(Cavan): Fine Gael introduced this Bill which proposes that Dáil constituencies shall be arranged by an independent Commission presided over by a High Court or Supreme Court judge subject to the control of the Oireachtas rather than directly by Dáil Éireann as at the present time because we believe that such a procedure would be desirable at any time and because we are convinced that it would be fundamentally undemocratic and against natural justice to entrust to the present Minister for Local Government and the Fianna Fáil Party in the Dáil the task of arranging constituencies at this time. I say that because for the past nine months we have had in this House and, indeed, in the country a very controversial and acrimonious debate——
Private Members' Business. - Constituency Commission Bill, 1968: First Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to establish a Constituency Commission.
—(Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick(Cavan)
I do not think that would arise on this Bill.
(Cavan): I am not going to labour it, I assure you, Sir—on this very question of electoral reform and constituency boundaries. The Minister for Local Government argued that the system of election which he sought to change was unworkable and threatened the wholesale butchering of constituencies and county boundaries if his proposals were not accepted. The Minister's proposals were rejected by the people and we on this side of the House have good reason to believe that if he is allowed to do so the Minister will try to undo the decision of the people by trying to reduce to an absurdity the present fair system of election.
That is the background against which we have introduced this Constituency Commission Bill, 1968. Briefly, the Bill proposes that a Constituency Commission shall be established from time to time but not less frequently than once every ten years. It further proposes that that Commission shall be composed of three Members of the Government side of the House nominated by the Taoiseach and three Members of the Opposition side of the House elected from among the Opposition as defined by law and that the Chairman of that Commission shall be a judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court appointed by the Dáil on the nomination of the Chief Justice.
The Bill goes on to say that any member of the Commission may resign from office by placing his resignation in the hands of the Chairman of Dáil Éireann in which event he shall be replaced by the same method as that employed for his appointment; that the quorum of the Commission shall be four; that the Commission may act notwithstanding vacancies in their membership.
The Bill then provides that as soon as may be after the establishment of the Commission, the Commission shall proceed to determine the constituencies.
It is also provided that within three months of their establishment, the Commission shall present to the Chairman of Dáil Éireann a report setting out the constituencies as determined by the Commission either with the unanimous agreement of their members or by a majority with stated reasons for their decisions. It provides that if, because of failure to secure unanimous agreement or agreement by a majority, no report is so presented, the Chairman of the Commission shall, not later than four months after the date of the establishment of the Commission, present to the Chairman of Dáil Éireann a report setting out the constituencies as determined by the Chairman of the Commission with stated reasons for his decisions, and that report shall be taken as the report of the Commission.
The Bill provides that the Commission's report shall be signed by the Chairman or other member so directed by the Commission, and no minority report shall be presented.
The Bill also provides that immediately after the Commission's report has been presented, the Commission shall stand dissolved.
It is further provided in the Bill that, as soon as may be after the receipt by him of the Commission's report, the Chairman of Dáil Éireann shall cause the report to be laid before Dáil Éireann.
It is provided that if, within the next 14 days on which Dáil Éireann has sat after the report is laid before it, a resolution amending the report is passed by a two-thirds majority of Dáil Éireann, the report shall be amended accordingly.
Finally, it is provided that, immediately after the last of the next 14 days on which Dáil Éireann has sat after the Commission's report is laid before it, the constituencies set out in the report, or where the report has been amended by Dáil Éireann, in the report as so amended, shall become and be the constituencies, provided that any alteration in the constituencies shall not take effect during the life of Dáil Éireann then sitting.
It is then stated that, subject to the provisions of this Act, any matter whatsoever relating to Constituency Commissions or constituencies may be provided for by law.
These, in effect, are the provisions of the Bill which I am bringing before the House and which I, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, am asking this House to have printed and brought before the House for a Second Reading. I put it to the House as a fair and reasonable Bill. I find it difficult to understand why the Minister for Local Government opposes it. The Commission which I proposes in this Bill is substantially the same as the Commission contained in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill which took up so much of the time of the House and of the country this year and, no doubt, when he is making his statement the Minister will refer to that fact and tell us that this Bill, in substantially the same form, has been rejected by the people. For that reason, I crave your indulgence to say a word or two on that aspect.
The Commission in the Bill which I am introducing now differs to some extent from the Commission provided for in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. It differs slightly in one respect, in that it provides that the Chairman of the Commission must give the reasons for their report. It differs rather vitally by providing that the report can only be altered by a two-thirds majority of this House.
As I have said, I know the Minister for Local Government will say that I opposed such legislation when the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill was going through the House and that I opposed the Commission proposal when the referndum campaign was being conducted in the country. That is not so. I tried to improve the type of commission provided for in the Constitution Bill by providing that the report could be altered only by a two-thirds majority of the House and by proposing that the Commission should also be written by the Minister into the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, but the Minister resisted both efforts.
However, if the Minister says, as I anticipate he will because he has done so since 16th October, that this Commission proposal has been rejected by the people, I want to go on record as saying that this is just not so. This Commission provision, per se, if it were to put to the people was put to them only as part of a package deal, as part of a proposal to abolish proportional representation and the sugar on the pill was the offer of this very fair Commission. The people have not had any opportunity of either accepting or rejecting the Commission provision simpliciter. It was offered to them, as I have said, as part of a package deal, the other part of that deal being extremely dangerous and objectionable and quite rightly rejected by the people.
I do not want to trespass unduly on the time of the House or on Standing Order No.89 which covers my remarks here. The object of this Bill, and, indeed, the object of the Commission's provision contained in the Bill and in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill is and was to prevent gerrymandering or an unfair arrangement of constituencies. We say that the course proposed here will make it impossible, or virtually impossible, to gerrymander the constituencies in an unfair manner because they will be arranged by an independent commission presided over by a High Court or a Supreme Court judge.
I am not the only one who has thought from time to time that there is a danger of gerrymander and that there is a necessity to prevent it. Not only the Fine Gael Party have anticipated gerrymander or unfair arrangement of the constituencies and the necessity to guarantee against it. The Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Taoiseach, in a document known as "The Referendum, the Reasons Why", published a short time before the referendum on the 16th October, thought fit to draw the attention of the country, of the electorate, to the possibility and the danger of gerrymandering constituencies. He saw fit to recommend the measure which I introduced in this House tonight as a measure which he thought less calculated to prevent gerrymandering and to ensure a fair arrangement of the constituencies.
I want to put on the records of the House in support of the measure I now introduce and as an argument in its favour, a brief statement under the photograph of the Taoiseach and beneath his signature. In this document entitled "The Referendum, the Reasons Why", the Taoiseach stated on the second page, which is not numbered:
What is proposed is that new constituencies will be drawn up by an independent commission presided over by a judge so that gerrymandering will be impossible.
They are not my words. It is not my word or my advice, but the advice of the leader of the Minister for Local Government, as far as I can ascertain. It is the advice of the Taoiseach of this country, the advice of the Leader of this House. I suggest to this House and to the country that if that warning were pertinent then, if that warning were necessary before 16th October, if the Taoiseach thought it necessary to tell the people that gerrymandering was then possible, to warn them against it and to provide machinery for preventing it, how much more necessary is it now? If that Commission provision were necessary in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, how much more necessary is it now? How much more is it necessary having regard to the mood of the Minister for Local Government, the man who will put through the House the Bill which will arrange the constituencies?
I do not want to detain the House very long but I propose to deal with this at greater length tommorrow. I had occasion here to listen to the Minister for Local Government speaking on the vote of no confidence some days after the House re-assembled after the referendum. He came into this House in a vicious, dangerous, vindictive mood and I propose to quote his references tomorrow. I am merely quoting him roughly now, but he said words to the effect that "I am sorry I could not attend this debate but I was upstairs dealing with such important matters as the number of persons in jail, the number of people who slept on ships on a certain date in 1966, the number of babies born in hospitals in Dublin city on a certain date in 1966." He came into this House pouring out ridicule on the serious tasks on which he should then have been occupied, as a paid servant of the State — that of the fair and equitable arrangement of constituencies.
I am not making any attack on the Minister for Local Government either in his personal or political capacity, but it would be asking too much of human nature to ask the Minister for Local Government after his performance in this House and his campaign in the House and in the country during the last nine months, to get down to this matter of the arrangement of constituencies in a calm, collected, fair and unprejudiced manner. It would be presupposing that the Minister for Local Government was not Deputy Kevin Boland but the Archangel Michael. We have no archangels flying about in 1968. I am appealing to the Minister for Local Government to accept this measure and to authorise the printing of this Bill, to amend it in committee if he wants to amend it but to accept it here as a genuine attempt to save the country from the Minister, to save the Minister from himself and to save the Fianna Fáil Party from themselves and the Minister.
There is a hungry electorate awaiting them outside.
And they will return us no doubt.
(Cavan): I do not think the Minister is being fair to himself or to his Party in undertaking the task he has undertaken in prevailing conditions, in the aftermath of the recent referendum campaign. No doubt the Minister will consider that I am attacking him personally and politically. I do not believe that any human being, who was so actively involved in an electoral reform campaign which was so energetically fought by the Opposition and which was so ignominiously rejected by the people, could come in here and in a fair, unbaised and unprejudiced manner do what he is supposed to do, give us a fair constituency commission.
I shall not discuss the Electoral Amendment Bill, 1968, which comes up for debate tomorrow because I know that if I did you, Sir, would quickly rule me out of order. In that task the Minister has taken on himself an impossible task. The Minister is either a fool and believes that he can fairly and squarely and without fear or favour or prejudice to anybody arrange the constituencies for the next general election, or——
Is the Deputy in order in speaking at this length on the introduction of the First Reading of a Bill?
No; I was hoping Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) might mention it in passing but that he would not go into it in detail.
I should like to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that this is supposed to be an explanatory statement, not a speech.
(Cavan): The Ceann Comhairle shall accept an explanatory statement from the Member who moves but I am explaining, with the greatest respect, that this Bill is absolutely and vitally necessary at this particular time.
That explanation is not in order.
(Cavan): It is an explanation of the Bill.
We cannot discuss the Bill in the detail into which the Deputy is going.
(Cavan): I was about to conclude. I was saying that I believed the Minister for Local Government is either a fool and believes he can undertake and conscientiously carry out this important task or he is grossly dishonest——
That is far away from the explanation of the Bill.
(Cavan):——and he intends to go ahead and do what he knows he cannot do and rig the constituencies in the interest of Deputy Booth and the rest of them. I strongly recommend this Bill to the House. I know the county will accept it even if the Minister for Local Government and Deputy Booth do not accept it.
If a Member of the Labour Party wishes to make a statement the Chair will allow it before I put the question.
That would seem to be contradictory to Standing Orders. I should like to direct the attention of the Chair to Standing Order No. 89.
Is the Minister raising a point of order?
Yes. The Standing Order says:
...If such motion be opposed, the Ceann Comhairle shall permit an explanatory statement from the member who moves, and a statement from a member who opposes the motion before he puts the question thereon...
That is the minimum allowed by the Chair but it is within the competence of the Chair to allow a statement from the Labour Party. That has always been the case in this House.
I will be brief. I do not want to embarrass the Chair and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to speak. The action of the Minister for Local Government is typical of a man who not alone wants to stamp on the whole country but to walk on this House as well as on the Chair.
I believe the Bill introduced by Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan), which according to the Minister for Local Government would have been proposed if his previous proposal had been carried by the country, is the proper way to draw up the constituencies for the country. We believe also that if we do not do that we will have what both he and the Taoiseach described as the danger of gerrymandering. We want the danger of gerrymandering eliminated and, unless we have the Bill which Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) now proposes carried by this House and accepted by the Government, as soon as the Fianna Fáil Government are put out of office the constituencies must be redrawn.
I am opposed to the introduction of this Bill for two reasons. First, the people have rejected the constitutional proposal which embodied a provision for a similar commission and it would be wrong in principle to provide now for the establishment of such a commission by law. Secondly, Article 16, 2.1º of the Constitution provides that:
Dáil Éireann shall be composed of members who represent constituencies determined by law.
I am advised that this means that constituencies must be determined in a Bill passed in the normal way by the Oireachtas and that the function of determining constituencies cannot under the present Constitution be handed over to a commission. Accordingly, it is the Government's responsibility to introduce a Bill providing for a revision of constituencies and this has been done in a way which I believe gives reasonable satisfaction in view of the fact that four seats had to be taken away from the rural parts of the country and given to the Dublin area.
I must also point out the inconsistency displayed by the Fine Gael Party in their attitude to a similar proposal in 1959 to provide a constituency commission whose report can be amended only by a two-thirds majority of the Dáil. On that occassion they not only rejected the proposal but insisted that the Oireachtas should continue to revise constituencies, and earlier this year they rejected a proposal for a commission whose report could be amended by a simple majority. Their attitude in this respect, on the one hand, and their present proposal, on the other, represents a complete reversal of their previous position. Contrary to what Deputy Fitzpatrick has alleged no amendment was put down to the proposal for a commission this year in the debate on the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. The Fine Gael Party did not propose any amendment on the proposal for the commission. They rejected the proposal out of hand, just as they did in 1959 when an official amendment was put down by the Fine Gael Party——
(Cavan): I do not want to interrupt the Minister now but——
——proposing the deletion of the provision for a constituency commission.
(Cavan): I will tell you tomorrow.
When the mover of that amendment, Deputy T.F. O'Higgins, was speaking in the Dáil in 1959 at column 946, volume 172, he said:
... 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.
It is quite clear that the Fine Gael Party, having opposed the introduction of a commission earlier this year, and in 1959 and throughout the referendum campaign, are now simply play acting.
Give that up.
For these reasons I am opposing the introduction of this Bill.
(Cavan): I understand that it is permissible for me to ask a question?
The Deputy is entitled to ask a question.
(Cavan): Is it not a fact that I proposed that the commission provisions of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill be written in to the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill?
The Deputy did, of course.
Yes.
(Cavan): Does the Minister deny that?
Now who is wrong?
The Deputy put down no amendment.
(Cavan): The Minister is a disgrace to an Irish Parliament.
The Deputy said he tried to improve on the commission. He did not put down any amendment to it whatsoever.
Answer the question he asked.
(Cavan): I proposed that it be written in to the Third Amendment.
The Deputy maintained throughout the debate here and throughout the referendum campaign in the country that the commission was merely an instrument to gerrymander and that he objected to a lickspittle of a judge being chairman of it.
(Interruptions.)
He has not answered.
He could not answer anything straight.
Would Deputies allow the Chair to put the question?
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 65.
Tá
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burton, Philip.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Collins, Seán.
- Connor, Patrick.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- 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.
- Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lindsay, Patrick J.
- Lyons, Michael D.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.K.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Spring, Dan.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Brady, Philip.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Patrick J.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fahey, John.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moore, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Dublin).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Foley, Desmond.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Molloy, Robert.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies L'Estrange and T. Dunne; Níl, Deputies Carter and Geoghegan.
Question declared lost.