this House.

On a number of occasions the Oireachtas did revise the constituencies under the present system and under the present Constitution. On both occasions on which the Bill revising the constituencies came to the House, the Government of the day, which had the responsibility of putting that measure before the House, were charged with gross partisanship. The Bill of 1947 was carried, I think, ultimately without any division but none of the speeches made from the Opposition benches held me up as a model of integrity and impartiality.

We may assume that, the nature of parliamentary discussion being such, it does not matter who happens to be responsible for the introduction of the Bill, what Party happens to have the power to carry a measure revising the constituencies through the Oireachtas, their integrity and impartiality would be treated with the same degree of scepticism and doubt as characterised the House on previous distribution measures.

Therefore, the first thing that I think would be calculated to meet with the acceptance of the Leader of the Opposition, and fulfil the principles he laid down in his speech last September, would be that we should have the constituencies delimited and defined by an impartial but informed commission, a commission which would be truly representative of the views of all sides of the House and which would be presided over by an impartial chairman whose purpose it would be to secure reconcilement of any differences that might arise among the parliamentary members of the Commission. The proposals in the Bill I think have gone a long way to secure that. The Taoiseach for the time being, whoever he may be, has a right to designate one-half of the membership of the commission. He does so by virtue of the fact that as Taoiseach he must command a majority in this House and therefore he has the confidence of the majority in the House. I suppose if one were to proceed on the principle of the majority rule he might have the right to select a majority. But that right is not demanded and, not being demanded, of course it is not being conceded to him.

As against the Taoiseach's nominees, who represent the majority of the House, there is an equal number of nominees representing the Opposition. It is a fair recognition of the fact that the Opposition and the Government are equally interested in and have an equal right to participate in the determination of the boundaries of the constituencies. Over six men sitting like that we would want to have an honest chairman who would bring them to a common agreement as to what was fair and equitable and justified having regard to the principles which are laid down here in sub-section (2) of Section 4. Where else can you get a person better competent to exercise that function than a judge of a High Court? After all, they have on occasions exercised their influence in bringing about agreements where there have been differences between parties, and agreements I believe are common features of proceedings in our courts. Judges are supposed to be impartial. I do not say that in any hypothetical way. I shall say judges are impartial and put it like that. When they come to determine matters of this sort, there is no doubt whatever they will act with judicial impartiality.

That would appear to be conceded by the mover of this amendment. Deputy Declan Costello said that if the principle laid down in the amendment appeared to be infringed in any way, then any person had a right to go to the Supreme Court. I would like to know what difference it would make to the impartiality of a judge if he is sitting in the Supreme Court dealing with the question of redistribution of seats or demarcation of parliamentary constituencies than if he is sitting elsewhere as a member of a commission? In what way would his membership of the commission tend to make him less impartial than he would be if he were sitting in the Supreme Court, or if he were sitting with the body of judges in the Supreme Court? Surely Deputy Costello has conceded the principle, which is in the amendment, that the chairman of the commission should be a judge. And when he has conceded that, what becomes of the argument which we heard here on the Second Stage of the Bill, the argument that it would be possible for the President to appoint a political nominee or a lick-spittle lawyer—I think these were the terms used. What becomes of that argument?

Now I am coming to the really specious argument. One of the reasons Deputy Declan Costello says why he wants to have the courts given the right to determine how Dáil Éireann will allocate representation to various sections of the people is that the courts will be guided by the principles of social justice as laid down here. And in support of that Deputy Declan Costello has cited the reference to social justice in Article 43 of the Constitution. What does Article 43 say and to what does it relate? The first sub-clause in Clause 1 of the Article states:—

"The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right... to the private ownership of external goods."

It goes on to say:—

"The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property."

Of course, that is a matter where it is possible, as far as we can be guided by the principles of charity and the ordinary principles of equity——

Mr. D. Costello

That is not social justice.

Mr. MacEntee

There we can provide the machinery to meet every objection being raised by way of interruption by Deputy Declan Costello and Deputy McGilligan. In fact, we are providing in this section that the machinery, the procedure whereby the Ceann Comhairle shall act in this matter and whereby the commission shall be set up, can be determined by law, by a vote of this House. Therefore, all this miasma and fog with which the Deputy has endeavoured to becloud the issue is blown away. We know the House can devise machinery for dealing with every one of these objections. Therefore, if we want to give effect to the principles which the Leader of the Opposition laid down in his speech on the 30th September, we can do it better by way of the machinery we propose to set up than by the procedure which the amendment would suggest we should follow.

Mr. Corish

On the other part of the Schedule we saw an example of the Government seeking to persuade the people in the referendum to repudiate two sections of the Constitution. Here we have another effort by the Government to persuade the people to repudiate yet another section of the 1937 Constitution, the 21st anniversary of which was celebrated some few weeks ago. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the members of the Government why there is a necessity to change the method of providing for the revision of the constituencies, nor do I think it unreasonable to describe this proposal in the Schedule as the sugar coating on the sour pill of the proposal to do away with the single member constituency and the system of P.R.

The dangerous and frightening aspect of the Government's proposal is that the detailed method of providing for the revision and determination of the constituencies is to become part and parcel of the Constitution. It is to be enshrined and embedded in the Constitution and cannot be changed unless the issue goes before the people again. We know that Parliament is very reluctant to have too many referenda, and there is no indication from the Government spokesmen that they are prepared to amend their hand if this proposal fails. I honestly believe it will fail.

The reason I favour the amendment is not so much because it retains what is embodied in the Constitution at present, but because I believe it will work and there is a certain amount of elasticity about it. At least, it gives the power to the Oireachtas to determine what the constituencies will be, what form they will take and what populations will be represented in each. I do not think the system it is proposed now to enshrine in the Constitution will work. It is crude. As Deputy Declan Costello described it, it is putting the veneer of respectability on these other two proposals. For that reason, I think the House should reject this part of the Schedule and adopt the amendment proposed by the two Fine Gael Deputies, or something reasonably near it.

The Minister for Health seems to think that, because the chairman of the commission will be a judge, we all should be happy and the commission will be safe. I think everyone of us respects the judges in this country, whether they have been appointed by Cumann na nGaedheal, Fianna Fáil or any of the inter-Party Governments. None of us could make any criticism of them as judges when they sit on the bench, but the judge to be appointed chairman of this commission is not acting as if he were on the bench. He is not expected to act as if he were on the bench. He merely happens to be a judge and, as such, is regarded as a man of integrity. I think it was some Fine Gael Deputy who said that these are political appointments. Whether we like it or not, most of the appointments to the bench in this country have been political appointments, and it would not be unreasonable for us to regard some of them as suspect when it comes to what could be regarded as a political or near political matter.

In addition to the appointment of a judge as chairman, it is proposed that there will be six members of the commission, three to be appointed by the Taoiseach and three by the Ceann Comhairle. I do not envy the Ceann Comhairle his task, nor do I envy the commission their task. It is conceivable that the Ceann Comhairle would select three Independent Deputies as representing the Opposition. There is no appeal that this House can make. As far as I can read into the Bill, there is only provision for an appeal by the Dáil against a report of the commission. The Minister said this could be done, that there could be a vote of censure passed in the House and public opinion would be such that the Ceann Comhairle would have to resign. I am just assuming that all that would happen and that the Ceann Comhairle would resign.

The fact that the Taoiseach will appoint three members from the Government side and the Ceann Comhairle will appoint three from the Opposition side is not my main criticism of this section. As far as the present Ceann Comhairle is concerned, I believe he would try to have three members from the Opposition really representative of the whole Opposition. I hear someone ask: "Who is the Opposition?" That would be another problem for the Ceann Comhairle; he would have to determine whether or not certain Deputies are in opposition.

Mr. Sherwin

They are all Opposition.

Mr. Corish

I do not know. I "hae ma doots" about at least two of them. In any case, can anybody imagine the type of discussion there will be between three members of the Government and three members of the Opposition when it comes to arranging constituencies? If I were nominated, or selected, by the Ceann Comhairle I do not think I would accept. I do not think I would be capable of doing the job within six months. Does anybody believe it can be done within six months? Inevitably, then, as far as I can see, the result will be that these members will refuse to make a report; especially will they refuse to make it within six months, and the commission will break up in disorder. What will happen then? The chairman is entitled at the end of another month to make his report. Within the seventh month he is himself entitled to determine what the constituencies will be.

Mark you, with all due respect to the nominees for the Presidential Election, one cannot get it out of one's head that there is a possibility of the present Taoiseach becoming the President of the country. To be quite honest, I would prefer to trust the present occupant of the Presidency. It is true he was an active politician and an able politician up to 14 years ago; but, here, we have a man who is head, neck and ears in politics. There is a possibility that he will be the President, who will select the chairman, who just happens to be a judge, and who in most cases is a political appointment. The Taoiseach will select the chairman who, in fact, in my opinion will determine what the constituencies will be, and we all know what they will be when that contingency arises.

Deputy Declan Costello posed a question which is in all our minds: "Is there any appeal against any illegality as far as this constituency commission is concerned?" It is true to say, as the Minister for Health said, quoting from the Bill, that if two-thirds of the members of Dáil Éireann are dissatisfied with any part of the report, they can change it. That may be all right in theory. I doubt if it will work in practice. I believe there will be so much dissatisfaction that the commission will, as I said before, break up in disorder.

I like the present provision in the Constitution. I think I should read it for the benefit of the House because it is not unlike the amendment proposed here by Deputy Declan Costello and Deputy Thomas F. O'Higgins. Sub-section (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution states:—

"The Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once in every 12 years with due regard to changes in the distribution of the population, but any alterations in the constituencies shall not take effect during the life of Dáil Éireann sitting when such revision is made."

The Minister for Social Welfare can be a bit cantankerous at times, but he met us very fairly in 1947. He was then Minister for Local Government. There was at that time a free vote and the House approved of certain views that were put forward. That was all right in 1947. If anybody is dissatisfied with this report, what member of the Government will be responsible for the report? In 1947 the Minister for Local Goverment, Deputy MacEntee, sat in the ministerial front bench and took responsibility at that time. We argued the proposals he advanced on the Second Reading. We put in certain amendments on the Committee Stage. There was protracted argument on both the Committee Stage and the Report Stage. The difference between that situation and the one now proposed is that, in 1947, we at least had the Minister for Local Government holding himself responsible for the proposals and we were in a position to discuss here in this House the proposed change and make our arguments for and against.

I should like that all-important question answered before the debate closes: "Who in the Front Bench will be responsible for the report which purports to come from what is described as an independent commission?" If the Government are not prepared to adopt the suggestion of Deputy Tom O'Higgins and Deputy Declan Costello, then they should reconsider leaving in the Constitution sub-section (4) of Article 16 and not, as I said at the outset, repudiate one more section of the much vaunted Constitution of 1937.

Mr. J.A. Costello

The Minister for Health reminded me, when speaking here a few moments ago, of a lazy barrister who has a bad case and who makes a bad case worse by not having made up his brief. Very obviously the Minister came into the House a few moments after the debate started and began jotting down notes. He had scarcely any notion of what was in the Schedule in reference to this proposed commission. The Taoiseach described this amendment put down by us—may I say, in parenthesis, that the amendment was put down in strict accordance with the terms upon which I criticised this part of the Bill in the course of the Second Reading debate— as propaganda. I describe this proposed legislation as a plausible confidence trick on the people.

The Minister for Health, having made his notes, proceeded to assert that Deputy Declan Costello, when supporting this amendment, conceded the principle, and also went in some way in derogation of what I said in the speech I made in the Engineers' Hall on the 30th September of last year. The speech, as he read it out, was strictly accurate in every single word. Every single word of that speech was carefully thought out, and I stand over every single word of what I said at that time.

I would direct the attention of Deputies to the fact that this speech was made on 30th September, 1958, when we had not the remotest idea there would be any such thing as this highly unprecedented provision for a commission in the proposed amendment of the Constitution. But we had our suspicions. We had grave grounds for our suspicions. The political correspondent for, if you please, the Irish Times, imbued apparently with the spirit of the Taoiseach and the Fianna Fáil Party, and supporting them in this proposal, said that the Taoiseach, by putting in this provision, had taken the wind out of my sails.

I asked for a fair and impartial body, a body which would secure public confidence in its integrity and in its impartiality. The proposed commission fails in every one of the tests that I require as a sine quo non for support of the body that I envisaged. We have certainly had experience of the manner in which constituencies were gerrymandered and of the manner in which practically all the principles underlying P.R., as they existed before the revision, were undermined, within the limits of the Constitution, by the revisions which took place in 1947.

We know perfectly well that when the news broke that the Taoiseach proposed to have the principles of P.R. as the basis of our electoral system abolished, many Deputies, not merely in the Parties in opposition, but in his own Party, were fearful as to what the result would be in their constituencies and it was perfectly obvious that when each man said to himself: "What will happen if my constituency is changed? If A gets that part of the county that forms my constituency, I am sunk", there was going to be grave controversy, public unease and certainly public injustice, if not private injustice as well.

We all know perfectly well what went on and what is still going on, and we felt, when I made that speech, that the only possible way to prevent injustice being done to individuals and, incidentally, through the injustice to individuals, social injustice to the community, was to have some sort of body set up in whose integrity and impartiality we would have confidence.

I stated on the Second Reading of the Bill that the commission as proposed to be set up in this Bill is one in whose integrity or impartiality I would not have the slightest confidence. The viciousness of it consists in that on its face it looks specious and that is the reason why I say it is a confidence trick on the people.

The Minister for Health said that the amendment in some way runs counter to what I proposed. It is in strict accord with what I asked for on behalf of my colleagues on the 30th September last. Of course, the Minister for Health merely said that and did not proceed to argue it or give any arguments to justify his assertion any more than the Taoiseach gave any arguments to suggest that the amendment was a propaganda amendment.

I have often noticed that Fianna Fáil, when they are unable to answer arguments—certainly, the Taoiseach is a past master at it—always state: "I have nothing to answer, no arguments to answer." That is generally the line that has been taken, not merely on this particular section of the Bill but on the other proposals that we have been debating for the last few weeks. The Taoiseach answered none of the arguments put forward here nor did the Minister for Health. The Minister for Health merely showed that he had not read the Bill properly, that he was not acquainted with the provisions of it.

I recall some of the arguments made on some of the other sections which are applicable and relevant to this consideration. May I emphasise for the consideration of Deputies and the country—the fundamental law of a country, the Constitution as it is called, has no place for details. It sets down general principles dealing with the institutions of the State, the setting up of the State, how laws are to be enacted, in accordance with what principles they are to be adjudged, and matters of that kind. It is then left for the Legislature and for the people, through their traditions and the building up of their respect for the institutions of the State and the Constitution, to give flesh and blood to the bones of the Constitution. But, what is being done in this Bill is to reduce the fundamental law of the State, the Constitution as it is popularly called, to the level of an ordinary Act of Parliament where you are setting up machinery to do certain things instead of laying down the principles on which these things should be dealt with.

That is the reason for this amendment. It conforms with what I said on the Second Reading of this Bill. That is what I intended to achieve if I could, by argument, when I made the speech on the 30th September last. You do not lay down details in a Constitution, the fundamental law of the State; you do not put down machinery, and there is very good reason for it, in fact, there are very many reasons. I will refer only to a few of them.

I said I had recalled some of the arguments made in the course of this debate. I read in the Second Reading speech what had been said by the present Taoiseach during the discussions in 1936 on the draft Constitution that was then going through this House and I showed what he had said then about what a wonderful thing this single transferable vote system was and how the arguments that I had put up were entirely unfounded. I quoted what the Minister for Industry and Commerce had said in 1933, that when it was proposed at a Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis to abolish the principles of P.R. he said that the system that was proposed to be inserted in its place, the British system which is now being sponsored by the present Taoiseach and by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the same Minister as at that time, tended to bring to a Legislature, Government that represented only a minority and therefore he was against it.

When these matters were put before the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the other people supporting this Bill, all the Taoiseach said was: "I changed my mind. I was wrong then." But, he was very right when I was arguing against him and I withdrew no single word or no argument. In spite of the fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce in his stupid way had been repeating what I had said at that time, I withdrew no single word, no single argument of what I put at that time. I have nothing to withdraw but the Taoiseach has to do a political feat of acrobatics and say: "I was wrong." The Minister for Industry and Commerce said: "I was wrong, too." Is it not conceivable that they are wrong now?

I do not know whether the Taoiseach will be saying it; I do not believe he will but somebody else will in his place, later on, when infirmities will appear as they inevitably must appear in a matter of this kind which is not properly thought out and where there are details which are not foreseeable or foreseen. They will say: "We were wrong. We should not have put it into the Constitution. We should have left it to ordinary legislation, when Parliament can deal with it at its leisure and in detail in the proper way."

It is certainly a curious spectacle to see the Taoiseach saying: "I was wrong in 1937 although I insisted, in spite of argument, that I was right to put the provision that the electoral system be based upon the single transferable vote." Now he just gives a twist and said: "I was wrong that time but I am terribly right now."

Here is a proposal which on its face is clearly indicative of the fact that it has not been thought out in all its relevance, all its details and all its implications and it has to be realised that none of the details of principles, it you can put it that way, in so far as there are any principles in this Schedule, can be dealt with by ordinary legislation.

The Minister for Health referred, or at least tried to refer, and could not find it until he was helped from this side of the House, to paragraph 6:—

"Subject to the provisions of this Article, any matter whatsoever relating to constituency commissions or their members may be provided for by law."

Of course, he did not realise that there were other provisions as well and that under this Article as it stands the Taoiseach whoever he may be, may appoint three members, the Ceann Comhairle may appoint three members, the President appoints one member. Then they start and then the President removes the whole seven of them. That is what is there: the President removes the whole seven of them. What is to happen then? Does the Minister for Health suggest that when the President removes the whole seven of them, including the judge, a law can be passed here to say, "We will have another commission and do it all over again," because that is the implication? I refer to that as showing how ill-thought-out and ill-considered these proposals are and, when we point out this and show a proper way to do it, the only answer to our argument by the Taoiseach is that it is propaganda and the answer by the ill-informed Minister for Health is the production of half-baked arguments which he did not even finish. I want to know what the answer to that is because I rely upon that as showing the danger of inserting machinery of this kind into the fundamental law of the country.

What I said on the Second Reading I repeat here. What you should do is to lay down the principles upon which this body, or something like it, should be set up by ordinary legislation and then let the Parliament set up the machinery in accordance with those principles and let it be tested in the Supreme Court whether the machinery that has been set up by ordinary law is in accordance with those principles or not and also whether the people appointed have acted in accordance with them or not.

We have set down these principles here in as careful a manner as possible, in an endeavour to ensure that the amendment we propose fits into and dovetails with the scheme of the existing Constitution. It is tied on, as Deputy Corish pointed out, to another Article of the Constitution. In fact, the reference to these principles of social justice were inserted there because of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Sinn Féin funds case. The Minister for Health has forgotten, or, more probably, does not know anything about, what was decided in that case or what the principles of social justice really mean.

He proceeded to argue that there was something wrong with this amendment because the principles of social justice were inserted into this Bill and the only place you found them was in the paragraph of the Constitution which deals with private property. In fact, of course, these principles of the Constitution which I refer to as principles of social policy, would seem to refer to social justice as well, but nobody takes the slightest notice of them and, least of all, the Oireachtas when passing any Act of Parliament. If the Oireachtas took any account of them, we would not be arguing here for weeks past a proposal to amend the Constitution.

One of the directive principles of social policy which I am sure 70 per cent. of the Deputies here and 95 per cent. of the people have not read is contained in Article 45 (1) of the Constitution and is as follows:—

"The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the whole people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice and charity shall inform all the institutions of the national life."

If any regard whatever was had to the directive principle that "justice and charity shall inform all the institutions of the national life", we should not have been debating this Bill for weeks past——

Mr. Aiken

Hear, hear!

Mr. J.A. Costello

The Minister for Health does not know anything about it and the Minister for External Affairs disregards it. He says "Hear, hear", but he has no more notion of what justice or charity means than the person who has not read the Constitution, and there are many such.

The reason social justice was put in here was this. The Taoiseach sent his Attorney-General into the Supreme Court to argue that it was no job of the Supreme Court or any judge to say what the principles of social justice were and that they ought not be allowed to do it. I had the very great privilege of playing a prominent part in securing from the Supreme Court a judgment in which they said that the ascertainment and definition of the principles of social justice were for the Supreme Court and not for the Government of the day, and that the Supreme Court would, when the occasion arose, determine, in the appropriate fashion, what those principles of social justice were. I regard it as one of the achievements of my career that we were able to secure that. We were able to secure what the Taoiseach did not want done. He does not want, any more than does the Minister for External Affairs or the Minister for Health, as is evident by the provision in this Bill, the principles of justice or equity so speciously and so hypocritically referred to in this Bill to be inquired into by the Supreme Court. Nobody is to be able to say anything about that—neither the Dáil nor the Dáil and Seanad together.

Let us project ourselves slightly into the future. One can as certain or have a notion of the effect of a proposal or interpretation of a particular Bill or Act of Parliament by considering a variety of circumstances in which it can operate, even to the argument of reductio ad absurdum. I could argue on existing circumstances on this Bill.

Mr. Aiken

Hear, hear!

Mr. J.A. Costello

The Minister says "Hear, hear".

Mr. Aiken

You could argue on anything, could you not?

Mr. J.A. Costello

I think I could.

You would have the position in which the Ceann Comhairle was appointed by the big Party with its majority. Whom will you have up in the Park, having regard to the principles upon which the election must be held—popular vote? You will have just the same thing as you have here, a politician. You will have a politician in the Park; you will have a politician as Taoiseach; and a political nominee occupying the seat of the Ceann Comhairle, and what is he to do?

Let us project ourselves back—I am only looking to the future—to the past few years, from 1951 to 1954. There were five "boyos" sitting up there in the so-called Independent Benches who kept the Taoiseach and the then Ministers in office. We all remember them —Deputies Flynn, Peadar Cowan and the other three—and a Ceann Comhairle appointed, absolutely dependent for his continuance in office upon the majority, selects three out of five "boyos" as the Opposition. They are Independents, as they are not in the Government.

Leave it at that. In the past, we had Fianna Fáil declining to honour the principles we set down. Whether it is Fianna Fáil in the future or any other Party, it is only human nature politically for everyone to want their own man in the chair. All I am saying is that that could happen and if it could happen, you have to test the validity of the provisions of this Bill by what can happen. I am saying that particular thing can happen because under these provisions as proposed it is the Ceann Comhairle who has to say who are the Opposition from whom he is to take them and nobody can do anything about it. It cannot be brought into court, and cannot be upset here in the Dáil. Even if a motion were put down to try to get public opinion interested in it, it would just be thrown out in the Division Lobby.

That is the way to test these matters. That is the way to test whether it is proper to put this provision into the fundamental law of the country, instead of putting down the headline on which this body is to be set up, leaving it to the Oireachtas to fill in the details, and leaving it then to the Supreme Court to say whether or not the principles set down in the Constitution have or have not been maintained.

The Minister for Health tried to suggest that the principles of social justice had reference only to private property. The words "principles of social justice" were put into this amendment by us as an addition to the words "fair and equitable" which appear in the Bill because of the decision of the Supreme Court that those principles of social justice are matters which could and should be determined by them and not by Parliament or anybody else. Therefore, there is a safeguard against any gerrymandering that might take place under the present proposal.

What is wrong with that? Why are the Government afraid of what we are suggesting to them? Let us see what the proposal is. We propose the Oireachtas should revise the constituencies at least once in every 12 years. Now, we set out the principles on which they are to do so on a fair and equitable basis and in accordance with the "principles of social justice". In the proposals here as they stand at the moment, the directions or the directives as the Taoiseach called them to-night, to this body are that they are to proceed to revise the boundaries "on a fair and equitable basis".

There is nothing in that to show to an independent impartial judge, if you could find one, on what he is to act. What are fair and equitable principles? What are they? There is nothing to determine them, nothing to give him a clear line, unless somebody comes along to say it is fair and equitable to Deputy Corry that Youghal should be taken from Cork and put into Waterford, to get rid of the then Deputy Broderick, as was done before. What is the test of "fair and equitable"? We say that you should add to the words "fair and equitable" the words "the principles of social justice". Then you are on solid foundations, because if this tribunal does not act on them in accordance with the principles of social justice, then the Supreme Court say so.

The Minister for Health said that you could not say what the principles of social justice were except in relation to private property, and that in order to do so, you would have to go back to the old days of the pocket boroughs where you could buy your seat in Parliament. Of course, that is not so. Does anybody for one moment deny that? If the Government proceeded so to revise the constituency which I have represented for the past 25 years and deliberately carved it up with the express determination of seeing that I would not be elected at the next election, not merely is a great injustice done to me personally, but, to some greater degree, an injury has been done to the common people, not because of my loss but because of what has been done.

Does anybody suggest for a moment —even the Minister for Health—that a man who has worked his way into the Dáil, who has earned his right to come in here by the votes of a particular section of the community and who, through the machinations of a political Party who want to get their own man in—is put out, that an injury has not been done there? That is what we want to stop, and that is why we want to add the words "the principles of social justice".

May I refer to one other passage? I could refer to many passages bearing on this duty in legislation to look after the principles of social justice in this matter. There is a little booklet called A Code of Social Principles. I shall quote just one sentence. At paragraph 45 it says:—

"Authority——"

the State, if you like

"——being the director of the common good, must in the first place protect and guarantee the rights of the individuals and groups which it envisages for the violation of such rights has a profound and evil reaction upon the common good of which the State is guardian, while, on the contrary, respect for the rights of everyone helps to increase the wellbeing of all."

Therefore, I say if there is gerrymandering by a Government, if a plan is made by which one Deputy, by the deliberate act of gerrymandering or arrangement of the constituencies, is put out and another person of a different political persuasion is enabled to get in, a grave social injustice has been done to the individual and an even greater social injustice has been done to the community. That is what we want to stop.

That is what the Taoiseach and his followers over there will not allow the Supreme Court to inquire into. What is the justification for it? Why is this provision being inserted into the Bill to prevent the courts from dealing with the matter? The Minister for Health said something about the suggestion as to one man being venal and suggested that we were inconsistent in relying on the Supreme Court. There are five members of the Supreme Court and you may get one venal man under conditions that may exist in future here. That is what I said in my Second Reading speech and if anybody reads the recent book on the life of John Philpot Curran, he will know very well what I was referring to and the condition of affairs that may come about in this country, if the system of election to the Dáil is changed in the way Fianna Fáil want it to be changed, a way in which we hope and trust it will not be changed. Even so, the Supreme Court, where there are five judges, not doing a political job but doing a job which they have taken an oath to do without fear, favour or affection, is prevented from intervening.

This Bill asks the judge to do a political job. Can there be anything more political or can anything be more conducive to stirring up political passions and personal interest than the proposal to fix the boundaries of the constituencies? Every Deputy likes to think he will get a fair crack of the whip, that he has as good a chance as he had at the last election to make his case to the people and to get back again by the votes of the people who elected him before. If he sees that there is a plan by his political enemy to make it more difficult for him he will fight bitterly and hard.

It is in that bitter atmosphere that you ask the Supreme Court or High Court judge, as the case may be, to come in and deal with a political matter of that kind. As Deputy Corish said, probably, in all human certainty, if everything went right and if everything was done in accordance with high principles in the appointment and selection of the various parties to this commission, each would be called upon to do that political job and, without adequate directions in the Constitution, as proposed in this Bill, to enable him to come to a just and proper conclusion. There are no principles of any particular effect, authority or virtue in this Bill to guide that judge. In addition to that and on top of it there is this extraordinary provision that the President, the Uachtarán, can sweep away the whole lot of them, without anybody saying a word to him. That is deliberately put into this Bill for reasons best known to the Taoiseach.

I have no doubt that that may happen—and that is all that is necessary for me to test this. You may get a politician up in the Park and that politician may very well say: "I do not like any of these fellows and I do not like the way in which the judge is doing this thing. Off with their heads." There is nothing in this provision of the Bill as proposed to us to deal with that situation. In other words, the President should not have these powers at all. It is going much too far towards making the office more political than it should be. We objected, when the draft Constitution was going through, to making the office political and to the method of election. That did not prevail either.

I urge upon the Dáil that there ought not to be imposed on the holder of this office, which ought to be a national office, one in which the occupant should hold the scales impassionately amongst all sections of the people where his duties come in, the functions that are in this Schedule in reference to the commission and which impose upon him the task of doing— even in the case of the best and most impartial man—what must be a very distasteful duty which will bring upon him political criticism from some quarter or another and, what is already being attempted to be done very largely to bring the office of President into greater contempt. There are many people throughout the country who say that there ought not to be a President, that he is too expensive. If you have a President doing a job under this Bill that will cause political repercussions throughout the country, because he is handling explosive matter, because he is handling a situation where the rights of Deputies and electors will be affected, then, undoubtedly, he will be brought into the forum of political discussion and political controversy.

We have proposed a reasonable amendment and one to which we gave considerable thought. This amendment, the Taoiseach says, is propaganda. We have no interest in making propaganda about this commission. Before I knew what would be in this Bill—indeed, without reference to the Bill at all—I also had in my mind, even if this Bill did not come, even if the rumours were not true, that there was a proposal to abolish P.R., that, because according to the Constitution the constituencies would have to be amended this year or next year at the latest, there ought to be a body such as I described to advise on these matters and constituted so as to ensure public confidence in its integrity and its impartiality.

What objection can any reasonable person have to our proposal here that there should be set down and stated specifically in this Bill the principles on which such a body should be established and that it should be left to legislation to devise the machinery and the manner in which these principles will be carried out, leaving the ultimate power for the safeguarding of individual rights of the community and general social justice to the ascertainment and protection of the Supreme Court? Those principles we laid down should be unobjectionable because we say they should be constituted on a fair and equitable basis and according to the principles of social justice. What is wrong with that proposal? Where is the progaganda about that?

If the Taoiseach had any answer to or any cogent argument against this amendment he ought to have given it but he did not. What is the argument against that? What is wrong with the demand that the body to be set up to do this very vital piece of work that is so essential, if the community is to be safeguarded and the electorate to have their rights and individual Deputies' interests to be given the concern they are entitled to—what is wrong with asking that this body to deal with the fixing of the boundaries of the constituencies should act on a fair and equitable basis and in accordance with the principles of social justice?

We continue in the amendment and go on to give a few more directives, namely, "...and, in so far as it is practicable," to deal with "changes in the distribution of population, and the geographical features and the established administrative and territorial divisions and the wishes of the electorate in the area or areas to be affected and generally so as best to ensure that all classes and sections in the community shall have fair and adequate representation." What is wrong with that? The Taoiseach did not try to suggest that there was anything wrong with it. The Minister for Health, with all his glibness and facade of argumentation, did not even try to deal with it. He did not suggest that this commission should not act in accordance with the principles of social justice. He did not suggest that this commission should not deal with the division of the new constituencies, having regard to the wishes of the electorate and, above all, generally so as best to ensure that all classes and sections of the community shall have fair and adequate representation.

I want it to be known to the public outside that what we want this body to do is to act fairly and justly between all Parties and all sections of the community and in the interests of the State as a whole. That can best be secured by a body bound to act in accordance with these directions. It cannot be secured by a body such as is envisaged in this Schedule and in conditions which may exist hereafter under which it could be utilised as an instrument by a powerful Party for the political elimination of their political enemies.

I have stated again and again in the course of the speeches I have made on this Bill that the real strength and cogency of our arguments against these proposals have been the fact that, although the Minister for External Affairs has spoken again and again and the Minister for Health, and some of the others, have come in, they have not answered one single argument that we have put up by anything other than stupid quotations of irrelevant matter.

Mr. Kyne

I had no doubt in my mind about this Bill after reading the various sections of it but until I read Section 3 and its sub-sections I never realised how determined Fianna Fáil were to take full advantage of the position they would gain in this House by use of the single-seat constituency and the non-transferable vote. In every line, in every word of this section provision is made to rivet the Fianna Fáil Government forever in power. Not only that, but having riveted themselves in power, having secured power by means of the previous sections of the Bill, they make certain that this section not only will keep them in power but will prevent forever anyone endeavouring to upset them, even to the extent of depriving the citizens of their right to appeal to the courts.

What does this section give us? It gives us a constituency commission formed by a judge of either the Supreme Court or the High Court and six members acting under him, three from the Government side and three from the Opposition, as decided by the Ceann Comhairle. I could imagine what would happen if the Taoiseach, in the early stages when this Bill was being discussed, had introduced a Bill and stated that he was setting up an independent commission with himself as chairman. There would have been cries of horror throughout the country; there would be shouts of opposition from the members on this side, but surely the position can quite easily be that the direct nominee of the Taoiseach will be the chairman of the commission he has set up. As I think Deputy Corish has said, the Taoiseach has been a politician for the past 40 years and it is on the cards that it will be he who will be appointing the judge.

The Taoiseach asked us this evening in all quietness not to be suspicious, to give credit to the judges, saying that once they become judges they then become detached from everything. As Deputy Costello said, we must look to the future but even if we never looked to the future, it has happened in the past that judges have not been so impartial. One has only to throw one's mind back to the famous war crime trials. I wonder if some ten or 15 years later, some of the decisions of very distinguished judges of other countries were examined how impartial those decisions would be? Were those decisions honest decisions coloured by the views held by the particular judges at the time? Is it not quite possible that a judge with a political background possibly as a nominee of a political Party, would have honest opinions but not in accord with what would be the proper view?

I suggest there should be some guiding rules either for the judge or for the chairman, whoever he may be, and for the members of the commission. What in fact does the commission mean? There will be three members from the Government side and three from the Opposition. This arranging of boundaries will be the most contentious political subject that any members of this House or any side of this House could discuss. There will be varying views even amongst members of the one Party as to how to divide a constituency. Is it not most likely that the three on the Fianna Fáil side, viewing things from that angle, will disagree completely with the three on the Opposition side, who will be viewing it also from their own angle? Goodness knows we have experience in this House which indicates that it is very seldom the side in Government and the side in Opposition can see things from the same viewpoint. It is most likely that after six months discussion the three on each side will cancel themselves out and the decision, if ever a decision is come to, will be the decision of the politically appointed chair man who, as I say, may in all honesty come to a decision he will arrive at because of the particular political bias he has himself.

I wonder was it the fact that the Opposition tactics so delayed the coming into law of this Bill that a sudden switch of front occurred? It was conceivable that a change of Presidency would occur and that a person from what might be called the Opposition side of the House could have assumed office before this Bill would come into law. That suddenly caused a switch of runners. Every section of this Bill is so loaded against any attempt to secure justice that I am compelled to believe that it was deliberately thought out by someone who lost no opportunity of seeing to it that whatever was done under this Bill could not be undone in the lifetime of this House or any other House.

Let us see what power the three members of the Opposition have in this commission. They can listen during the period of the discussion. They can argue and disagree, but they cannot publish their views. They are expressly forbidden, under this Bill, to put into writing their views and the reasons for them. There is to be no minority report. This commission will sit and, with a politically appointed chairman plus three politicians of the Government side, making four, and thus constituting a majority, a decision can be arrived at. The three members of the Opposition can only disagree with it mentally because they are completely forbidden even to inform the public that they disagreed with it and give the reasons why they did it. They are permitted to resign but they are not permitted to resign secure in the knowledge that three people from the same side of the House can be there to replace them. They can even be removed but there is no provision for any substitute to come in. There is nothing in this Bill which gives any powers to anyone to replace them once they have resigned, but it is expressly stated that having resigned, if four remain that constitutes a quorum and, if all six resign, the chairman is entitled to carry out his reorganisation of the constituencies and it receives the force of law.

They can, as I say, be dismissed by the President without any reason given, with no right of appeal to the courts. Even this House can do nothing about it unless two-thirds of the membership of the whole Dáil reject the recommendations. When is it likely that a Government will have such a majority that they will be two-thirds of the whole Dáil? Looked at from the Fianna Fáil point of view, I would imagine that they would say to themselves: "There is only one Party will ever have that. We want to change the constituencies and we will make sure that the other people cannot."

The Taoiseach during his short intervention in this debate this evening, made no attempt to deal in any way with the points raised by Deputy T. F. O'Higgins. His simple answer was: to the jaundiced eye all things are yellow. If you believe these things can happen I am not going to endeavour to persuade you. If gerrymandering, as you think it may, takes place have you not a remedy in the Dáil? Can you not rise up in the Dáil and discuss it and the people, in their wisdom, will get rid of the Government that did that? You know he must think we are very innocent.

This Government, and various past Governments, have been accused of very serious things, things much more serious even than the suggestion of gerrymandering by a political Party, but I know of no outcry that occurred from the ordinary public that had any effect. The majority went into being and their weakness was called. A majority overruled the minority and that is exactly what will happen, and would happen, if such a position arose. The Deputies could speak, a closure motion would be put and a vote would be taken and that would be the end of it. That would be a very small price to pay for having secured the political Party, which they are anxious to secure, in power for an indefinite period to come.

I feel that this section gives the lie to the points made in the previous speeches by the Government side in connection with the various parts of this Bill. Every word, every paragraph in it, is a clear indication that this section was put there to rivet into being the control of Fianna Fáil in this nation, irrespective of what either the voters here say or what the voters throughout the country will endeavour to do when this goes before the country in the form of a referendum.

Mr. Sherwin

I am not a lawyer and I hope I am not a liar either but, though I am not a lawyer I know the law. At least I know what the law is supposed to be founded on and I, at least, have a good knowledge of human nature which is the main theme of our discussion here this evening, our discussion as to whom we can trust and whom we cannot trust. I want to make myself clear. I do not trust anyone when it comes to politics and I mean no personal reflections at all. I can recognise a man to be a very honest man, a very religious man and still I do not trust him in politics. That applies to judges, laymen, clerics and even the Pope. The Popes were politicians. They governed Rome and we all know that. I hold that while a man having a conscience would not want to hurt a fly or pinch a penny, he could cause the deaths of men and still feel immune, because every man has two consciences—his private conscience and his political conscience.

I come now to the Bill. We are asked to agree that the Taoiseach, or rather the President, will appoint a chairman of this commission. Now, whoever the chairman will be he will have some leanings. He votes; he has a vote. All judges have a vote, so has the President, and they vote on election day. They vote for some political Party. All men have political leanings. It may not be so expressed by some people. They may like to keep out of politics but nevertheless they have leanings. Therefore, the judge, whoever he will be, will lean either to the Opposition or to the Government, and I am satisfied that even if he were the fairest judge on all the earth, all things being equal, he will follow his political leanings. He must, I used to judge dancing one time and I often found it difficult to judge between certain pairs of people but, obviously, I had to make decisions and obviously I gave the benefit to the man I knew best. I am straight about it. I had to make a decision. Some little iota must have decided my mind and the chairman of this commission will inevitably adopt the same attitude.

The commission itself is to be composed of three members of the Government Party and three members of the Opposition. Who are the Opposition? I assume all those who oppose the Bill will be considered the Opposition. For instance, two Independents voted in favour of it and so they will not be considered as part of the Opposition, but I would be so considered as will all of us who voted against the Bill. Three members of the Opposition are to be appointed. Who will they be? Will there be one of the Independents? I do not think so. Maybe there will be one Labour —I do not know; maybe there will be two Fine Gael—I do not know but, let us say that is the position. I imagine, using my intelligence, that that will be something like it. Where do the Independents come in? There are ten of them here. Does the Farmers' Group come into this? Six active politicians are going to be asked to meet and pass judgment on themselves. Do not forget that. Do not forget that those six men will be members from some areas. Those six men will be aware of where they stand, of how they could benefit and how they might be in danger. Do you seriously ask that those six men should dismiss completely their own preservation, when we are told that self-preservation is the first law of nature?

Six politicians are to be asked to pass judgment on themselves. Let us draw a picture of the position. I am a member of this House for a three-seat area. I know that area will be reduced to two seats. It must be The population makes it clear that it will be. Who are the three members for those seats? A prominent member of each side—Deputy Major de Valera, managing director of the Irish Press, and my friend, Deputy McGilligan, a former Minister and myself.

Now six politicians will be meeting and I shall not be one of them. This is the Bill in operation; this is what Deputy Costello was referring to. They will come together to discuss the Dublin North Central area and each member will be conscious of his leader's views. Certainly they will not have me in mind and whether or not they are told by their leaders to do this, or to do that, they will be conscious of their views, just as those barons who killed St. Thomas a Becket on behalf of Henry II, were conscious of his views. They knew without being told that Henry II did not like him and they slew him.

It will not be necessary for either Deputy Major de Valera or Deputy McGilligan to say what he wishes. The men are trained politicians and they will know. Where do I come in? It is quite obvious that I have a substantial following in the area, but it is not impossible to manoeuvre a little this way and a little that way. It can be done this way. Let us suppose that my following is in one block. That block can be cut in halves in a way that would reduce my chances by 50 per cent. That can be done and will be done.

Is there anything in the Bill that states that these men will be sworn? There is nothing. Is there anything in the Bill which states that they will be sworn to secrecy? There is not.

A jury considering a capital charge is confined because the law says that men are weak, that others might lobby the jury and a wrong verdict might be given. The law says that about jurymen, but these six men are not to be confined. They are entitled to go out and to be lobbied morning, noon and night, as will be the case.

Even Cardinals when electing a Pope fear influence and realise the frailty of human nature. They are not allowed out until a choice has been made. What about these six active politicians? I know human nature and I have had personal experience of it. I know that when it comes to politics, no man can be trusted. They may be the most honourable men otherwise, but, as I said before, there are some people with peculiar minds. I shall quote a case.

Cardinal Richelieu was Prime Minister of France and his chief assistant, his Foreign Minister was a saint, a Father Joseph. In the Middle Ages, Bishops and Cardinals were leaders of politics. This man was an active saint and he controlled various orders. Where others drove in carriages, he walked. He would not eat in hotels and even to his dying day he lived as a saint, but still he was active in politics and in creating wars between Protestant and Catholic nations. On behalf of France, he gave assistance to Protestant nations to defeat Catholic nations so that France would survive as the chief power on the Continent. That is common history. Here is a man bringing about the assassination and massacre of Catholics and yet he is a saint.

I have said my piece. I have no faith in politicians when it comes to giving a decision, even though a politician may be a very honourable man otherwise. I protest against this commission proposal. I hold that this task should be left to the judiciary. It is not that I trust the judiciary too much, either, but one must trust somebody. At least the judiciary have good jobs; they are pensionable and they cannot be removed from office; and therefore they are less likely to be tempted, or influenced, than active politicians. They would be more than likely to give an honest verdict and to ignore lobbying. While they are not infallible, they are less likely to be influenced as they have nothing to fear and with them should rest the decision as to how constituencies are to be carved out.

I know people. I know ordinary people and I have known people at the very top. I have had vast experience of people. Let me repeat that I could write a book—a Machiavellian book—from what I personally know, although I do not desire to do so. I do not trust politicians, and, as an Independent Deputy, and on behalf of the Independent Deputies and all those who do not like politicians—which is about half of the community—I protest against this swindle. I cannot describe it in any other way.

Mr. Rooney

We have already discussed the single seat constituency and the single transferable vote and there is just one point I want to raise in connection with this matter. It is that the Constitution, I understand, requires a decision from the people without any other issue being brought in on the day when the electorate are giving their decision on this issue. In view of the rumours that are circulating, I should like to have clarified whether it is a fact that the people will get an opportunity on this occasion to give their decision on this separate issue, without any other issue, particularly the Presidential Election, being brought into the fray.

One other thing which I have noticed in this section is that it specifies that the commission will be above the law, that the decisions and actions of the commission cannot be contested in court. That appears to be quite contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and I feel that it should be amended. The Dáil will be requested only, in view of this section, to legalise decisions reached by the commission. The decision will be made by the commission, and reading the section, we find that in fact the final decision rests with the chairman. If he cannot get agreement between the three Government nominees and the three nominees of the Ceann Comhairle, he will be in a position to make a decision himself regarding the revision of these constituencies and that decision will be sent to the Dáil only to be legalised and not to be altered in any way. I hope these points will be clarified.

Cuireadh an cheist: "Go gcuirfear an t-alt nua isteach annsin."

Question—"That the new section be there inserted"—put.

Rinne an Coiste vótáil: Tá, 50; Níl, 69.

The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 69.

Tá

Barry, Richard.
Belton, Jack.
Blowick, Joseph.
Burke, James.
Carew, John.
Coburn, George.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan D.
Costello, John A.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donnellan, Michael.
Everett, James.
Fagan, Charles.
Finucane, Patrick.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Giles, Patrick.
Hogan, Bridget.
Hughes, Joseph.
Jones, Denis F.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Larkin, Denis.
Lindsay, Patrick.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
MacEoin, Seán.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McMenamin, Daniel.
McQuillan, John.
Manley, Timothy.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, Michael P.
Murphy, William.
Norton, William.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Palmer, Patrick W.
Reynolds, Mary.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Sherwin, Frank.
Spring, Dan.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tierney, Patrick.
Tully, John.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.
Bartley, Gerald.
Blaney, Neal T.
Boland, Gerald.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Browne, Seán.
Burke, Patrick.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carty, Michael.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Collins, James J.
Gibbons, James.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Griffin, James.
Haughey, Charles.
Healy, Augustine A.
Hillery, Patrick J.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kenneally, William.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Loughman, Frank.
Lynch, Celia.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
Corry, Martin J.
Cotter, Edward.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Doherty, Seán.
Donegan, Batt.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Pádraig.
Flynn, Stephen.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
MacEntee, Seán.
Maher, Peadar.
Medlar, Martin.
Millar, Anthony G.
Moher, John W.
Moloney, Daniel J.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moran, Michael.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ormonde, John.
O'Toole, James.
Russell, George E.
Ryan, Mary B.
Sheldon, William A.W.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies O'Sullivan and Spring; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.

Question declared lost.

Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis diúltú don cheist.

Níor tairgeadh leasuithe Uimha. 2 agus 3.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.

Cuireadh an Cheist: "I gCodanna I agus II go bhfanfaidh Alt 3 mar chuid den Sceideal."

Question—"That in Parts I and II, Section 3, stand part of the Schedule"—put.

Rinne an Coiste vótáil: Tá, 67; Níl, 50.

The Committee divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 50.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Bartley, Gerald.
Blaney, Neal T.
Boland, Gerald.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Browne, Seán.
Burke, Patrick.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carty, Michael.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Collins, James J.
Corry, Martin J.
Cotter, Edward.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Doherty, Seán.
Donegan, Batt.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Pádraig.
Flynn, Stephen.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Griffin, James.
Haughey, Charles.
Healy, Augustine A.
Hillery, Patrick J.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kenneally, William.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Loughman, Frank.
Lynch, Celia.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Maher, Peadar.
Medlar, Martin.
Millar, Anthony G.
Moher, John W.
Moloney, Daniel J.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moran, Michael.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ormonde, John.
O'Toole, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

Barry, Richard.
Belton, Jack.
Blowick, Joseph.
Burke, James.
Carew, John.
Coburn, George.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan D.
Costello, John A.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donnellan, Michael.
Everett, James.
Fagan, Charles.
Finucane, Patrick.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Giles, Patrick.
Hogan, Bridget.
Hughes, Joseph.
Jones, Denis F.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Larkin, Denis.
Lindsay, Patrick.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
MacEoin, Seán.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McMenamin, Daniel.
McQuillan, John.
Manley, Timothy.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, Michael P.
Murphy, William.
Norton, William.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Palmer, Patrick W.
Reynolds, Mary.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Sherwin, Frank.
Spring, Dan.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tierney, Patrick.
Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Spring.

Question declared carried.

Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.

AN SCEIDEAL—ALT 4.

SCHEDULE—SECTION 4.

Cuireadh an cheist: "I gCodanna I agus II, go bhfanfaidh Alt 4 mar chuid den Sceideal."

Question—"In Parts I and II, that Section 4 stand part of the Schedule"—put.

Rinne an Coiste vótáil: Tá, 69; Níl, 50.

The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 50.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Bartley, Gerald.
Blaney, Neal T.
Boland, Gerald.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Browne, Seán.
Burke, Patrick.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carty, Michael.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Collins, James J.
Corry, Martin J.
Cotter, Edward.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Doherty, Seán.
Donegan, Batt.
MacEntee, Seán.
Maher, Peadar.
Medlar, Martin.
Millar, Anthony G.
Moher, John W.
Moloney, Daniel J.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moran, Michael.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Pádraig.
Flynn, Stephen.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Griffin, James.
Haughey, Charles.
Healy, Augustine A.
Hillery, Patrick J.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kenneally, William.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Loughman, Frank.
Lynch, Celia.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ormonde, John.
O'Toole, James.
Russell, George E.
Ryan, Mary B.
Sheldon, William A.W.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

Barry, Richard.
Blowick, Joseph.
Burke, James.
Byrne, Tom.
Carew, John.
Coburn, George.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan D.
Costello, John A.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donnellan, Michael.
Everett, James.
Fagan, Charles.
Finucane, Patrick.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Giles, Patrick.
Hogan, Bridget.
Hughes, Joseph.
Jones, Denis F.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Larkin, Denis.
Lindsay, Patrick.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
MacEoin, Seán.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McMenamin, Daniel.
McQuillan, John.
Manley, Timothy.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, Michael P.
Murphy, William.
Norton, William.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Palmer, Patrick W.
Reynolds, Mary.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Sherwin, Frank.
Spring, Dan.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tierney, Patrick.
Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Spring.

Question declared carried.

Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.

SCEIDEAL—ALT 5.

SCHEDULE—SECTION 5.

Cuireadh an cheist—"I gCodanna I agus II go bhfandfaidh Alt 5 mar chuid den Sceideal"—agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh léi.

Question—"That in Parts I and II Section 5 stand part of the Schedule"—put and declared carried.

AN SCEIDEAL—ALT 6.

SCHEDULE—SECTION 6.

Cuireadh an cheist—"I gCodanna I agus II, go bhfanfaidh Alt 6 mar chuid den Sceideal"—agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh léi.

Question—"That in Parts I and II, Section 6 stand part of the Schedule"—put and declared carried.

AN SCEIDEAL—ALT 7.

SCHEDULE—SECTION 7.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Esmonde will move amendment No. 4 on Report Stage when he returns from Strasbourg.

Níor tairgeadh leasú Uimhir 4.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Cuireadh an cheist—"I gCodanna I agus 11, go bhfandfaidh Alt 7 mar chuid den Sceideal"—agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh léi.

Question—"That in Parts I and II, Section 7, stand part of the Schedule"—put and declared carried.

AN SCEIDEAL.

SCHEDULE.

Cuireadh an cheist—"Gurb é an Sceideal is Sceideal den Bhille"— agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh léi.

Question—"That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill"—put and declared carried.

ALT 1.

SECTION 1.

Tairgeadh an cheist arís—"Go bhfanfaidh Alt 1 mar chuid den Bhille."

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

Cuireadh an cheist:—

Question put:—

Rinne an Choiste vótáil: Tá 69; Níl, 51.

The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 51.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Bartley, Gerald.
Blaney, Neal T.
Boland, Gerald.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Browne, Seán.
Burke, Patrick.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carty, Michael.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Collins, James J.
Corry, Martin J.
Cotter, Edward.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Doherty, Seán.
Donegan, Batt.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Pádraig.
Flynn, Stephen.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Griffin, James.
Haughey, Charles.
Healy, Augustine A.
Hillery, Patrick J.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kenneally, William.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Loughman, Frank.
Lynch, Celia.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Maher, Peadar.
Medlar, Martin.
Millar, Anthony G.
Moher, John W.
Moloney, Daniel J.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moran, Michael.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ormonde, John.
O'Toole, James.
Russell, George E.
Ryan, Mary B.
Sheldon, William A.W.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

Barry, Richard.
Belton, Jack.
Blowick, Joseph.
Burke, James.
Byrne, Tom.
Carew, John.
Coburn, George.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan D.
Costello, John A.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donnellan, Michael.
Manley, Timothy.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, Michael P.
Murphy, William.
Norton, William.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Everett, James.
Fagan, Charles.
Finucane, Patrick.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Giles, Patrick.
Hogan, Bridget.
Hughes, Joseph.
Jones, Denis F.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Larkin, Denis.
Lindsay, Patrick.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
MacEoin, Seán.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McMenamin, Daniel.
McQuillan, John.
Palmer, Patrick W.
Reynolds, Mary.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Sherwin, Frank.
Spring, Dan.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tierney, Patrick.
Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Spring.

Question declared carried.

Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.

ALT 2.

SECTION 2.

Cuireadh an cheist—"Go bhfanfaidh Alt 2 mar chuid den Bhille"— agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh léi.

Question—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put and declared carried.

REAMHRA.

PREAMBLE.

Cuireadh an cheist—"Gurb é an Réamhrá is Réamhrá den Bhille"— agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh léi.

Question—"That the Preamble be the Preamble to the Bill"—put and declared carried.

D'aontaíodh an Teideal.

Title agreed to.

Tuairiscíodh an Bille gan leasú.

Bill reported without amendment.

D'ordaíodh Céim na Tuarascála don Mháirt, 27 Eanáir, 1959.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 27th January, 1959.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 21 Jan 1959

An Bille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1958—An Coiste (Atógáil). Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jan 1959