Having listened to the debate I find it rather difficult to be more charitable than to say that most of the contributions were nebulous and irrelevant to the measure under discussion. I have been looking through the notes which I took during the debate and I find no evidence whatever of any common approach among the critics from the Benches opposite, not to mention the absence of any commonsense comments with regard to most of the matters under discussion. The keynote of the debate, and it is the common policy—it is common all right—followed by the critics of the Bill in the Opposition was abuse and accusations of gerrymandering. This of course was to be expected once we had the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition who, with his tongue in his cheek and a smile from ear to ear, spoke for about five minutes. He said nothing concrete really, but made many accusations in regard to gerrymandering, abuse of the House, and the rights of this Parliament and so on. Having done that, he rose and left the House and thereafter we had the tone of the debate set and its uselessness established.
Listening to the Leader of the Opposition one was reminded of the story of the old woman who was schooled in inter-neighbourly rows and discussions. On seeing her son and another young fellow from the neighbourhood having an argument she said to her son: "Go on, call him a cheap skate and have the first go." That role of old woman was played to the full extent by the Leader of the Opposition. Certainly it was followed to the full by those who came after him.
Deputy Corish who succeeded the Leader of the Opposition did not go quite so far. He found it difficult to go so far as to back up the full charge of gerrymandering in this case and talked about legal gerrymandering. It is rather difficult to interpret just what Deputy Corish meant by legal gerrymandering unless one refers to his own statement that, in fact, he could justify Wexford having five seats by various arguments that he could advance. That may be the yardstick by which he measures the charge of legal gerrymandering. Deputy Norton on the other hand, from the same Party as Deputy Corish, did not follow the lead given by Deputy Corish. He said that the position since 1922 was that the constituency of Wexford was never entitled to five seats, that it did not have a population of 100,000 and that therefore since 1922 the whole position with regard to that constituency had been unconstitutional.
The only other remark I would make, and I need not apply it to Labour members any more than to members of the other Parties in the Opposition, is that it is a pity they did not make up their minds on which foot they were to stand, come in here and give us some sensible and constructive criticism, rather than wander around with contrasting phrases and contradictory statements.
Another speech to which I would like to refer was that of a Fine Gael Deputy who also spoke on the 1959 Bill. This was Deputy O'Donnell, a former Minister for Local Government, who in 1959 said, and I quote from Column 415, Volume 177 of the Official Reports:
It is most difficult to arrange such a revision of constituencies without a charge of political corruption or gerrymandering...
I agreed with the Deputy then. I agree entirely with those sentiments now and anybody who approaches this matter in a sensible manner will realise that, no matter what sort of Bill is brought in to deal with this matter of rearranging constituencies, regardless of what Government is in office or what Minister is there, whoever introduces it will be charged with political corruption, gerrymandering and all the rest. That is the true context in which this matter should be placed. Deputy O'Donnell's contribution of 1959 should be applied in this case.
Several Deputies have asked what the position will be in regard to the reference of this Bill to the Supreme Court. That is not a matter for me, for the Taoiseach, for the Government, or for this House. It is a matter, as laid down by the Constitution, in which the President after consultation with the Council of State may refer any Bill to the Supreme Court for determination as to whether or not the whole or any part of it may be unconstitutional or repugnant to the Constitution. That is the position and I trust that will clear the air as has been requested. It is the best I can do to satisfy those who raised that question.
Before I forget it, I should like to reply to the charge made by Deputy Corish that the Government are now introducing a measure which, in the circumstances as he puts it, will bring about, whether we like it or not, a prolongation of this Dáil. He suggested that we are wilfully bringing in a Bill that is known to be, from his point of view, repugnant to the Constitution, or failing in some way that will nullify the operation of this House in passing this Bill and that we are doing this so that we shall be enabled to prolong the life of the Dáil. From the various things said by other Deputies in Opposition I think Deputy Corish may well be doing some wishful thinking that there will be this further respite for those in the Opposition before they face the next election. But in actual fact the position is far different from what Deputy Corish has alleged.
The Government decided to bring in this Bill with all speed after the Court had given its judgment on the 1959 Bill. The main reason for doing that was given by the Taoiseach when he said that he wanted to have the decks cleared so that we may have an election within the five-year period and not be compelled by force of circumstances to prolong the life of the Dáil to seven years as this House would be entitled to do, if Deputies so wished. Far from Deputy Corish's charges being correct, in fact the opposite is the case.
