I thought we were not resuming the order until 7.30. Can we go to our tea now?
Committee on Finance. - An Bille um an gCeathrú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1968: An Coiste (Atógáil). Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Fo-alt 2º i bPáirteanna I agus II.
Subsection 2º in Parts I and II.
D'atógadh an díospóireacht ar an leasú seo a leanas:
I gCuid I, fo-alt 2º a scriosadh agus an méid seo a leanas a chur ina ionad:—
"2º Is do réir na hionadaidheachta cionmhaire agus ar mhodh an aon-ghotha ionaistrighthe a toghfar na comhaltaí.";
agus
I gCuid II, fo-alt 2º a scriosadh agus an méid seo a leanas a chur ina ionad:—
"2º The members shall be elected on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote."
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In Part I, to delete subsection 2º and substitute the following:—
"2º Is do réir na hionadaidheachta cionmhaire agus ar mhodh an aon-ghotha ionaistrighthe a toghfar na comhaltaí.";
and
In Part II, to delete subsection 2º and substitute the following:—
"2º The members shall be elected on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote."
—(Deputy Norton).
If there is no one to speak, I suggest we can ask that the question be put.
If the question were put now, I would give way.
I think the responsible Minister is on his way to the House: here he is. They were trying to pip you at the post.
I suggest to the Minister that we adjourn until 7.30 p.m.
No; oh no. That would be a waste of time. I do not want to waste time.
Then let us put the question.
I should not like to be discourteous. I have to reply to the points which were raised.
I shall not make very many more points. I was speaking for about two minutes before six o'clock and another three minutes will be enough for me now. I was referring to Deputy MacEntee's efforts to justify the activities of himself and of the "Busted Flush", as Deputy Dillon used to refer to them, here for a while this evening. I wonder why the effort was made. As I see it, the position now is that an amendment by Deputy Norton is before the House. Speakers from both the Government side and the Opposition have indicated they are all against it. If we are anxious to have the matter dealt with, it simply remains for the question to be put. If Deputy Norton can get four people to stand up with him, he can call for a division; if he cannot, then that is it. There has been a colossal waste of time. The Minister for Local Government repeated ad nauseam the same statements. I should like to know from the Minister what exactly the Government are doing. What are they doing?
If Deputy Tully will stop talking, I shall start.
Very well.
I suspect that——
No sooner said than done.
I suspect that Deputy Murphy's entrance into this debate was purely and simply in order to delay the passage of this Bill, in order to delay a decision on this amendment, because Deputy Murphy was obviously sent in here to repeat his Second Reading speech on this Bill. Now, I must admit that I feel tempted to follow Deputy Murphy, particularly since he returned to his argument about the six north-eastern counties of this country. But I do not think I should co-operate with him in this attempt.
I thought the Minister said he would finish if I sat down.
It is quite a simple issue. Deputy Fitzpatrick gets up so often and repeats the same arguments that I suspect he is engaged in the same operation. He did get up this time. I think he stated before — I am not quite sure—that the Government's proposal does not recognise majority rule. I pointed out—and nobody attempted to contradict it——
If the Minister is going to repeat himself, I would ask leave to move that the question be now put.
The Chair is not aware that the Minister is repeating himself.
I propose to deal with the allegation by Deputy Fitzpatrick that the system we propose does not recognise majority rule. I want to point out to the House that the system we propose to replace is operated on the exact opposite principle to that of recognising majority rule; that, instead of that, it allocates multiple votes to the smallest group in a constituency while granting only one vote to the majority and to the——
On a point of order, would the Minister say what he is arguing against in view of the fact that everybody in the House, except Deputy Norton, is on the one side?
Acting Chairman
The question before the House is that of the single transferable vote—Deputy Norton's amendment. To my knowledge, the Minister has not been out of order so far. I am sure the Committee will watch the situation.
I am arguing that the system of the transferable vote——
Was this not argued before?
——particularly in the context of the single-seat constituency, is completely unjustifiable. I am trying to convince those Deputies opposite who have spoken in this debate and who have insisted on speaking——
The Minister is not making much headway.
——that this is so and that they should not accept Deputy Norton's amendment.
We said we would not accept it; so did you and so did they.
I really do move that the question be now put.
It is discourteous not to reply to the points which were raised. I shall be as brief as I possibly can.
Acting Chairman
I have not the authority to accept Deputy O'Higgins's motion. I shall ask the Minister for Local Government to continue.
I was interrupted there when I was pointing out that the present system—this system of the transferable vote which, as far as I can gather, Opposition Deputies are arguing in favour of—allocates multiple votes to some people and that the manner in which they are allocated is exactly contrary to the whole principle of democracy which assumes that the majority is right. However, this system decides that it is the smallest minority that gets the most votes and that the majority gets one vote only. I want to point out that it is not possible to devise any system of counting the votes or any system of manipulating the votes after the election to establish the fact that there is an overall majority in favour of one candidate, out of the number that presented themselves for election, if the people themselves have said in the ballot boxes that there is not. I want to point out that it is not possible to establish that there is——
I do not know if the Minister said all this at his Party meeting this morning——
It was not necessary to do so: we know it.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
(Cavan): On a point of order, I understood that the Order of Business was that business was to be interrupted at 6 o'clock to take the Bill with which we have just dealt and that the order was to be resumed at 7.30.
I have no information on that point.
Could I point out that Deputies of Deputy Fitzpatrick's Party were trying to utilise that arrangement for the purpose of preventing Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy Barrett from getting the courtesy of a reply to the remarks they made on this amendment? That is how it happens to be proceeding now. There was an attempt made to prevent me from dealing with the points they had been making and to have this amendment disposed of before 7.30. I can quite appreciate, in view of the delaying tactics of Deputy Fitzpatrick, Deputy Barrett, Deputy Tully and Deputy Murphy, that they would like to have a further delay.
(Cavan): I just simply rose to ask what was the decision on the Order of Business today. There was no mystery about it. I simply wanted to be told the decision when the Taoiseach announced the Order of Business.
Acting Chairman
In reply to the Deputy, I asked the Ceann Comhairle before I took over the Chair and he told me that the House was going back to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. He ordered that before he left the House and I have no authority to alter that order.
I do not think I am called upon to recapitulate what I said before Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy Barrett came in. Undoubtedly they will read it in the Official Report. I should like to point out that it is not necessary to produce theoretical figures to show that this suggestion that it is possible to establish that there is a majority in favour of one candidate when the people have said that there is not, is a fraud. I suggest that the figures of either the Wicklow by-election or the Limerick by-election will establish this. Deputies will see that if the same treatment is given to every voter, it would certainly in the case of Wicklow, and very likely in the case of Limerick, show that there was a majority——
(Cavan): The Minister's advisers must have got the same advice about the Order of Business as I did.
If Deputy Fitzpatrick wants to go and have his tea, he can; I do not mind. Nobody attempted to controvert the proof which I have already given that this is the position and that to attempt to prove this on the basis of equating some people's preference votes to actual votes is likely to produce the nonsensical result that there is a majority in favour of more than one, which of course there could not be. The point is that if three or more candidates decide to contest an election in a single-seat constituency, it is not justifiable to try by an artificial means to arrange for a choice between one particular pairing. Even on the basis of the transferable vote, if three candidates contest an election, there are three possible pairings and there is no justification for artificially trying to deal with one pairing. The three are entitled to stand, and if the people having indicated that there was not a majority in favour of any particular candidate are to be required to decide between any particular pair, then they should have the opportunity of deciding between each of the three possible pairings of the three candidates.
In the case of four candidates, there are six possible pairings and in the case of five, there are ten possible pairings. Of course it would not be practicable to arrange for this to be done and so some group of people whom Deputy Dillon has described in his own picturesque language as cranks and crackpots decided on this system which is based on the fraudulent pretence that it gives a second chance to people who fail to elect their candidate whereas in fact it gives that only to some and these are selected in the most undemocratic way possible.
I have challenged Deputies on the opposite benches on a number of occasions to say just why it was that of the 18,258 people who voted for candidates not deemed to have been elected in Wicklow, 8,470 of these should have been given multiple votes and 9,788 should have been given only one vote; why in the case of East Limerick where 21,399 who voted for candidates other than the candidate deemed to have been elected, 11,248 got a second chance and some of them a third chance, while 10,151 got one vote only. It is quite clear that the system of voting in single-seat constituencies as proposed here is a discriminatory system which it is not possible to justify. The question of the fanciful projection of what might happen, which was put forward by certain professors on television, was raised here and it has been adequately dealt with by Deputy MacEntee. It shows the ridiculous things that can be said by people who discuss matters about which they know nothing.
Deputy S. D. Barrett states that there is no need for this exercise. Of course we are not alone in thinking that there is, because, as Deputy Barrett knows, Deputy Cosgrave, the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, thinks that there is need for this exercise. Deputy Barrett says that this is brought in for the benefit of the Fianna Fáil Party. I would not accuse Deputy Cosgrave of being so false to his own Party as to be in favour of a proposition that can only benefit the Fianna Fáil Party. I would ask Deputy Barrett to explain how this must benefit the Fianna Fáil Party. Surely it obviously provides the most favourable circumstances for any Party to produce its policy to the people because there will be no question of a number of different personalities and each Party will have one candidate in the single-seat constituency to put forward their policy? Surely if it is possible for this full-time policy drafting committee of the Fine Gael Party eventually to produce a policy that is better than Fianna Fáil's, it must be possible in the circumstances we propose to convince the people of this? It is quite clear that in putting forward this proposal what we are doing is endeavouring to implement Deputy Cosgrave's wishes in spite of the Party that he is supposed to lead.
Deputy Tully also spoke and, as we know, Deputy Tully has already disclosed his reasons for opposing this proposition; he sees a prospect, if these amendments are not made by the people, of a cushy seat for himself in a rearranged County Louth constituency. That is how he described it himself. Deputy Tully asked me to deal with a period which, he said, Deputy MacEntee overlooked, that is, the period from 1951 to 1954 when the Fianna Fáil Government were maintained in office by a group of Independents. I was not here at the time myself, but I can well imagine that it was not a very comfortable position to have somebody, such as the vice-chairman of the Labour Party, who has described what his attitude was when he was actually a member of the Government, namely, to try to spring the trap on his colleagues. That individual never got an opportunity of springing the trap on Fianna Fáil.
(Cavan): He did. He was with you for a while.
He was, but he did not spring any trap on us. He was kept well watched.
(Cavan): There was a “Cead Mile Failte” for him.
We are a democratic Party, and when we have an application from an individual to join, he is accepted, but in this case it was very quickly seen that he was of no benefit to the Fianna Fáil Party and he never got any opportunity in that Party of springing the trap on his colleagues in Fianna Fáil. However, he was not long in springing the trap on Deputy Tully when he joined the Labour Party; we all know he succeeded in ousting Deputy Tully.
I should like to conclude by directing members of the Opposition back to the amendment we are supposed to be discussing, that is, the amendment which proposes this unjustifiable system of the transferable vote in single-seat constituencies. This amendment proposes the retention of a blatantly discriminatory system for purely tactical purposes. I suggest the evidence would have to be very strong indeed that it was tactically necessary to require this to be done in order to justify continuing an unjust system of manipulating people's votes after the election. I believe the people will see what is involved in this and decide to avoid, first of all, the inevitable effects of the situation the present system is designed to bring about, which is a large number of small groups after an election, indecisive results depriving the people of a chance to choose a Government, with a resultant stalemate, such as we see in both Belgium and Italy at the moment. At the same time, the people will see that this affords them an opportunity of securing for themselves the substantially better representation inherent in the system of single-seat constituencies. I also believe the people will see the discrimination involved in the transferable vote system and will, in fact, decide in favour of the principle of one-man-one-vote and all voters treated equally which is, in my opinion, the fundamental basis of the democratic system.
I am putting the question: "That subsection (2) of Part I and Part II stand part of the Schedule".
(Cavan): I think you have to put the amendment.
Acting Chairman
First, I put the question and, having disposed of that, we can dispose of the amendment.
(Cavan): Actually we are dealing with Deputy Norton's amendment. I understand that is the technical way of dealing with it, but the matter will arise again on the question: “That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill”.
The Deputy will change his mind again, then.
Cuireadh an cheist agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh léi.
Question put and declared carried.
Cuireadh an leasú agus faisnéiseadh gur cailleadh é.
Amendment declared lost.
(Cavan): Deputy Norton did not challenge a division on his amendment. After all his scurrilous talk over the last three or four days, he did not think it worth his while to come in here to challenge a division on his amendment.
Deputy Fitzpatrick will be agreeing with Deputy Cosgrave before he is finished.
(Cavan): Deputy Norton held up the House with his amendment for four days.
Imagine being of the same mind as the Minister.
That just shows how persuasive I can be.
(Cavan): Certainly this is a bit of an anti-climax to Deputy Norton's amendment, which the Amendment Sheet has been carrying for months, and about which he has been talking and getting publicity for himself. Now he lets it fizzle out The Minister might have obliged him by talking on until halfpast seven.
That is because the Deputy had nothing to say on the other business before the House. He would not come in.
There are amendments to Part III of the Schedule. Amendment No. 4 and amendment No. 6 might be discussed together because amendment No. 6 is cognate to No. 4.
(Cavan): Tairgim leasú 4:
I move amendment No. 4:
I gCuid III, leathanach 7, líne 15, "insan dá bhliadhain déag" a scriosadh agus "insna deich mbliadhna" a chur ina ionad;
agus
I gCuid IV, leathanach 7, líne 23, "twelve" a scriosadh agus "ten" a chur ina ionad.
In Part III, page 6, line 15, to delete "insan dá bhliadhain déag" and substitute "insna deich mbliadhna";
and In Part IV, page 6, line 23, to delete "twelve" and substitute "ten".
Part IV of the Schedule provides for the revision of constituencies from time to time but not less frequently than once every 12 years. My amendment proposes that revision should take place at least every ten years. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing controversial about this. If the amendment is accepted it will be possible to have the revision of constituencies coincide with the taking of the census; that is the sole purpose of this amendment.
As recently as 15th of last month, Deputy Fitzpatrick stated: "I think constituencies ought to be revised every 12 years." I do not see how one can keep pace with the changes of mind of Deputy Fitzpatrick. As far as I know, 12 years has been the period laid down since the foundation of the State and, if anything, I think it is too short. Too frequent revisions of constituencies are not desirable in anybody's interest. Shifting people from one constituency to another, shifting Deputies from one constituency to another and disrupting Party organisations is not required constitutionally any more frequently than every 12 years. In fact, the position established as a result of the action taken by the Fine Gael Party in the High Court requires revision to take place every five years. On the one hand, Deputy Fitzpatrick is trying desperately to hang on to a position which requires revision to take place every five years and, on the other hand, he is purporting to insert an amendment into the Constitution requiring revision every ten years. I think 12 years is quite satisfactory and I see no reason whatever for reducing it.
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
(Cavan): No.
Does the Deputy wish me to put the amendment?
(Cavan): Yes.
Cuireadh an cheist: "Go bhfanfaidh na focail a tairgeadh a scriosadh mar chuid den Bhille", agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.
Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Tairgim leasú 5: I move amendment No. 5:
In Part III, page 6, line 19, to delete "is déidheanaighe dá ndearnadh" and substitute "a rinneadh go díreach";
and
In Part IV, page 6, line 27, to delete "last" and substitute "immediately".
I gCuid III, leathanach 7, líne 19, "is déidheanaighe dá ndearnadh" a scriosadh agus "a rinneadh go díreach" a chur ina ionad;
agus
I gCuid IV, leathanach 7, line 27, "last" a scriosadh agus "immediately" a chur ina ionad.
This arises out of the acceptance of amendment No. 1 moved by Deputy Fitzpatrick on the Committee Stage of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968, which substituted "immediately" for "last" in the phrase, "(as ascertained at the census last preceding the determination)" in subsection 3º of Parts I and II of the Schedule of that Bill. For the sake of consistency, this amendment proposes to amend similarly the same phrase in subsection 4º of Part III of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968, so that the wording will be the same in the Constitution.
Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh an leasú.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Níor tairgeadh leasú 6.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Parts III and IV of the Schedule, as amended, are agreed. We now come to Parts V and VI of the Schedule. Amendment No. 5 is in the name of Deputy Fitzpatrick. Amendment No. 8 is cognate and amendments Nos. 9 and 10 may be related amendments. It is agreed that amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 may be discussed together.
(Cavan): Tairgim leasú 7:
I move amendment No. 7:
In Part V, section 3.2º, page 6, line 35 to delete "ar n-a ainmniú"; and
In Part VI, section 3.2º, page 10, line 2, to delete "on the nomination of" and substitute "by".
I gCuid V, alt 3.2º, leathanach 7, líne 35, "ar n-a ainmniú" a scriosadh;
agus
I gCuid VI, alt 3.2º, leathanach 11, líne 2, "on the nomination of" a scriosadh agus "by" a chur ina ionad.
Article 2º of Part VI of the Schedule reads:
A Constituency Commission shall consist of seven members appointed by Dáil Éireann, of whom one (who shall be the Chairman of the Commission) shall be appointed from the judges of the Supreme Court and High Court on the nomination of the Chief Justice, three shall be appointed from the members of Dáil Éireann on the nomination of the Taoiseach and three shall be appointed, from such members of Dáil Éireann as are determined in accordance with law to be in opposition, on nomination provided for by law.
The object of the amendments which are in my name is to make it clear that the Chairman of the Commission shall, in fact, be appointed by the Chief Justice. The section as it stands states that the Chairman shall be appointed on the nomination of the Chief Justice —whatever that may mean. I want to make it clear that in my opinion and the opinion of this Party the Chairman should be appointed by the Chief Justice. I also want to make it clear that the three members of the Commission who shall be appointed on the nomination of the Taoiseach shall, in fact, be appointed by the Taoiseach and, finally, I want there to be no doubt whatever that the three members of the Opposition shall be appointed by the Opposition.
The first amendment—amendment No. 7—proposes to substitute "by the Chief Justice" for "on the nomination of the Chief Justice" in relation to the Chairman, thereby making it clear beyond doubt that the Chairman of this Commission shall be a judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court and that he shall be appointed by the Chief Justice.
My next amendment is amendment No. 8 and it simply proposes that the three Government Deputies, as I call them, who are to serve on the Commission shall be appointed by the Taoiseach. It is stated in the section as it stands that they are to be appointed on the nomination of the Taoiseach. I want to make it clear that they shall be appointed by the Taoiseach. But, important as the provisions for the appointment of the Chairman and the three Government representatives on the Commission are, it is vital that the three Opposition Deputies who are to serve on the Commission will, in fact, be Opposition Deputies and that they will, in fact, be appointed by the members of the Opposition. As the section stands, it would be open to a Government with a majority in this House to determine that three Independent Members were members of the Opposition and to appoint those three Independent Members to serve on the Commission as representing the Opposition. That could serve to disfranchise in the present Dáil, for example, the two Opposition Parties, Fine Gael and Labour.
I accept that the intention of the Government and of the Minister in drafting this section is, in fact, to provide that the Opposition shall have three representatives on the Commission for three representatives of the Government and an independent Chairman. I accept without question that that is what the Government and the Minister have in mind but I put it to the House and to the Minister that the subsection as it stands leaves it open to a Government with a majority in the House to elect three members to this Commission who would, in fact, represent the Opposition and who might technically be members of the Opposition in so far as they did not come under the Whip of the Government Party but, nevertheless, they might be supporters of the Government of the day. That is what I want to avoid and I think it is what the House would wish to avoid.
If my amendments are accepted, the Chief Justice will appoint the Chairman; the Taoiseach will appoint three members and the Opposition in the House as defined by law will elect three members from among the members of the Opposition as defined by law to serve on the Commission. I put it to the House and to the Minister that there is nothing controversial about that. It is a reasonable safety provision to introduce. I will make the Minister a present of saying it is not necessarily a safety provision against the Minister and his Party, but in my opinion, it is a necessary provision to safeguard the Opposition of the day from the Government of the day and to ensure that the Opposition of the day will in fact have their rightful representation, to wit, three members on this Commission. I trust I have made the position clear. I will be glad to have the Minister's attitude on the amendment.
Section 3, 2º, states that the Constituency Commission shall consist of seven members appointed by Dáil Éireann. Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment does not propose to amend that wording. These amendments he has submitted clash with that provision that the members shall be appointed by Dáil Éireann. They obviously cannot be appointed by the Chief Justice, by the Taoiseach and by the Opposition and also appointed by Dáil Éireann. It would be preferable that the seven members of the Commission should be appointed by the Dáil instead of those who select them.
It is the normal practice in the case of statutory boards to provide for the appointment of a member or members on the nomination of specified persons and bodies. Therefore, the procedure proposed is not a new one. The Constitution itself provides for the appointment of persons by the President on the nomination of the Government and the Dáil.
Practical difficulties would arise if the appointment of the seven members of the Commission were not made simultaneously and by one body. Section 3, 1º, requires that a Constituency Commission shall be established but it does not say by whom it shall be established. This is because the establishment will be effected by appointing seven named persons to form a Commission. This could only be done if one body were responsible for making all seven appointments. It is essential to be able to determine precisely the date on which a Commission was established in view of the obligation placed on it to report within three months of its establishment. If members are to be appointed by different persons and at different times the question would arise of when would the Commission be established, and therefore when did the period of three months from the time of its establishment arise. This is especially so as four members may constitute a quorum. Provisions would obviously have to be inserted to deal with these matters.
Obviously, the appointment by the Dáil of the seven members of a Commission will be purely a formal measure. It will be necessary to promote legislation to deal with matters of detail relating to the nomination of members and the working of a Commission which would be inappropriate for inclusion in the Constitution. This legislation will provide that the first step in the establishment of a Commission will be the passing of a resolution by the Dáil directing that the necessary steps be taken for the establishment of a Commission. Under the arrangements visualised seven nominations, and only seven, could be made and put before the Dáil. The Dáil will then appoint the seven persons duly nominated, and no others, as a Commission.
Therefore, the Government Party would not in fact be able to interfere in the selection of the three Opposition representatives. I may say that the Taoiseach in his Second Reading speech on the Bill indicated that it is the intention that the choice with regard to the Opposition Members should be made by the Opposition and that he would welcome the views of Deputies as to how this might be done. I can assure Deputy Fitzpatrick that if the Opposition put forward a workable system for selecting Opposition Members, it will certainly be considered.
The proposals we have in mind would provide machinery to determine first, who are the Opposition Members of the Dáil and then enable three of the members to be appointed as members of a Constituency Commission. As I said, I would welcome suggestions as to how this should be done. I think I have shown there are big difficulties in the way of accepting Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment, in particular the fact that the Commission is required to report within three months of its establishment and that, if it is to be established in fact piecemeal by different people appointing members not necessarily at the same time, it would be difficult to decide when in fact the Commission had been established. The section already says that the Constituency Commission shall consist of seven members appointed by Dáil Éireann. Obviously, it would be unrealistic and contradictory to provide in the very same subsection that the members shall be appointed by Dáil Éireann and also by other people. Legislation has to be introduced to provide for the nomination of the members of the Opposition. This legislation will ensure that the Government Party will have no say whatever in the selection of the three Members of the Opposition to act on the Commission.
(Cavan): When speaking to an earlier amendment, I emphasised that I quite appreciated that the actual wording of my amendments might not be perfect and that I put them down in order to argue a principle. In the event of the Minister accepting my amendments, I would expect him to have them drafted by his parliamentary draftsman and reintroduced on a later Stage. I quite agree with the Minister's opening remarks that in order to perfect my amendment, I would have to delete “by Dáil Éireann” in the subsection and substitute the words “as hereinafter provided in this subsection.” Then the amendment would be perfect.
The Minister stated there is a precedent here for appointing people on to various boards by the Dáil on the nomination of certain people. That is all very well. I agree there is a precedent for so appointing people by a majority of the Dáil to serve on boards —people who have designated by associations such as the Association of Municipal Authorities, the General Council of County Councils and bodies of that sort. But I want to put it to the Minister that here we are dealing with something entirely different. I am satisfied this provision is intended to do what it appears to do. It is intended to ensure that constituencies will be revised on a fair and equitable basis, fair and equitable to the Government as the largest Party in the House and fair and equitable to each Opposition Party and each independent. That is what is behind this subsection in the Schedule if there is anything behind it and I accept without qualification that there is.
In order to do that, and ensure as far as possible that the constituencies are arrived at in a fair and equitable manner, the Minister has offered a Commission and he says that the Chairman of the Commission is to be a judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court and with that I entirely agree. The Minister says that the judge is to be appointed by Dáil Éireann, on the nomination of the Chief Justice. I do not put it any stronger than saying that I believe it would be more satisfactory if the judge of the High Court or Supreme Court were appointed by the Chief Justice. I am not very fussy about that but I think it would be more desirable as I suggest.
The next provision is that three members are to be appointed, presumably to represent the Government Party and, as the subsection stands, these three members are to be appointed by Dáil Éireann, on the nomination of the Taoiseach. I think it would be a neater job if they were appointed by the Taoiseach. Again, I am not too fussy about that but I am very concerned that the three members who purport to represent the Opposition should, in fact, be members of the Opposition and should in fact be appointed by the Opposition. In other words, I want to ensure that the Opposition as defined by law should decide who will represent them on this Commission. This is fundamental and goes to the basis of the protection offered by this subsection.
I take a firm stand on that. As the subsection stands you could have a Government—I do not say the Government—appointing three Independents to represent the Opposition, to the complete exclusion of the one Opposition Party in the House or two Opposition Parties. That is one situation which could arise. The Opposition are entitled to be represented on this Commission by three members of the Opposition whom they think best qualified and most able to represent them and argue their case.
This provision for nomination would cover that precise point.
The law will. The nomination is to be provided for by law. The legislation will provide that and it is on that I should like the Deputy's assistance—what the provisions of that legislation should be.
(Cavan): The overall provision says they shall be appointed by Dáil Éireann. I want to develop this a little further. The Opposition are entitled to be represented on this Commission by three members, who, in the opinion of the Opposition, are the people best qualified and most able to represent them. A majority of the House could, by designing by law what constituted the Opposition, appoint three Indepdent members who would not necessarily be members of the Opposition.
Even the members of the Opposition will be defined by law. The Deputy has accepted that.
(Cavan): I shall come to that in a moment. These three members might be members of the Opposition because they did not come under the Government Whip, but in all other respects might be supporters of the Government. Further, if that were not done, a Government of the day could decide to appoint three members of the Opposition whom the Opposition considered were totally unsuited to represent them and unqualified in the opinion of the Opposition to go before a Commission or serve on it and argue the case for the Opposition.
By whom would they be nominated?
(Cavan): I shall came to that immediately. We are now dealing with what has been referred to as a constitutional safeguard. I think the Deputy will agree with me that we are writing this into the Constitution as a constitutional safeguard. I want to write into this constitutional safeguard the method by which these people are to be appointed because if we leave that constitutional safeguard loose and viable—to use a modern term—the Government of the day, with their majority in the House, can then decide how the nomination should be made, who is to be the Opposition and from where these three members shall come. If this is to be a constitutional safeguard—I take it that is the intention—provision for appointing these people must be written into the Constitution. Otherwise it ceases to be a constitutional safeguard and becomes such a device for safeguarding the Opposition as the Government of the day may, by its majority, determine is good for the Opposition.
I trust I have made that case clear and if I have, I think it is unanswerable. I repeat that either this is a constitutional safeguard or it is not, and I assume it is being offered as a constitutional safeguard in order to endeavour to convince the people of the country that if they accept single-member constituencies with a single non-transferable vote, there is one thing they can be certain of, that those constituencies will, as far as possible, be fairly determined. They are being assured that the provisions of this constitutional device make certain that three members of the House acceptable to the Opposition will be selected by the Opposition with three members of the Government Party and an independent chairman to form the Commission.
What I am arguing and what I intend to continue to argue and urge is that subsection (2) of Part VI means no such thing. As it stands, it means that a judge will be chairman and I do not think it fundamental whether he be appointed by the House or by the Chief Justice—I would prefer him to be appointed by the Chief Justice—and the next thing laid down is that three members will be appointed to represent the Government. The Government of the day, whoever they may be, with a majority in the House, may be relied on to see that three members acceptable to them will be appointed by them. It goes on to say that three other members to be decided upon by this House in accordance with the law will represent the Opposition. That means that the three members who will be decided upon by an Act of this House, put through this House in the teeth of the Opposition, perhaps, as this Bill will be put through this House in the teeth of the Opposition, will represent the Opposition. I say that is not the safeguard that it holds itself out to be, and I intend to stand on these amendments as something fundamental to the Commission provision in this Bill. If the Government Party do not accept these amendments or give me an assurance that on a later stage of this Bill they will introduce amendments which will give effect to the principles behind these amendments as outlined by me, I will be convinced that the Government are not serious about this Commission and do not intend it to be the safeguard which they hold it out to be.
I did not like to interrupt Deputy Fitzpatrick, but I should like to point out I understood when the House adjourned the debate on this Bill at six o'clock, that it was not going to resume it again until 7.30 p.m. When I came in at 7.25 p.m., I found that the debate had commenced again at 6.45. I had not finished speaking on my amendment and I had hoped to say something more. I realise there is nothing the Chair can do at this stage, but by way of explanation——
(Cavan): The Deputy was only “mickey-mousing” with his amendment.
Would the Deputy have a little manners even at this stage? I should like to make it clear that I had not finished and to explain to the public, who might wonder why I had not reappeared, that I understood the House was not resuming this Bill until 7.30 p.m. I was not alone in my mistake, because the Chief Fine Gael Whip, Deputy L'Estrange, has informed me he understood the House would not be resuming until 7.30.
(Cavan): Deputy Norton was in the precincts of the House when the quorum bell was ringing, and he did not come in.
I understood that if the business ordered had finished before 7.30, the House would have risen until that time. I just want to put this on the record.
The position was that I had to run down the stairs in order to forestall a motion by Deputy Tully that the question be put at 6.45 p.m., although I understood also that the House was not reconvening until 7.30.
(Cavan): The Minister is changing his feet.
No.
That was the order of business.
That may be, but I nearly had to commit the discourtesy of not replying to Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy Murphy.
(Cavan): A very suitable anti-climax to the amendment concerned.
Deputy Booth, to continue.
Deputy Fitzpatrick is being unduly nervous on this point. I agree that the provision for the Commission is a constitutional safeguard, but the Constitution is only a document setting out the general principles, not the details, which can be dealt with more properly by legislation. Deputy Fitzpatrick is consistently forgetting the second last line of this subsection which refers to the nomination of members from the Opposition.
(Cavan): Provided by law.
Yes. Supposing we assume that something really sinister is going to happen and that some Government, not necessarily this one, but some Government in the future, prescribes by law some fanciful procedure for nomination which allows three independents to be nominated to represent the entire Opposition. That in itself would be a flagrant breach of the Constitution, and Deputy Fitzpatrick forgets that no Government has the authority to interpret the Constitution. In the last analysis, there is always the protection of the courts, and any legislation which an overbearing Government might introduce would undoubtedly be held to be unconstitutional.
(Cavan): I thought the whole point of these Bills was to avoid going to the courts.
Exactly. We do not want to have to do that, but any Government would realise that to bring in a law which would discriminate against the Opposition so far as representation on this Commission is concerned, would be so flagrant a breach of the Constitution that it would be thrown out immediately by the Supreme Court. The Deputy is trying to see difficulties where no difficulties can possibly arise. The Commission must be representative equally of the Government Party and the Opposition Parties, and equal representation must be based on fair principles of law. As regards the Opposition members, it is quite clearly stated that it is not an appointment by Dáil Éireann from nominations provided by law. There is no discretion given to the Dáil. They must simply accept the nominations and elect those nominees.
It is far better that the Dáil should be the appointing body. If you have various people, the Chief Justice or the Leader of the main Opposition Party making appointments you will get into all sorts of technical difficulties in the event of resignations and so on, and there is the provision later on that Dáil Éireann may terminate the membership of a member of the Commission. Obviously that could not be done if a member of the Commission had been appointed by somebody else. It is essential that this Commission should be a body set up by Dáil Éireann, but it is equally essential that it should be representative and, consequently, that the appointments should be made only from nominations provided by law.
It is perfectly clear that there would be only seven names before the Dáil for appointment. It is essential, in view of the fact that the Commission is required to report within a definite time from the date of its appointment, that the appointment of all the members must be at the same time. I suggest it is reasonable to provide that the manner in which the Opposition representatives on the Commission should be appointed would be decided by law. I can assure the House that we intend to bring legislation forward here, and the intention is to provide by law that the Opposition Members should be selected by the Opposition themselves. Obviously we will need to spell out the procedure in considerable detail which would be inappropriate to the Constitution. In view of the difficulties I have already outlined, it seems to me to be best to let the proposed provision of the Constitution stand and deal with the detailed arrangements in ordinary legislation.
I should like to refer to what Deputy J.A. Costello said in regard to this matter on 26th November, 1958. As reported at column 1028 of the Official Report, Deputy Costello said:
I think it is a fundamental mistake to put the details of this Commission into the Bill. If it had anything to do with carrying out my own admonition in the speech I made in the Engineers' Hall, I would put into the Constitution the principles on which any such commission shall be set up and the principles on which their work shall be guided so that if the commission were set up contrary to those principles as laid down in the Constitution or if they operated against them, then their action would be liable to be questioned in the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution as being unconstitutional.
I think it is a reasonable attitude, that we should not, in fact, clutter up the Constitution with unnecessary detail, that this detail should be dealt with by legislation, and that is the intention. I see the difficulties which I pointed out in accepting Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment. I have been trying to see if there is any way in which his point could be met, although I agree with Deputy Booth that it is fairly farfetched and I think Deputy Fitzpatrick realises that himself.
It appears to me that what Deputy Fitzpatrick has in mind could be met in this way. The provision at present reads: "... and three shall be appointed, from such Members of Dáil Éireann as are determined in accordance with law to be in opposition, on nomination provided for by law." If we inserted after the word "nomination""by such Members" the provision would read: "... and three shall be appointed, from such Members of Dáil Éireann as are determined in accordance with law to be in opposition, on nomination by such Members provided for by law."
The result of that would be that it would be provided in the Constitution that the law must arrange for these Members to be nominated by Deputies who are determined to be in opposition. If Deputy Fitzpatrick agrees that will meet his case I will undertake to see if there is any technical objection to an amendment on those lines between now and Report Stage. It appears to me that it would achieve what Deputy Fitzpatrick wants to achieve, that is, to ensure that it would be Members of the Opposition who would nominate the three Opposition Members of the Commission, and it would still maintain the position that the appointment of the Commission would be all done at the one time by the Dáil. Therefore the difficulties I foresee would not arise, though I must say there would still be some conceivable difficulties but they are nearly as unlikely as the difficulties Deputy Fitzpatrick foresees.
(Cavan): As I said when moving these amendments, I regard the points I am making as fundamental because the provisions of this subsection are offered to the House and to the country as a safeguard which will ensure that the constituencies are fairly delineated by a Commission with a judge as chairman, and three Members of the Government Party and three members of the Opposition Party. I want to ensure that these will be three members of the genuine Opposition and three members acceptable to the Opposition. In the course of his remarks, Deputy Booth said I am seeing difficulties which he thinks do not exist, and difficulties which will be decided upon by the Supreme Court, if anything is done which is repugnant to the Constitution. It appears that Deputy Booth thinks there is some slight room for argument.
The Minister has made a little concession by offering to write in certain words. I want to point out to the House that if this Bill is passed by the House, as I am sure it will be and if, God forbid, it is accepted by the people, as I believe it will not, we will then have enacted something which if it turns out to be unworkable, or if it does not serve the purpose for which it is enacted, can only be altered or remedied by a referendum at a cost, according to present-day values, of something in the region of £150,000.
That is what Deputy Cosetello was thinking of obviously.
(Cavan): If the Minister wants to read extracts from something which was said in 1958 or 1959, it is well within his capacity —because he seems to be a man of wonderful endurance and physique-to read the entire debate on that occasion verbatim.
Do not tempt him.
(Cavan): He would not do that in a minute but he would start it in a minute. I am sure there would be some very illuminating reading and some extraordinary statements.
Not by Deputy Costello.
(Cavan): If we are providing this safeguard, we should write it in black and white into the section so that the House and the country will know what is being offered.
What about the Minister's suggestion?
(Cavan): I am coming to that. The Minister has offered me the suggestion that after the word “nomination”, he will write in the words “by such members”. I understand that that is an indication from the Minister that he is at least prepared to consider this matter between now and Report Stage. I should like to consider the Minister's offer and on that note I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, on the understanding that we will have Report Stage in a week or a fortnight if we conclude this tonight.
Why not tomorrow?
(Cavan): The Government seem to be determined not to rush this thing.
Everything was cleared up above this morning.
We could consider it tomorrow.
(Cavan): I should like a little time to consider it. On the assurance that the Minister will consider it between now and Report Stage and do something to meet me, I withdraw the amendment and reserve my right to put it down again.
Tarraingiodh siar an leasú, faoi chead.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Níor tairgeadh leasuithe 8, 9 agus 10.
Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 not moved.
Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh Alt 3 i bPairteanna V agus VI.
Section 3 in Parts V and VI put and agreed to.
ALT 4.
SECTION 4.
Tairgeadh an cheist: "Go bhfanfaidh Alt 4 i bPáirteanna V agus VI mar chuid den Bhille."
Question proposed: "That section 4 in Parts V and VI stand part of the Bill."
(Cavan): I do not want to interrupt but I thought we were dealing with the amendments. I want to ensure that a general question will be put that the Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
When we reach the end of the Schedule.
(Cavan): So long as it is clear. I do not want a further debate on it.
I am glad.
(Cavan): The Minister might take up my invitation to read the 1958 debate.
Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh an cheist.
Question put and agreed to.
ALT 5.
SECTION 5.
Cuireadh an cheist: "Go bhfanfaidh Alt 5 mar chuid den Bhille", agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.
Section 5 put and declared carried.
ALT 6.
SECTION 6.
Cuireadh an cheist: "Go bhfanfaidh Alt 5 mar chuid den Bhille", agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.
Section 6 put and declared carried.
ALT 7.
SECTION 7.
(Cavan): Táirgim leasú 11:
I move amendment No. 11:
I gCuid V, alt 7, leathnach 9, líne 36, "Airteagail" a scriosadh agus "Bhunreachta" a chur ina ionad;
agus
I gCuid VI, alt 7, leathanach 11, líne 49, "Article" a scriosadh agus "Constitution" a chur ina ionad.
In Part V, section 7, page 8, line 36, to delete "Airteagail" and substitute "Bhunreachta";
and
In Part VI, section 7, page 10, line 49, to delete "Article" and substitute "Constitution".
Section 7 in Part VI reads:
Subject to the provisions of this Article, any matter whatsoever relating to Constituency Commissions or constituencies may be provided for by law.
My amendment proposes to substitute "Constitution" for "Article". I feel there might be Articles of the Constitution other than this one which might relate to Constituency Commissions or constituencies. There might be Articles in the Constitution which, in some over-riding way, would govern this. I think, therefore, it would be more desirable to substitute "Constitution" for "Articles".
Article 15.4 says:
1º The Oireachtas shall not enact any law which is in any respect repugnant to this Constitution or any provision thereof.
2º Every law enacted by the Oireachtas which is in any respect repugnant to this Constitution or to any provision thereof, shall, but to the extent only of such repugnancy, be invalid.
I think this is a completely unnecessary amendment. It is obvious from Article 15.4 that every law is subject to the entire Constitution and that no law may be enacted which is in any respect repugnant to the Constitution or any provision thereof. The only constitutional provisions directly bearing on Constituency Commissions and constituencies will be contained in Article 16 and in similar circumstances the Constitution when treating of other matters such as Presidential, Dáil and Seanad elections, uses the phrase "subject to the provisions of this Article", or some variation of that phrase. For instance, in Article 12.5, the sentence occurs "Subject to the provisions of this Article, elections for the office of President shall be regulated by law". Again, in Article 16.7 we have "Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Article, elections for membership of Dáil Éireann, including the filling of casual vacancies, shall be regulated in accordance with law".
Article 18.10.1º says: "Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Article elections of the elected members of Seanad Éireann shall be regulated by law. "Therefore, it is the practice in the Constitution to refer specifically to the provisions of the Article of the Constitution which deals with the matter that is appropriate to the particular Article. But, at the same time, as I said, Article 15.4 provides that every law is in fact subject to the entire Constitution and obviously, for the sake of consistency in the Constitution, I feel I must oppose this Article—it already being provided in the Constitution that the whole Constitution must be observed in regard to every law enacted by the Oireachtas.
(Cavan): I note what the Minister has said: there is a certain amount in it. I am prepared to withdraw this amendment and to leave it to the Constitutional Members of the Seanad to deal with it.
Tarraingeadh siar leasú 11 faoi chead.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh alt 7.
Section 7 agreed to.
ALT 8.
SECTION 8.
Amendment No. 12 in the name of the Minister and amendment No. 13 in the name of Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) are related and might, by agreement, be discussed together.
Tairgim leasú 12: I move amendment No. 12:
I gCuid V, alt 8.1º, leathanach 9, líne 40, "1969" a scriosadh agus "1970" a chur ina ionad;
agus
I gCuid VI, alt 8.1º, leathanach 11, líne 53, "1969" a scriosadh agus "1970" a chur ina ionad.
In Part V, section 8.1º, page 8, line 40, to delete "1969" and to substitute "1970";
and
In Part VI, section 8.1º, page 10, line 53, to delete "1969" and to substitute "1970".
When the Bill was being drafted, the 15th April, 1969, was selected as the likely date by which all the necessary arrangements to enable an election to be held on the new basis, including enactment of legislation relating to the Constituency Commission and consequential electoral legislation providing for new voting and counting procedures and other matters, determination of the constituencies by the Commission, and so on, would be completed. The words "or occurring next after such earlier date as may be determined by resolution passed by Dáil Éireann", which amendment No. 13 proposes to delete, were included in case the arrangements should be completed before 15th April, 1969. While it now appears unlikely that all the necessary arrangements will be made by the 15th April, 1969, it is still desirable to retain these words in the subsection to cover such a possibility.
Another reason why amendment No. 13 cannot be accepted is that I propose, in amendment No. 12, to substitute "1970" for "1969" in subsection 1º of section 8. In case all arrangements have not been completed by 15th April, 1969, which is very likely, it is essential to extend the operation of existing laws and constituencies to a later date, subject to the Dáil being enabled to fix an earlier date if the arrangements are completed earlier. The date now being proposed —15th April, 1970—gives ample time for completion of all arrangements. It is likely that they will be completed in advance of that date and it is essential to retain the provision which enables the Dáil to fix an earlier date by resolution.
(Cavan): When, according to the law as it stands, is the next general election due?
The limit is April, 1970. I do not know exactly what date in April.
March.
What was the date-20th April.
5th March.
(Cavan): I thought it was 7th April.
Seventh April was the election but the date is from the first meeting of the Dáil. Does anybody know when the first meeting of the Dáil was? It is usually two or three weeks after the election.
Three weeks later.
I think it would be marginally after 15th April. The election was on 7th April.
(Cavan): I know that.
Probably about the 20th.
(Cavan): Does the Minister visualise that, in certain circumstances, if the people are foolish enough to accept this tommyrot, the next election may be held under the old system. I am not too clear what——
It is conceivable. However, let us hope the people will have got rid of this absurd system in time.
They have their minds made up already.
The Minister is not the first who has lived in hope and died in despair.
Let us hope the people will get rid of this absurd Government.
(Cavan): If this does go through, is the Minister reserving the right to run the next general election on the present system?
It might be necessary to do that.
(Cavan): The next point is in regard to the reference “occurring next after the 15th day of April, 1970 or occurring next after such earlier date as may be determined by a resolution passed by Dáil Éireann.” Am I to take it that the idea is that the Minister can decide that the next general election will be held on the old system or may, by resolution, determine that it may be held under the new system?
It is providing that if the election is after the 15th day of April of 1970, it must be on the new system, but if it is possible to complete all the necessary arrangements before that time, then in those circumstances a general election occurring before 15th April, 1970 can be held on the new system. That is assuming that all the necessary arrangements——
(Cavan): And that the Minister stops talking.
When the filibustering stops.
(Cavan): However, it is something that will never arise, anyway.
Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh an leasú.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Níor tairgeadh leasú 13.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Tairgim leasú 14: I move amendment No. 14:
I gCuid V, alt 8.2º, leathanach 9, líne 53, i ndiaidh "san" an méid seo leanas a chur isteach:
", ach ní dhéanfar comhalta a measfar é do bheith toghtha mar dhara comhalta d'áireamh chun crícheanna fo-ailt 3º d'alt 2 den Airteagal so";
agus
I gCuid VI, alt 8.2º, leathanach 13, líne 7, i ndiaidh "dissolution" an méid seo leanas a chur isteach ", but a member deemed to be elected as a second member shall not be reckoned for the purposes of subsection 3º of section 2 of this Article."
In Part V, section 8.2º, page 8, line 53, after "san" to insert:
", ach ní dhéanfar comhalta a measfar é do bheith toghtha mar dhara comhalta d'áireamh chun crícheanna fo-ailt 3º d'alt 2 den Airteagal so";
and
In Part VI, section 8.2º, page 12, line 7, after "dissolution" to insert ", but a member deemed to be elected as a second member shall not be reckoned for the purposes of subsection 3º of section 2 of this Article."
This amendment is consequential on acceptance of amendments Nos. 2 and 3 which were moved by Deputy Fitzpatrick on the Committee Stage of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968. In accepting the amendment, which substitutes a new formula for calculation of the national average for the one proposed, I said that under the new formula there was some doubt whether or not the second seat for an outgoing Ceann Comhairle would have to be taken into account in calculating the national average population per member. I am now advised that it is desirable to make it clear under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill that the second seat for an outgoing Ceann Comhairle will not be taken into account in calculating either the ratio between the number of members to be elected for each constituency and the population of each constituency for the purposes of subsection (3) of section 2 of Article 16 of the existing Constitution or the quotient for each constituency and the national average population per member for the purpose of the new Subsection (3) which will be substituted for the existing subsection (3) of section 2 of Article 16 if the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968, is enacted.
It would not in fact be practicable to do otherwise because it will not be known at the time of a determination of constituencies whether or not the outgoing Ceann Comhairle will seek re-election following the next dissolution after the determination. It will only be in the event of the outgoing Ceann Comhairle seeking re-election that the law will enable him to be deemed to be elected as a second member for a constituency.
(Cavan): Does this mean that we will have 145 Deputies instead of 144?
Yes.
(Cavan): So we are in fact increasing the number of seats by one?
Yes.
We are appointing a chairman and paying him the full salary outside the Dáil.
We are providing that the constituency which elects a Ceann Comhairle will have an opportunity of electing a Deputy in the next election.
It is clear that it is the intention of the Government, as was forecast, not alone to keep the status quo in regard to the number of Deputies but to increase the number by one, although the population has been substantially reduced.
The population is increasing.
No; I beg to differ from the Minister. In the Minister's words, Donegal is not now capable under the present Constitution of returning six Deputies. He now proposes to bring in either North Leitrim to South Donegal or to put part of South Donegal into Leitrim.
The Constitution requires me to do this and Deputy Harte wants to ensure that I will have to do it.
Surely the Constitution is dictated by the population? Despite this, you propose to increase the membership of the House by one?
If the Ceann Comhairle decides to continue as a Deputy in the next election——
The Ceann Comhairle is always a Deputy.
But if he opts to continue in the next election. If any particular Ceann Comhairle decides to retire, then there will not be this extra seat.
When is he supposed to make this announcement?
I do not know; it has never happened before.
It is very vague.
Let us suppose that a vacancy arises for the position of Ceann Comhairle, then the Dáil will choose another Ceann Comhairle, and we will be back to the 144 until the next election.
Is that not practicable with 144 Deputies?
Mr. Belton
Of course it is.
It is possible in those circumstances, but if we wanted to retain the present position in which the Ceann Comhairle does not contest an election, we would be providing that in a single-seat constituency, there would not be any election for a Deputy.
Would the Minister agree that this is another method of exercising what he calls tolerance?
I do not see the relevance of tolerance.
It is giving you an added constituency.
Is the Deputy only discovering this now? That there will be an extra seat for the Ceann Comhairle?
The Minister has just made a statement and we are discussing that.
Yes, but the Bill has gone through its Second Stage, and the Committee Stage is nearly over and has Deputy Harte only discovered this now?
It strikes me that the Minister is only discovering it now.
No, this is a provision which had to be inserted.
Is the Minister saying that it could not be done with 144 Deputies?
The Minister stated that it was important that he should clear up this issue. It is this point we are discussing. I am asking the Minister, even though I discovered this a long time ago——
I do not think the Deputy did.
——does he not agree that this is another method of gerrymandering? He calls it tolerance.
I do not.
We call it gerrymandering.
I do not call it tolerance. This has nothing to do with tolerance.
It is a method of gerrymandering.
No.
But it does not really matter because we will defeat you at the polls.
It is a question of ensuring—and I think Deputies will agree with this—that under the single-seat constituencies, we retain the position whereby the Ceann Comhairle does not have to contest an election and also that each of the 144 constituencies will have effective representation and an opportunity of electing a representative at each general election.
Would it not be just as reasonable to let the outgoing Ceann Comhairle contest the seat?
That is a point of view, but it has always been assumed that it is undesirable that the Ceann Comhairle should have to contest an election.
But we are changing the whole system.
I know.
The British Speaker has to contest the seat.
That happened only once.
But he has to be re-elected.
Yes, but the question is, is it desirable that the Ceann Comhairle should have to contest an election?
If it means the creation of an extra seat, I think he should.
Is it desirable that the Ceann Comhairle should have to carry out all the activities of an ordinary Deputy, including activities on the part of his own political Party, in a constituency? It has always been assumed that that was not desirable and the provision up to now in fact reduced the representation of the particular constituency by one. In Britain there is no such provision, but there is a gentleman's agreement that the Speaker's seat is not contested. In fact, it has only been contested once, and not by a representative of any of the political Parties, but by somebody——
A communist?
I do not think so, but he was dealt with in a rather derisory manner by the electorate.
Could we not have 143 constituencies and have the Ceann Comhairle elected instead of increasing the Dáil?
We could, but no one has suggested that.
It is suggested now.
We dealt with all this on the Third Amendment.
Yes. In the early stages, the Minister stated quite categorically that it was not the intention of the Government to increase the membership of the House. The Minister is pedalling backwards this week. He had a rough time this morning in the Party room.
There is no retraction. It has been quite clear all the time. I assume Deputies, particularly those on the Front Bench Opposition, have read this Bill. I know Deputy Fitzpatrick did because we discussed this on the Third Amendment and, on that, I accepted Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment providing for a different definition of the national average. He and I had quite a discussion on it and I pointed out to him that some further amendment might be required to clarify the position with regard to the provision to be made for the Ceann Comhairle's seat. It was on that basis I accepted Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment to the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. I think Deputy Fitzpatrick will remember that.
(Cavan): This was the national average.
Other Deputies apparently cannot remember because they had not sufficient interest to be here, but Deputy Fitzpatrick and I discussed this and I know that at least one member of the combined Opposition Front Bench was aware of the provision.
Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are then equal.
The provision is there in the Bill and we assumed, up to now at any rate, that it was accepted as undesirable that the Ceann Comhairle should be put to the necessity of keeping himself in a position to contest successfully the next general election. That has always been the assumption. To provide merely that the Ceann Comhairle's seat should not be contested, which is the present position, would in fact deprive the electorate in the particular constituency of the opportunity of electing anybody at the next election and that is why this provision has been inserted. It was reasonable to assume, I think, that it was accepted by all Parties.
The Minister proposes two representatives for one constituency.
No; there will not be two representatives. The Ceann Comhairle will not have a constituency.
Supposing there is a change?
Then he will have to take his chance in some constituency if he desires to continue as a Deputy.
What chance would he have against the sitting member?
Very little. That is one of the hazards of being Ceann Comhairle.
Are we being confused? As I understand it, the person who is elected as Ceann Comhairle moves from a constituency to the office of Ceann Comhairle. The Ceann Comhairle's Office is never in the political arena but the holder of the Office may at some stage have to contest a future election, but he will not contest it as outgoing Ceann Comhairle. He will contest it as an outgoing Deputy. Is that correct?
He will have to get himself into some other constituency.
If the Minister agrees the present system is confused, why does he have to increase the membership of the House?
If it is not considered undesirable that the Ceann Comhairle should have to contest an election like everybody else, then there is no need for this extra seat, but it has always been agreed, I think, that the Ceann Comhairle should not have to contest his seat and this seems to be the only practicable arrangement that could be made to provide for that without, to all intents and purposes, disfranchising the people in one constituency. I should point out that if the Office of Ceann Comhairle becomes vacant and the Dáil selects someone else to be Ceann Comhairle that will not involve a by-election in that constituency. The position will be that the outgoing Ceann Comhairle at the next election will be deemed to be elected and that constituency will have an election the same as every other constituency.
Suppose he resigns?
If he resigns, the Dáil will elect someone else.
But he has no constituency.
No. He will have to find a new constituency.
In the event of the Ceann Comhairle resigning, am I right in thinking the Minister proposes there will be no by-election? If, say, a Deputy from Mayo is elected Ceann Comhairle and retires during the term of that particular Dáil and a Deputy from Roscommon is elected to the Office of Ceann Comhairle, am I right in thinking there will be no by-election in that constituency? But, should it happen that the Ceann Comhairle dies and the Office is filled by another Deputy, in those circumstances there would be a by-election in a constituency like Roscommon?
No.
Then the House will be short one member.
Yes.
Is that right?
No, I do not think so. This is an extra seat created to deal with the case of an outgoing Ceann Comhairle.
There are certain anomalies here. If the Ceann Comhairle resigns and still remains a member of the Dáil, and if he is replaced by a Deputy from another constituency in that Office, there will be no by-election.
Yes. It will be the same situation as if, after a general election, the outgoing Ceann Comhairle, who is returned in accordance with this provision, is not re-elected Ceann Comhairle. He would remain a Member of the House and the House would elect somebody else as Ceann Comhairle and it would then be he, if he was still in office at the time of the next general election, who would be returned unopposed.
If the Ceann Comhairle of the House died at the moment—and nobody would wish it of the present Ceann Comhairle; we wish him a long life—the House would elect a new Ceann Comhairle.
Yes.
Yes, but it would be necessary to fill that particular vacancy.
Yes, and if after the next general election, the Ceann Comhairle, who was returned unopposed, is not re-elected as Ceann Comhairle and if the man who is selected instead died, there would be a by-election in the constituency for which he was elected.
The Minister still thinks it desirable to increase the membership of the House when, in fact, we should be trying to reduce it?
No; I think the practice that has existed here since the setting up of the State whereby a Ceann Comhairle was not required to contest the next general election was a wise arrangement and should be continued but, in fact, the population is increasing, not decreasing.
(Cavan): Supposing the outgoing Ceann Comhairle does not seek election and we have a new House elected and one Member is elected to the position of Ceann Comhairle, that constituency will be represented by the Ceann Comhairle in the Chair until the next general election and there will be two Deputies for that constituency.
There will be only one representative for that constituency. The Ceann Comhairle would not be deemed to be elected for any constituency.
If on the resignation of a Government the Ceann Comhairle decides that he is resigning as a Member of the House, does this mean that you are going to create a by-election in some one constituency?
No; he has no constituency.
I am referring to the succeeding Ceann Comhairle, the person who would be elected to the office of Ceann Comhairle immediately after the election, when the House assembles here. The present proposal is that you will have a Ceann Comhairle and 144 Deputies representing 144 constituencies but if at the end of this Dáil— and we know it is not going to happen —the people accept the Government's proposals and the present holder of that office decided that he is not going to be a Member of the House any longer, then you will have 144 Deputies in the House one of whom is a Ceann Comhairle with the added responsibility of watching a constituency. Is that so? Does not that seem to be confused?
No, I do not think so. He will not have to contest the next election provided he is still Ceann Comhairle at the dissolution. During that period he will be the representative of the constituency.
And during that time he would be expected to be the representative for that constituency whereas if a week earlier, before the Government resign, the holder of the office decides that he is going to resign as a Member of the House, that office could be filled by a person who would not have to contest the election and, again, you would have 145 Deputies. I put it to the Minister that, no matter how he may describe the Bill, the position will be more confused under his proposals.
I do not see that there is any confusion.
What would the situation be in this case: an outgoing Government and an outgoing Ceann Comhairle; a general election is held; the Government come back and either they decide to change the Ceann Comharile or they come back in a minority and there is a man who has been elected as Ceann Comhairle but yet does not take the Chair; somebody else takes the Chair. What then is the position?
As I explained, the Deputy who is elected to the position of Ceann Comhairle has, in fact, been elected as a representative of some particular constituency and that will remain the position; he will be representing that particular constituency until the next general election and if he is still Ceann Comhairle at the next general election the constituency will elect a new Deputy and the Ceann Comhairle will be returned unopposed but not for any particular constituency.
So that there could be a constituency with two TD's representing them?
No.
Supposing the outgoing Ceann Comhairle is not, in fact, re-elected as Ceann Comhairle following the general election?
He is not representing a constituency if he is returned unopposed.
What is he doing in the Dáil if he is not representing?
Waiting for the next general election.
On the point which Deputy Dockrell has raised, does this not mean that one constituency can, in effect, have two representatives and that another constituency will have no representative unless it claims the Ceann Comhairle? Does it not also mean that in the event of the Government coming back with 50 per cent of the seats, undue pressure could be used on the holder of that office to resign his seat and thereby give the Government a majority,
How could that happen?
Of course it could.
The same as it could happen under the present system.
It cannot really happen under the present system.
Of course, it can. It was alleged that an effort was made not long ago to create that position.
That was when you brought in the turnover tax. If it had been possible to defeat the turnover tax, we would have asked the Ceann Comhairle to leave the Chair.
There was speculation about that.
It would have been justified and the country would have agreed with us.
The country did not seem to do that at the next general election.
The Fianna Fáil Party did it in order to get into office. They took Frank Fahy from the Chair in order to get them an extra vote to get them into office.
I am saying that what Deputy Harte is saying can be done under the present system. He says it cannot.
When the Minister accuses the Labour Party of exercising undue pressure——
No.
——he should remember that people who live in glasshouses should not undress with the lights on.
This is dealing with Deputy Harte's point. I am suggesting that what Deputy Harte says may happen could also happen under the present system and I suddenly recalled that there was speculation about the possibility of doing it a few years ago.
Is it not more likely to be an added advantage where you can have 144 Deputies elected with 72 on one side?
It will be no more an advantage than the present system.
It can be a big advantage.
It has the merit of ensuring that the people will still have the same representation.
In a set of circumstances such as this, where you can have of 144 Deputies, 72 elected on the Government side and 72 Deputies elected on the Opposition side, the outgoing Government usually have the controlling of the Chair. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the holder of that office would be a Government Deputy. The Government could ask that Deputy to resign as Ceann Comhairle and that would give them 73 and reduce the Opposition to 71.
Deputy O'Higgins said that that happened already under the present system.
There were 144.
You are not here that long. You would not remember.
If you listen, you might learn something.
I knew a lot more about it before you tried to mix yourself up. You are only wasting time. You are getting more ridiculous and more stupid.
Nobody knows better than I do how difficult it would be to educate Deputy Lemass. If in the set of circumstances where you have 144 Deputies, it can be that 71 Deputies are elected, as has been the case. But with the Ceann Comhairle holding the status quo the same pressure might not be exerted to have him resign. Is this not a move by the Minister and the Government to further the act of gerrymandering in the new Electoral Bill?
Deputy Harte assumes that the Government can also compel a member of the Opposition to accept the position of Ceann Comhairle, which of course they cannot.
It is an academic discussion, anyway.
I suspect it is purely and simply for that purpose.
Can the Minister say was this imposed on us by the British, too?
We are getting rid of what was imposed on us by the British. In fact, the Irish Free State Constitution did provide for the return unopposed of the Ceann Comhairle.
If producing the system in Northern Ireland and in Britain is getting rid of the British system, it is a queer one.
There were two British systems—one for themselves and one for us.
Tall hats for George V.
Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh an leasú.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Cuireadh an cheist: "Go bhfanfaidh Alt 8, í bPáirteanna V agus VI, mar chuid den Bhille."
Question proposed: "That section 8 in Parts V and VI stand part of the Bill."
The first meeting of the Dáil after the 1965 election was on 21st April. Therefore, the latest date for dissolution is 20th April.
What does that mean?
This was a discussion we had previously.
The Minister wants to be right for once.
Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh an cheist.
Question put and agreed to.
AN SCEIDEAL.
SCHEDULE.
Schedule agreed to?
(Cavan): No.
I have already given a ruling to Deputy Fitzpatrick that there could be no further discussion on the Schedule.
(Cavan): I do not want a discussion on it.
For the convenience of Deputies, the Schedule was broken up and each subsection of it discussed and agreed to.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle said the Schedule would be put.
(Cavan): I have been told on numerous occasions—and the record will show it— that there could be no further discussion on the Schedule, and I accept that. But I was also told that the question will be put that the Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill. I await that.
I have already pointed out we have treated the Schedule as if it were a series of sections to the Bill. These sections have been debated and agreed to and we cannot debate them all over again.
(Cavan): I assure the Chair there is no attempt to have a further discussion.
I can see the Deputy's point.
(Cavan): We discussed the sections and the Schedule together, on the assurance that there would be a separate vote on the Schedule, as amended. If we get that, we are satisfied.
I understood the Deputy wanted a further debate on the Schedule?
(Cavan): I would hate to hear the Minister all over again.
Deputy Fitzpatrick endeavoured to prevent further debate but was blocked by the Minister.
No.
Cuireadh an cheist: "Go bhfanfaidh an Sceideal, mar a leasaiodh, ina chuid den Bhille."
Question put: "That the Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Rinne an Coiste votáil: Tá, 65; Níl, 50.
The Committee divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 50.
Tá
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Brady, Philip.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Don.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fahey, John.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J.
- (Dublin).
- Foley, Desmond.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, James J.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moore, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Norton, Patrick.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Connor, Patrick.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J.
- (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan, Patrick
- (South Tipperary).
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lindsay, Patrick J.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Carty and Geoghegan; Níl, Deputies L'Estrange and James Tully.
Question put and declared carried.
Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.
ALT 1.
SECTION 1.
Cuireadh an cheist: "Go bhfanfaidh Alt 1 mar chuid den Bhille," agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.
Question: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill" put and declared carried.
ALT 2.
SECTION 2.
Cuireadh an cheist: "Go bhfanfaidh alt 2 mar chuid den Bhille," agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.
Question: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill" put and declared carried.
AN RÉAMHRÁ.
PREAMBLE.
Cuireadh an cheist: "Gurb é an Réamhrá is Réamhrá den Bhille," agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.
Question: "That the Preamble be the Preamble to the Bill" put and declared carried.
TEIDEAL.
TITLE.
Cuireadh an cheist: "Gurb é an Teideal is Teideal den Bhille," agus faisneiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.
Question: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill" put and declared carried.
Tuairiscíodh an Bille le leasuithe.
Bill reported with amendments.
Next Stage?
Tomorrow.
(Cavan): Next week.
Not tomorrow? I thought you were in a hurry.
(Cavan): On the question as to when the next Stage should be taken, I propose that it be taken this day week for two reasons: first, I want time to consider a proposal by the Minister to meet me on a very important section of the Bill; and, secondly, the Taoiseach has made it abundantly clear to the House and to the country that he does not propose to hold the referendum until the autumn, so there is no hurry about it.
We want to get it through both Houses.
(Interruptions.)
D'ordaíodh Céim na Tuarascála don Mháirt, 25ú Meitheamh, 1968.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 25th June, 1968.