Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Mar 1974

Vol. 271 No. 5

Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lalor

Last night I endeavoured to draw attention to what I considered to be a flaw in the section in that the Minister was not taking sufficient powers to himself in section 7 (2) (a) and we had reached a stage where the Minister had conceded this was probably the case. He indicated that between now and Report Stage he would look at the situation in the event of the appropriate officer, after consultation with the returning officer for the constituency, making a submission to the Minister which might not be acceptable to him. We had reached a stage where it was agreed that according to section 7 the Minister would have power to refuse sanction to rearrangement of the polling districts in a new constituency but, at the same time, would not have power to make the rearrangement.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Lalor

When the Minister interrupted me in order to draw attention to the fact that he had no people behind him——

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Tully)

That the Deputy had not got anybody behind him to listen to him.

Mr. Lalor

I have one of the most valuable Deputies in this House behind me, Deputy Callanan. On his behalf, I resent that remark.

Mr. Tully

I am not sure that he is behind the Deputy. He is there all right.

Mr. Lalor

Solidly behind me. As a matter of fact, I was about to make a point on his behalf.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Callanan is quite capable of making his own points.

Mr. Lalor

I know that. It was just for the purpose of enabling him to get wound up. The "appropriate officer" is mentioned in section 7. I am rather worried about the position of "appropriate officer" because of the way in which it is proposed to reconstitute various constituencies. We have reached the stage where the Minister feels it is quite possible that the appropriate officer will be given power under this section over and above the power the Minister might consider it appropriate for him to have.

Mr. Tully

Do not misquote me now.

Mr. Lalor

I am making a point. I said it is quite possible that the appropriate officer may have more power——

Mr. Tully

So long as the Deputy does not say I said that, that is all right.

Mr. Lalor

——than the Minister intends he should have. The "appropriate officer" is spelled out here in section 7 (3) (a) and (b). I want specifically to talk about (b). In this context he is the secretary of the county council. Because of the way in which the Minister proposes to reconstitute constituencies we have the situation in an area like East Monaghan where portion of East Monaghan will be in the Louth constituency. The appropriate officer for that specific area as a result of the new linear separation between the constituency of Louth and the Cavan-Monaghan constituency will be the secretary of the Monaghan County Council. He will need to recreate portion of a polling district and he may have, in fact, to join that with parts of an adjoining polling district or districts. The secretary of Monaghan County Council in consultation with the returning officer for County Louth will have to recreate that polling district. We could have a situation in which a polling district in East Monaghan may only have 20 or 30 voters left and that district will have to be re-allocated or joined with an adjoining polling district and that adjoining polling district may be in County Louth. The appropriate officer for the adjoining polling district might be the secretary of Louth County Council while the appropriate officer for the segment of the old sliced up polling district might be the secretary of Monaghan County Council.

I am very anxious about the situation in which you could have a polling district in County Louth carrying possibly 150 or 200 voters on the register being joined across the county boundary to portion of a polling district in which there may be 50 voters. It would appear quite rational and logical to me, in any case, to have the portion of the old polling district split in halves and the entire polling district in County Louth joined together but the difficulty here is that there will be two appropriate officers to create that unification of polling districts and there is no provision in the section to cover that kind of situation. Under the section the Minister cannot interfere. We will have the returning officer for County Louth embracing a small portion of County Monaghan. There is one appropriate officer for the newly created constituency of Louth, but there is the possibility of two appropriate officers being involved and there is no arrangement built into the section to cover that contingency, even though in subsection (3) (a) and (b) there is provision, logically made, whereby if, for any reason, a county council has no county secretary duly appointed at the time or a corporation has no duly appointed manager, someone can act on his behalf or there can be a deputy county secretary or a deputy city manager. There is, however, no provision for the kind of contingency I have outlined in relation to the breaking up of a polling district as provided for in subsection (1).

This situation can arise in a number of areas. It can arise in the new Sligo-Leitrim constituency which embraces a small portion of County Donegal. A most extraordinary incursion has been made into County Donegal. There is the unnatural inclusion of the Ballyshannon area in an effort to preserve a particular Deputy there.

Mr. Tully

Have we reached the Schedule now?

Mr. Lalor

No. I am indebted to the Ceann Comhairle for seeing that I was speaking specifically in relation to the section. The hardworking Minister is obviously willing and anxious to take on the responsibilities of the Ceann Comhairle in addition to his ministerial responsibilities.

Mr. Tully

I acted as Cathaoirleach on a number of occasions here and I think I did quite well.

Mr. Lalor

There may be clashes in interest between the views of conflicting appropriate officers in the rearranging of polling districts following the revision of constituencies. Some groups of local authority officials are very conscious of their powers and responsibilities. I do not want to see built into this Bill a type of omission where a strong-willed county council secretary of one county will clash with an equally strong-willed county council secretary of another county with the returning officer caught up in a battle of strength between them. That is why I raised this matter. I have already shown how this can happen when a small portion of a county is put into a full-sized county to make up a constituency because of the court decision a number of years ago.

The same type of situation can arise in County Louth which has a piece of Monaghan, in Sligo-Leitrim with a piece of Donegal and in South Kerry which has a small piece of West Cork. The appropriate officer in the bridgehead, Birr, is the secretary of the Cork County Council. In conjunction and following discussions with the returning officer for the South Kerry constituency, he has to agree upon the realignment of a polling district because a small portion of the old polling district of West Cork is now in the South Kerry constituency. There could be a clash between the secretaries of the Kerry and Cork County Councils as to which of them is the appropriate officer in that instance.

There is no problem when we are talking specifically about constituencies. At the end of this Bill, the appropriate constituency in which each polling district or section of a polling district is situated will be spelled out. There can be no argument about that. There is no question about which county a polling district is in. This section is intended to clarify the situation temporarily until such time as the appropriate county councils exercise their statutory rights and create polling districts and cover the making of temporary arrangements in respect of split polling districts. We are opening the gates for a confrontation between the two county secretaries of adjoining counties where there has been cross-border infiltration from one constituency to another.

In his reply the Minister may say that this is the same type of section we had previously and that this problem has never arisen. As I said last night, I do not want to itemise individuals but I can speak objectively on this because my own constituency was not changed. We have not a problem——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Deputy must be well in.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy should have seen what Deputy Molloy intended to do with him. He is well in with me.

Mr. Lalor

On this section?

Mr. Tully

No, on the subject of his constituency not being changed.

Mr. Lalor

I am talking about section 7.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy was talking about his own constituency. It is now unchanged but it would not have been if Deputy Molloy had had his way.

Mr. Lalor

I was dealing with section 7 and pointing out that this section will have no effect on my constituency, which has not been changed. There would have been a clash if our returning officer had to consult with two different county secretaries in relation to the proposed revision which the Minister says Deputy Molloy had in mind. We did not have a wrong reaction from this section in the 1969 Bill because of the ingenuity of the then Minister for Local Government. It is on the cards that we can have it now. I am anxious that the Minister should clarify that particular issue.

Mr. Tully

Last night at approximately 10.15 p.m. Deputy Lalor made what I considered to be a very good point. He said that while the permanent arrangements allowed the Minister in the event of a dispute as to where people should vote to accept or reject and fix another polling place, in the temporary arrangement this was not provided for and I gave a guarantee that it would be dealt with. The Deputy accepted that. That is the only point at issue in this section.

I do not know how far repetition is allowed in this House or if I am in order in repeating what I said last night in reply to what the Deputy said so well then. He got so confused at the end of his speech this morning that he cut the ground from under his arguments. I was inclined to change my mind by the time he was finished. His point was so absurd that I was surprised he mentioned it at all. Here is the position. When constituency boundaries span more than one county—and this occurs in a number of past revisions—a polling district cannot span a constituency boundary. It cannot span a county boundary and it cannot span a local electoral area boundary. Deputy Lalor knows that. He talks as if we were introducing a new element which has not been introduced before.

I should like to give a little bit of what is now history with regard to what happened the last time. When the Bill was being drafted the last time, the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy Boland, did a little bit of manoeuvring around the part of the country where I was born and reared. He divided that portion of County Meath not into two constituencies but into three constituencies. Not only had he me in mind but he also had Senator Denis Farrelly in mind because he cut in two the village in which the then Deputy Denis Farrelly was living. He gave half of it to Monaghan and the other half of it to Cavan. A few miles away he gave a portion to Meath.

Mr. Lalor

Then there were three polling districts.

Mr. Tully

No, Kilmainhamwood where Denis Farrelly lives was one polling district. He divided it into three.

Mr. Lalor

The Minister said that could not be done.

Mr. Tully

I did not. If Deputy Lalor cannot understand plain English, he cannot blame me. I am spelling it out for him and if he listens to me as well as I listened to him he will understand a little better what the score is. Last night I conceded that I thought Deputy Lalor had a good point. I cannot see why we should have to discuss it for half an hour today. Since Deputy Lalor wants it that way I should like to refute some of the rather foolish arguments he made. Ballinlough which is in North Meath was divided between Meath and Cavan with 153 in Meath and 26 in Cavan. Crossakiel which is in the same area had 186 in Cavan and eight in Meath. Kilbeg which is in North Meath also had 192 in Monaghan and 52 in Cavan. Kilmainhamwood had 258 in Monaghan, plus 24 from the Cavan end of it which made it 282 in Monaghan, and seven in Cavan. He made a real good job of Carlanstown because he had 56 in Meath and 132 in Cavan but 52 of those came from the Monaghan end. He split it completely and despite that there was no clash. It worked perfectly because of the arrangement that each county secretary——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Why did the Minister change it if it worked perfectly?

Mr. Tully

I changed it because I believe in fair play. It is as simple as that.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Fair play for whom?

Mr. Tully

For everybody. That is the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Is the Minister absolutely sure it was fair play for everybody?

Mr. Creed

You were looked after all right.

Mr. Tully

I expected to get a telegram of thanks from Deputy Fitzgerald when he saw what I proposed. I know he has not mentioned it but I thought he would be overjoyed. Where there is a permanent change or a permanent re-arrangement of a polling station, the members of the local authority do that, and that is all right. Where there is a temporary change this is done by the county secretary following discussions with the returning officer. The returning officer is responsible for the constituency and the county secretary is responsible for the county. He is the person who fixes the polling station. There is no doubt about that.

Where there is doubt—Deputy Lalor made this point very well last night and I accepted it—is that in relation to the permanent ones, if it is considered by the Minister for Local Government that there is something wrong he has the right to alter them. In relation to the temporary ones he has not got that right. Deputy Lalor suggested that he should have that right. Having listened to him, I pointed out at 10.15 p.m. last night that I was prepared to have a look at it and to make the necessary change to ensure that he would have that right. I also pointed out that members of the local authority, members of the county council, can decide at any time to change the electoral areas and the polling stations. They are entitled to do that and, if they want to do it immediately after a temporary arrangement has been made, they can have a new scheme introduced within a couple of months which supersedes the temporary arrangement made. It is as simple as that.

Having accepted what the Opposition wanted me to do and having said I would do it because I think it is a sensible thing to do—even though when they were in power they thought it was not a sensible thing to do because they left it that way from 1935 or 1936 until now—I should like to ask the Opposition what they want now. Why should they continue the discussion on this section if it is not because of the fact that earlier on a statement was made from the Opposition benches that the Bill would be held up on every section, every line and every word. If that is the reason I can understand what is happening. If that is not the reason, would somebody tell me, since I have agreed to do what they asked me to do, why should we still have people getting up and repeating it? Last night Deputy Lalor was right on the point and explained it well. Today he was not so good. As a matter of fact, he confused himself a bit and I am afraid that he might confuse other people in the House and, therefore, prolong the discussion. I said before that I am prepared to tighten up what he considers wrong and what I consider to be a mistake so that it cannot occur again. We have had quite a long discussion on this section and on the two amendments and I consider it a complete waste of the time of the House to have repetition of what was already said.

Mr. O'Malley

We are in the difficulty that, on previous sections of this Bill, when points were made from this side of the House on what we felt were defects or deficiencies in the sections concerned we had the spectacle —certainly we had it once while I was here and I think we had it on another occasion—of the Minister agreeing that the point made from here was valid and sensible and that he would give it favourable consideration——

Mr. Tully

I said consideration.

Mr. O'Malley

On one occasion he went so far as to say that he agreed the point made from here was superior to what was in the Bill.

Mr. Tully

No, I did not. Do not say things you are not sure of. Get the record and read it out.

Mr. O'Malley

I will do that. I will have to send for it. It will take some time. I will get the record and read it out.

Mr. Tully

Good for you.

Mr. O'Malley

The Minister denies what he said which creates a certain difficulty for us in speaking on this matter as it did on other matters. He agreed more than once——

Mr. Tully

I should like to point out that I keep my word. When I say something I keep my word, and I recommend that to other people.

Mr. O'Malley

——that the suggestions made from this side of the House were superior to what was in the section as drafted. We believed that, such a statement having been made by the Minister, it would be reasonable to assume that he would agree to changes on the lines suggested by us. Deputy Molloy and I on one occasion, and Deputy Molloy and another Member on another occasion, set out the particular changes that embodied what we had been recommending only to find that the Minister on reconsideration of the matter decided that they were not good, correct or proper. As a result of the advice he received we were informed that the matters which he thought were acceptable and superior to what was there would not be accepted.

We are in the difficulty here that the Minister now says he agrees with something Deputy Lalor said last night but the Minister wants to know why we should continue to argue the point. If the Minister would stand up and spell out specifically for the House precisely what he is prepared to alter——

Mr. Tully

The Deputy is a most impertinent young man.

Mr. O'Malley

——so that the Official Report can put the matter beyond any doubt in case the Minister has a further change of mind. If the Minister is prepared to do that and provided that what he is prepared to do is what Deputy Laior has been suggesting and which the Minister agrees is sensible, correct and an improvement on the section as it stands, we can leave that particular point. The House will appreciate our difficulty in being told by the Minister that something suggested from this side of the House is bad and good and then we discovered a day or two later that the Minister is not prepared to accept it. I do not want that situation to arise again and that is why I am inviting the Minister to put the matter beyond any doubt and not to allow the situation which has arisen before to arise again. The Minister should spell out in clear and simple terms precisely what he is prepared to do in this regard for the benefit of the Official Report.

I sat down for the purpose of allowing the Minister to place on the record of the House precisely what he agrees to do.

Mr. Tully

I am not interested in what Deputy O'Malley wants me to do. I have already said what I propose to say about this and Deputy O'Malley can proceed to hold up the House for as long as he wishes until such time as it is decided we have had enough of it.

Mr. O'Malley

The precaution I took was a wise one.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy should always take wise precautions. He was not always so careful about taking precautions.

Mr. O'Malley

The arrogance of the Minister by his refusal when I sat down to spell out what he is prepared to do is an indication of the wisdom of my precaution in not accepting his word which he broke before and is prepared to break again.

Mr. Tully

That is not true and Deputy O'Malley should not be allowed to make such a statement. If this is Deputy O'Malley's habit of doing things it is not mine. I keep my word and nobody will accuse me here, or outside of this House, of breaking it.

Mr. O'Malley

The truth of the correctness and accuracy of what I say is the fact that the Minister refused to avail of the opportunity which I gave him to spell out for the benefit of the Official Report precisely what he was agreeing to do at the request of Deputy Lalor. I was very wise to take a precaution that has been amply justified by the attitude taken by the Minister.

It is a pity that we have a situation that Deputy Lalor spoke at length last night and this morning on a point which the Minister and the House agree is valid, that there is an error in this section which should be amended, that the Minister agrees that the error is there and that what Deputy Lalor says should be done, would be worth doing, while at the same time the Minister is not prepared to undertake openly in this House to do that. Can the Minister or anybody else complain that the discussion on this section takes so long when one is faced with the kind of ignorance we are faced with at this present time?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will know that it is not orderly to apply these kind of epithets to Members of the House.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy would win a first prize for ignorance.

Mr. O'Malley

It may not be orderly but it could be charitable.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has taken an interpretation of this matter which is of long standing in this House and that is that the Deputy may not reflect on other Deputies in this manner.

Mr. O'Malley

I take it that applies also to the Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Tully

I have a reputation for conducting myself inside and outside of this House and the Deputy might copy my example.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That applies to every Member of this House, Ministers and Deputies.

Mr. O'Malley

I wish the Minister would prove it.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The only sins in the Minister's eyes are to be young and new.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not in order to reflect on Members of this House.

Mr. O'Malley

A lot of this discussion could be avoided by the Minister spelling out the amendment he is prepared to make to this section at Deputy Lalor's suggestion. As a result, Deputy Lalor, and other Members, will have to continue to argue the point even though it seems to be accepted generally that the point they have argued is valid and should be accepted. If there are any complaints about the length of the discussion of this or any other section it can be seen at whose door the fault for that situation lies. The whole argument on this particular point can be brought to an end by the Minister spelling out the amendment he is prepared to make. I have already invited him on two occasions to do that. I sat down to give him an opportunity to do so but he has arrogantly refused to do it.

With regard to the section generally, one of the first matters that struck me about it was that in subsection (3), for some reason, the type of officer who is designated as the appropriate officer for a county borough and the appropriate officer for the county council area differs fairly significantly in the rank of the officer concerned. In county boroughs the officer is the county manager but for some reason in county councils, according to paragraph (b) of subsection (3) the appropriate officer is the secretary of the county council. I have no objection to the secretary of a county council acting as such because such men have acted properly in this capacity in the past, but on the face of it the difference between the officer appropriate for each of the two areas calls for some explanation.

If it is the city manager in a corporation area I fail to see why it is not the county manager in a county council area or, alternatively, if it is the county secretary in a county council area why it is not the official who would be appropriately of the same rank in the corporation, the assistant town clerk in most of the cities or, perhaps, the deputy manager. No explanation has been given as to why we have this difference. This can be of significance in the sort of situation which Deputy Lalor has been talking about where there is a dispute as between different appropriate officers within the meaning of this section. We have many instances of it at present where two or part of two or more counties are in the same constituency. We have a number of instances where a city and a county or part of a county are in the same constituency. We have that situation in Limerick where the whole of the county borough and part of the county are in the constituency of East Limerick where there are two appropriate officers who, if they are to make temporary arrangements under this section, have presumably to consult with one another and have also to consult with the returning officer. This means that three people are involved in making the decision.

The same situation would arise in the proposed gerrymandered constituency of mid-Cork where a large section of Cork city is taken out of the city for Dáil elections and is put in with the already huge rural constituency of mid-Cork, which stretches diagonally across the whole length of county Cork and which, as a result of the acquisition of a large section of Cork city, will become the largest constituency in terms of population and probably in terms of physical length in this country. You have a situation there where the county manager of Cork——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

That was not done for love of us.

Mr. O'Malley

I know why it was done and so does the Deputy. It was done to try to manufacture one new seat for the Labour Party and to allow them to hold on to the existing one they have. It was done blatantly and openly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not dealing with individual constituencies at the moment.

Mr. O'Malley

It is significant that it is not even denied. In the situation I have mentioned the appropriate officer for the County Borough of Cork is the city manager for Cork. The appropriate officer for County Cork is the county secretary although I understand that the manager of Cork County Council is also the manager of Cork city.

Mr. Tully

He will not be for very much longer.

Mr. O'Malley

If the situation were that the county manager of Cork city and the county manager of Cork county were, as they should be, the appropriate officers no problem would arise. By coincidence in this particular case they are. That is not the situation generally. You have the extremely unsatisfactory situation in the proposed gerrymandered constituency of mid-Cork that the man who is the appropriate officer in his capacity as city manager of Cork has to confer with the man who is the appropriate officer in his capacity as county secretary for County Cork. First of all, these men meet on unequal terms because the manager is clearly higher in rank than the county secretary. In this particular case they meet on especially unequal terms because the county secretary of County Cork is directly under the control of the city manager of Cork in his capacity as county manager of Cork.

Both of those people have to consult in turn with the returning officer for the particular constituency. I do not know which is the particular returning officer in Cork. It may be the county registrar for the city or it may be the county registrar for the county. As far as I know, in Cork the returning officers are more normally the sheriffs either for the city or for the county. Part of this constituency is in the city and part of it is in the county. I do not know who is to appoint the returning officer. There may well be no problems in a situation like this because I am sure the people concerned are reasonable and will probably agree in practice. On the other hand, if any of the various officials who seem to be involved in this rather complicated matter were to dig their heels in the ground you would then have an extremely difficult situation which, as has been pointed out by Deputy Lalor, is one which cannot apparently be resolved by the Minister. While subsection (2) (a) states that any of these temporary arrangements shall be subject to the sanction of the Minister, it appears the only thing he can do is either sanction the scheme for the proposal or not sanction it.

I suppose normally such a proposal is sanctioned. If for some reason the Minister of the day decided not to sanction it, I do not know what the situation would be. If, under this or some other measure, an electoral area is divided up so that it goes into two or three constituencies, as has apparently happened and can happen, and if the Minister declined to sanction the scheme of temporary arrangement made as a result of that division, then a situation could arise in which it is quite possible no election could be held in those constituencies because the people concerned would have nowhere to go. This apparently does not concern the Minister but it concerns a lot of people who do not want this situation to arise. It should be a matter of concern for the House.

I believe that situation is agreed by everybody to be wrong and undesirable. Its rectification is in the hands of the Minister but he refuses to commit himself to rectifying it. He then complains that we continue to talk about it. That is an unsatisfactory situation. It is unsatisfactory, first of all, that we should have to continue to talk about it but it is also unsatisfactory that we have to do so simply because the Minister refuses to place it on the record of the House that he is agreeable to change or amend something which he agrees is wrong.

When one looks at subsection (1) it is all the more regrettable that the Minister did not accept the amendments which Deputy Molloy proposed. They could only have clarified the matter and put it beyond doubt.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We have progressed from that and the Deputy knows it.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. O'Malley

I should like to quote from vol. 270, No. 10 of the Official Report, column 1651. I asked:

Why is the wording in subsection (1) better than my suggestion?

The debate continued:

Mr. Tully: Deputy O'Malley is being reasonable. As a layman I consider his suggestion is a reasonable one, but my officials inform me that the section as worded is the correct phraseology.

Mr. Molloy: Why?

Mr. Tully: They consider that this wording has stood the test of time. If I was drafting the Bill originally and there was no Bill there which had this phraseology in it I would be inclined to say exactly as Deputy O'Malley has said. However, if the wording in the Bill is the wording which has been in operation for nearly 30 years it is a different matter. We do not know everything, and the officials who are the experts in this matter tell me that the wording in it is more correct than the wording which is proposed by Deputy O'Malley.

I have not a closed mind on these things and if wording comes which appears better I have no objection to making a change either in this House or when the Bill goes before the Seanad, but if the existing wording is better I do not want to change it. It is as simple as that.

That brings me back to what I said at the beginning, that we had a situation before in relation to a section of this Bill in which the Minister agreed that the alternative wording, which was proposed by me on that occasion, was better.

Mr. Tully

No, I did not say any such thing.

Mr. O'Malley

I have read out exactly what the Minister said.

Mr. Tully

You did. You are bluffing and you will not get away with bluffing while I am here.

Mr. O'Malley

I have read out exactly what was said.

Mr. Tully

You have been caught out, not for the first time.

Mr. O'Malley

That is precisely what the Minister said. He does not deny that he said it. Everybody can read it if they want to. I invite them to read it. We had that situation then. We have it again now. Last night and this morning Deputy Lalor made criticisms of certain parts of this section. He argued as to why they were incorrect. The Minister agreed with him that they were incorrect, the Minister agreed with him that they should be changed and the Minister then got up and complained that he had said all these things—that they were incorrect and that they should be changed—and that, therefore, we should cease to talk about them. I invited the Minister twice this morning, and I sat down on each occasion to allow him to do it, to spell out precisely what change he is going to make because I did not want to have the kind of situation that we had before when we gave up arguing a point because we understood it was going to be amended.

Mr. Tully

You did not do any such thing and the quotation you gave did not prove that.

Mr. O'Malley

I am inviting the Minister for the third time this morning to avail of this opportunity so that we can have the matters which Deputy Lalor has pointed out are incorrect and which the Minister has agreed are incorrect rectified.

Mr. Tully

Deputy O'Malley read out a quotation. Half way through he realised that it did not say what he was alleging it said. It is clear from that quotation, and Deputy O'Malley can read it 100 times if he wants to, that I made no promise to change the section. Deputy O'Malley is now well aware of that, having read the quotation, but despite that he continues, as he usually does, with a spiteful little whine to try to make out that there was something in it which I say was not in it and which everybody reading it will know was not there. Deputy O'Malley came in this morning with a chip on his shoulder and he has been trying to throw his weight around this House since he started.

Mr. O'Malley

I thought you had given a ruling, Sir, within the last ten minutes, that this kind of abuse is out of order in this House or does that ruling only apply to criticism coming from this side?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The ruling applied to the words the Deputy used "the ignorance of the Minister". I referred to the fact that ignorance imputed from any side of the House to any Member of the House is not in order.

Mr. O'Malley

But what was imputed or what was stated from the other side of the House now is in order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The word I was referring to was "ignorance".

Mr. Tully

Nobody will deny that Deputy O'Malley has been trying to throw his weight around here and has been making wild statements which bear no relation whatever to the facts.

I would expect that Deputy O'Malley, having been a Minister for a period, would know a lot more about the way the Government is run, about electoral law and about the rules of this House. Apparently he has missed out on a lot of things. I am sorry he is leaving because I would like to point out to him some of the things he does not know. He said that the Cork city manager and the Cork county manager were one and the same. They never were, are not and will not be one and the same. If he knew anything he should know that.

Mr. O'Malley

Did the Minister say "will not be"?

Mr. Tully

I have arrangements in train to have a city manager appointed in Cork.

Mr. Lemass

I understand there was some concern locally about that.

Mr. Tully

There is always concern locally about various things. This matter has now been finally decided and there will be a Cork city manager. There should have been a Cork city manager. It was unfair that there should be an acting manager, an assistant manager, running a city the size of Cork for so long. It was unfair to him, apart from anything else.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Minister agree that the representatives from the city and the county areas were not in complete agreement with each other?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is getting away from the matter before the House.

Mr. Tully

I mentioned this because Deputy O'Malley said that the Cork city and county managers were one and the same. He also alleged that for that reason the county secretary would be at a disadvantage in deciding on matters which affected booths where the boundaries crossed because the city manager, being his boss, would be able to push him around. Nothing like that could happen because the city manager is not the county manager and it does not arise at all but for the purpose of making an argument it suited Deputy O'Malley's purpose to say this or he did not know that this was not so. He also posed a question about the county secretary in the county council and the city manager in the borough. He made a lot of play about this. I am sure Deputy Lalor knows that the city manager or borough manager is also the town clerk and since there is no secretary the town clerk acts as secretary and, therefore, they are people of equal status. I wish people, before they make statements here, would go to the trouble of checking on these things. I came into this House as a young man and I had to find out a lot of things and I possibly made as many mistakes as the young fellows coming in today but people who have carried a portfolio in government for a period should not make those mistakes and should not try to make allegations about everybody. The facts are as I have stated them.

I told Deputy Lalor last night that he made one good point, the one about the temporary arrangement made following the change of a constituency, before a permanent arrangement is made about the new polling areas, and the fact that there is no way in which the Minister if he is dissatisfied can alter it, that all he can say when the proposal is made is "yes" or "no". I agree that Deputy Lalor is right but this is something which was not put in there simply because I wanted it put in. It was put in by a Fianna Fáil Minister and was approved by this House on a number of occasions since 1936. I compliment Deputy Lalor on being the first to pick out this and I am taking the necessary steps to have it altered. Deputy O'Malley made a song and dance about it and was quite insulting because I was not prepared to spell out here exactly how I would change it. People like Deputy O'Malley might like this sort of instant legislation but it does not result in good law. I want the matter fully considered and I want those who will eventually give me the wording of it to be sure that those words will do exactly what this House wants. That is the right way to do it.

Mr. Lalor

We can always wait and come back to it.

Mr. Tully

I shall have my amendment here for the next Stage and it will come before the House again and before the Seanad. I cannot understand what all the row was about but if people want to be abusive and insulting and create acrimony where there is none they can always find devices for doing this sort of thing. We had quite a reasonable debate on the Bill apart from some divergences but the debate has gone on far too long. Having discussed this matter on the amendment—we could not go over the full section—and having spent two hours discussing it last night and having begun to discuss it again at 11 o'clock today and when it is something on which both sides of the House agree, it is a bit much to delay the House by bringing in irrelevancies and making allegations. I am sure Deputy Lalor will agree that on a previous section I said that as a layman I felt Deputy Molloy had a point. Subsequently, I checked and found there was a reason for the particular wording in the section and next day I told this to the House. I was accused by Deputy O'Malley of breaking my word. I gave no word to that effect; I said I would look at it and I did satisfy myself that the wording was correct.

In this case I have satisfied myself, and my officials agree, that a slight alteration should be made to meet the case. I want to have this done properly and I see no reason why we should continue to debate this section.

Mr. R.P. Burke

We had a preliminary look at this last night and we had a certain amount of debate this morning on it. There are a couple of points I am unhappy about. I raised one of them last night and was fairly satisfied with what was said by the Minister. It was the subject of the permanent arrangements regarding polling districts and polling places as distinct from the temporary arrangements. The temporary arrangements are in the hands of the appropriate officers but the permanent arrangements are in the hands of the council or corporation. It was decided provisionally last night that as soon as the Bill was passed a letter would go to all local authorities informing them of the passing of the Act and telling them about the temporary arrangements and asking them to look at their own——

Mr. Tully

In fairness, I should say that this is always done, I understand.

Mr. R.P. Burke

This letter would tell the councils to look at the polling districts and places and revise them if found necessary—and it will be necessary in every area because of the massive changes in constituencies in the Bill. I thought about this overnight and as the Minister was going to alter the section in any case by bringing in an amendment in regard to (2) (a), I thought he would also tighten up the instructions to local authorities and that there should be firm instructions, rather than leaving the situation as it is in the Bill, that the temporary arrangements operate until the local authority makes a decision on the matter. It is important that the council should get a firm instruction to make these changes as soon as possible.

Deputy Lalor's suggestion, on which I spoke also, was that there should be a provision in this section to the effect that the appropriate officers would decide on the temporary arrangements for a period of six months or until the local authority made permanent arrangements and that it would be written into the section that the local authority was duty bound to make these alterations within six months. There could be a time leg between the county council making the arrangements and the expiration of the appropriate officers' six months. The local authority decision could go to the Department, the Minister might not agree with it and there could be debate and discussion on the matter and there could be a time lag before the permanent arrangements were confirmed by the Minister. In any case, it is not beyond the ability of the parliamentary draftsmen to provide some wording that would tidy up the section and meet my suggestions.

Being involved in politics for a long time and having been active at local level for many years, I think the Minister realises the importance of local democracy and of giving as much power as possible to local authorities. I hope he will agree, in the light of his experience, to make some amendment in regard to local representation and the right of people at local level to make decisions. I hope he will write into the section an instruction to local authorities to consider within, say, six months permanent arrangements regarding polling districts and places. If an election were held within the six months there would be no problem as the temporary arrangements would have been made—assuming they were sanctioned by the Minister—but it would be wrong to have polling districts on a temporary basis for three years, if this Dáil ran for three years —which I think highly unlikely. We do not want a prolonged temporary period. We have experience of employment in the Civil Service of the "temporary" tag being put on people employed for 20 or 30 years. When is temporary, temporary and when is permanent permanent?

We want a clear instruction to local authorities—not just a letter as was the former practice—to revise polling districts and places as soon as possible and within six months after the passing of this Act. This would be a much better provision than the present one. There would not be a problem if the constituencies were within one county or city boundary. The problem is that so many of the constituencies suggested by the Minister are crossing county boundaries. While my constituency in Dublin crosses the city boundary in one place, in fact part of the old constituency of North County Dublin has gone back to the city. We are losing part of the city in Baldoyle and are gaining part in Ballymun.

I am worried about the two authorities and the permanent arrangements with regard to the siting and the decision on the polling districts. While one authority might be very alert and make the changes suggested in the letter that will come from the Department of Local Government on the passing of this Bill, the other local authority might postpone debate and decision on the permanent arrangements. There might be a situation where one section of a constituency within a county area would have permanent arrangements while the other section—in North County Dublin it is a small portion that is densely populated—might have temporary arrangements. This is an unsatisfactory situation when one is dealing with election of representatives to Dáil Éireann. This is loose legislation——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the section.

Mr. R.P. Burke

I am commenting on the permanent and temporary arrangements as envisaged in section 7 (1) (a) and (b) and in subsection (3) (a) and (b). I assumed that a debate on temporary and permanent arrangements was relevant. As the Minister is going to amend this section for Report Stage, I am requesting him to include the suggestions I am making. We spent some time on this matter last night and it is worthy of consideration. Not alone does it affect my constituency of North County Dublin but there are a number of areas throughout the country where the county boundaries are breached. Last night Deputy Geoghegan mentioned the Galway-Clare constituency. The Galway County Council could decide on the permanent arrangements within a certain time of receiving the letter from the Minister but, on the other hand, the Clare County Council——

Mr. Tully

The Deputy must think Deputy Geoghegan did not explain his case adequately if he feels compelled now to restate it.

Mr. R.P. Burke

Deputy Geoghegan explained it very well. I am not going to refer to Kinvara which he mentioned but will confine my remarks to general terms. The Galway County Council could make permanent arrangements while the Clare County Council would operate under instructions of the county secretary and make temporary arrangements.

Permanent arrangements are subject to sanction of the Minister and he can alter them but temporary arrangements are subject only to sanction of the Minister. This is stated in section 7 (2) (a). There is a difference between sanction of the Minister and alteration by the Minister. The Minister may alter the permanent arrangements but not the temporary arrangements. This is wrong. There could be a situation in two parts of a Dáil constituency——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is being repetitive.

Mr. R.P. Burke

That was not my intention but I am guided by the Chair. Section 7 states:

(2) An arrangement made pursuant to paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section—

(a) shall be subject to the sanction of the Minister.

The Minister has agreed that this wording is not satisfactory and has stated he will alter it. Deputy O'Malley asked the Minister to give some indication of the manner in which he would alter it. The Minister told us he would not put forward the new wording until Report Stage because of the time involved——

Mr. Tully

It was because I wanted to do the job properly.

Mr. R.P. Burke

I suggest it was not beyond the powers of the parliamentary draftsman last night or even during the current debate to submit a proposed wording which we might debate on Committee Stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must know the Chair could not accept it, even from the Minister. An amendment could not be accepted at this stage.

Mr. R.P. Burke

This debate will continue until 2.30 p.m. and there is a strong temptation for us to try to find out, even on an informal basis, what is in the Minister's mind with regard to the amendment he proposes for this section. The sanction of the Minister is not strong enough; it should include power for the Minister not merely to sanction but to alter what is suggested by the paid officials of the county council. He should be able to look at suggestions if there is an obvious anomaly. This could happen if there were personality clashes between two or three local authorities where county boundaries might be breached. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility. We sometimes have personality clashes even in this Chamber.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. R.P. Burke

I was dealing with subsection (2) (a) with regard to an arrangement made being subject to the sanction of the Minister. I do not think that is good enough. The Minister should have the right to amend any proposals made by paid officials of county councils or corporations. Proposals for temporary arrangements made by elected representatives on these bodies can be altered by the Minister, but proposals made by the appropriate officers mentioned in this section can only be either sanctioned or rejected by the Minister. If, as a result of what is adumbrated in the forthcoming budget, some Deputies on the Government side of the House vote with us and there is a snap election——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is hardly relevant to this debate.

Mr. R.P. Burke

——and if there were to-ing and fro-ing between the appropriate officers and the Department and the suggestions made by these officers were rejected by the Minister and sent back to them, if they were bloody-minded enough, they could hold the whole thing up.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy does not accept my guarantee that I will have a look at this.

Mr. R.P. Burke

I do accept it but I do not know how exactly the Minister will change it.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy cannot be told that until Report Stage.

Mr. R.P. Burke

Would the Minister even give an indication?

Mr. Tully

I cannot do that.

Mr. R.P. Burke

It would save time because what we are afraid of is too much power in the hands of officials and not enough power in the hands of the Minister and elected representatives of county councils and corporations. The difficulty with Report Stage is that one can only speak once. The Committee Stage provides us with the only opportunity of teasing out amendments. I would not expect the Minister to give us the exact wording but surely he could give us the bones of what he has in mind. He must know what instructions he intends to give the parliamentary draftsman. He agrees some alteration is necessary and we would like some indication as to what that alteration will be.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is repeating himself.

Mr. R.P. Burke

That was not my intention. Subsection (3) of this section provides:

In this section "the appropriate officer" means—

(a) in relation to a polling district situate in a county borough, the manager for the purposes of the Acts relating to the management of the county borough (including a person duly appointed either as deputy for such manager or to act in the place of such manager during his absence or incapacity or during a vacancy in his office),

(b) in relation to any other polling district, the secretary of the council of the county in which the polling district is situate (including a person duly appointed either as deputy for such secretary or to act in the place of such secretary during his absence or incapacity or during a vacancy in his office).

In Dublin the city manager appoints an assistant county manager. The latter is under the city manager. The city manager decides what will happen to the city in regard to constituencies which breach county boundaries. The assistant county manager, nominated by the city manager, operates within the county. We have no county secretary in Dublin. We have someone operating in his place. In my constituency the city manager will operate, but the county boundary has been breached and the Ballymun end of the city now comes into the new North County Dublin. The city manager will be responsible for deciding on the polling stations in the area within the city boundary. It is a very small area, but it is very densely populated. The vast bulk of the constituency is in the county council area. There you have a sub-officer of a sub-officer of the city manager negotiating with the latter in regard to the bulk of the area. That is not good enough. There should be officers of equal standing to consult together and decide on these temporary arrangements. This reinforces my earlier argument that something should be written into the section to ensure these temporary arrangements will be for a limited period of six months and the relevant local authorities will then have the responsibility of deciding within a specified time on polling districts and polling stations. Officers of different status should not be negotiating. Deputy MacMahon is present. What I have said applies also to his constituency.

Mr. Tully

Deputy O'Malley made that point with regard to Cork. He advanced exactly the same argument for at least 20 minutes and he was quite wrong.

Mr. Lemass

But Deputy Burke is quite right about Dublin.

Mr. R.P. Burke

Deputy O'Malley made the point about the city and county of Cork.

Mr. Tully

And he was wrong. He was pulled up by Deputy G. Fitzgerald.

Mr. R.P. Burke

There may have been certain errors in his contribution but I am on firm ground in County Dublin. A similar situation will arise in the new constituency of the mid-county in which you have part of the city area, part of the county area and part of Wicklow. There is an even worse situation there than in the county and city. The city manager is operating the portion of the new constituency of mid-County Dublin which is within the city boundary. He, in turn, is negotiating with a sub-officer of a sub-officer of his own, obviously not of equal standing, with regard to the siting of polling districts and polling places, and they, in turn, are debating and making decisions which will affect the electorate and the rights of citizens with the county secretary in Wicklow. This means that there is a city manager, his sub-agent appointing a further sub-agent negotiating with the secretary of the Wicklow County Council. This is a ludicrous situation which should be avoided. It should be as temporary as possible.

As the section stands, the word "temporary" means that the arrangements are temporary until the county councils or corporations decide to make them permanent. The county councils can leave these temporary arrangements stand for as long as they like. The Minister should bring in a second amendment on Report Stage which would instruct local authorities, immediately on the passing of this measure and having been informed by the Department of Local Government how it affects their particular areas, to decide on permanent arrangements with regard to the polling districts and polling places.

Let us discuss the constituency of mid-County Dublin. The county council could make permanent arrangements, the Wicklow County Council could make permanent arrangements and the Dublin Corporation members might not have made permanent arrangements. In other words, there could be a situation where two of the bodies concerned could have made permanent arrangements and the other did not. Decisions are being made which affect the rights of the electorate. There is nothing more sacred than the right to vote. Decisions are being made sometimes by elected representatives at local level, sometimes by city managers, sometimes by county secretaries and sometimes by sub-agents of sub-agents of the city manager for another part of the same Dáil constituency. This is a ludicrous situation which should be tidied up and strengthened within this section. The Minister should consider the example of mid-County Dublin which illustrates my point very well. As elected representatives sent here to look after the interests of people in a democratic way, we must ensure that an instruction will go to the local authorities telling them to make alterations rather than have the situation which could arise in mid-County Dublin or within the city boundary in the North County Dublin area where the Ballymun constituency is situated.

I realise the problem the Minister faces with regard to section 2 (a). He does not want to promise something to the House and on Report Stage have to go back on it. The Minister in reply should give an indication of what he has in mind with regard to the tightening up of section 2 (a).

Mr. Tully

We discussed this last night. Since we started this morning no new matter has been introduced. In my opinion this is one of the troubles of carrying over a debate until a later date. If this section were carried over until next week and we started on Tuesday at 4 o'clock, the Opposition would repeat all their arguments as they have been doing today. Arguments were made last night and were replied to then. Deputy Lalor accepted that I would amend one section. This section has taken up much of today's time. Deputy Burke last night accepted as reasonable my view that the local authority members have a right and duty. I have the greatest respect for these members and I will not dictate to them and make them do things which they know should be done. The Deputy has been talking about temporary arrangements. Local authority members can immediately start proceedings in order to ensure that the temporary arrangements cease and the permanent arrangements are introduced. There is no reason why we should lay down that this should be done because it is their duty. As I said last night, local representatives are good people and do the job for which they are elected. Deputy Burke accepted this as being reasonable. Yet he made the same argument today.

Suggestions which have been repeated here that a row could occur between county secretaries and county managers across county boundaries, are too ludicrous to bother arguing about. The county secretary looks after the county council area and he selects the polling station there. The county manager does the same if a borough is involved. There can be no question of a dispute. This has been so since the mid-1930s. We are talking about people who hold responsible positions. If the county secretary or the county manager, or the person to whom Deputy Burke referred who is neither one thing, or the other but is designated to do the job, were so careless or irresponsible as to present to the Minister a scheme which would cause trouble, they would know that their own elected representatives would not take it from them.

Mr. Crowley

Then there could be a dispute.

Mr. Tully

There could not be a dispute. If they were stupid enough to do that, they would have to be dealt with. It is true that the Minister cannot accept or reject in regard to a temporary arrangement as he can for a permanent one. The permanent ones are there and can be made immediately by the council members. They have not got to wait any length of time. I would not like to put a time limit on it or to write anything in. They have been reminded. They have been doing a very good job down through the years and, that being so, we should not interfere.

We have not yet got to the meat of the Bill. We have been dealing with technical matters which have been in previous Bills and have been dealt with over the years, and have operated very successfully for a period of almost 40 years. I am sorry to have to repeat this but, in my opinion, despite that the Opposition have been deliberately introducing a type of filibuster to hold up the Bill. They should not be allowed to do that. We have taken much more time on this Bill already than was taken on either of the two previous constituency revision Bills, and we were supposed to be an awkward Opposition and we were supposed to be holding up the business of the House.

I see no reason why we should continue on. We are now on the fifth day of the Committee Stage of this Bill and we have dealt with only four sections. Last night we had reached a stage where we could easily have moved on. We had reached agreement on one amendment and it was generally accepted that the rest of the section was all right. Yet, today the same thing is happening again. This section has been before the House for too long. If we do not deal with it today, next week we will have the same situation and we will start the debate all over again on all the things that were said. I suggest that the question be now put.

Mr. Crowley

That is a very serious reflection on the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

The motion is that the question be put. I assent to it.

Mr. Lemass

It is most unfair. I did not have the opportunity of being here last night and I sat here today for an hour and a half.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

This is real guillotine stuff.

Mr. Crowley

Jackboot. I am very surprised at the Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle

That section 7 stand part of the Bill, agreed?

Question agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Section 8.

Mr. Lemass

I was here for an hour and a half and I did not have an opportunity to make one contribution.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Kelly

We will drag the Dáil into the 20th century in spite of you.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Will you write a letter to The Irish Times?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please. Section 8. The amendments have been deemed to be out of order.

Mr. Lalor

You did not put section 7.

Mr. Kelly

It was agreed.

Mr. Lemass

It was not agreed.

Mr. Lalor

On a point of order, the motion upon which a decision was taken was that the question be put. "That section 7 stand part" has not been put.

An Ceann Comhairle

That question was put. The Chair put it and the Chair got agreement.

Mr. Lemass

It was not agreed by this side.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy indicating that he wants to challenge section 7?

Mr. Tully

The Chair has the right to do this but we are not responsible, nor should the Chair be responsible, if the Fianna Fáil Party are too busy arguing about what they should say. The motion was put and agreed and Deputies over there made no move——

Mr. Lemass

Jackboot.

Mr. Tully

The Chair is the authority.

Mr. Crowley

The Minister is very testy.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair put the question and assumed agreement. There was no dissent.

Mr. Lalor

We did not hear the question because the Government Whip was shouting across the House. We did not have an opportunity of hearing the question being put.

Mr. Kelly

Poor darlings.

Mr. Tully

That is cod.

Mr. Lalor

I cannot even hear my self with the shouting across the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has called section 8 and was referring to the amendments thereon.

Mr. Crowley

The Chief Whip is trying to disrupt the proceedings.

Mr. Lalor

I should like to put it on record that we are opposed to section 7 on the basis that the Minister himself agrees it is out of order.

SECTION 8.

Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Tully

This section provides for the repeal of the 1969 Act, the repeal to be effective from the dissolution of the Dáil which next occurs after the passing of this Act. The 1969 Act and the present constituencies will continue in force for by-elections, and so on, up to the dissolution of the Dáil.

Mr. Lemass

I intended to speak on section 7 this morning and I stayed here for some time to get that opportunity which has been denied to me.

Mr. Tully

If the Deputy got up as early as the rest of us he could have got in.

Mr. Lemass

I was unable to come in yesterday——

An Ceann Comhairle

Section 8.

Mr. Lemass

——for the very simple reason that I had some committee meetings to attend. On section 8 what concerns me mostly is that it appears that, when this Bill becomes an Act, each of the major political organisations, not just the ones represented in this House, the less supported organisations, will re-arrange their organisations to conform with the new constituency arrangements. This is quite complicated and it creates problems. It goes back to the days of Parnell. There are transfers of funds between new and old constituencies and there are debts in some cases. There is the question of halls and who has the entitlement to halls. There is a Labour Party hall in my constituency which is financed by a part which is going into the mid-county and which is actually situated in the part that will be staying in Dublin (Ballyfermot).

Mr. Tully

I am sure they will reach mutual agreement.

Mr. Lemass

These problems will arise. Naturally agreement will have to be reached. Assuming that the organisations are reconstituted in the new constituencies and that everything is working smoothly for the parties, we then run into the problem that if a by-election occurs they will have to start re-organising back into the old constituencies. This can be the cause of a great deal of difficulty. Would the Minister consider providing that these areas would be the new Dáil areas on the date of the passing of this Act? The Minister has been repeating over and over again that these sections have been agreed to by successive Fianna Fáil Governments.

I have not prepared myself to speak on this section but I am concerned about this. If my information is not correct the Minister can tell me in his reply. The Minister has said that many of the arguments we have been having are needless, pointless and useless, because these provisions were in the various Acts introduced by Fianna Fáil Ministers. That suggests to me that the Minister refuses to accept any new ideas or introduce any initiatives. The reason why there was less argument over previous Electoral (Amendment) Bills was that none of them was as drastic in the rearrangements and in the break-up of traditional county boundaries as this. Therefore, the Opposition of today have found it necessary to examine all these provisions in greater detail. I would ask the Minister to look at the operative date of the Act. I have been told that a constitutional provision is involved. If that is so, will the Minister say so?

Mr. Tully

The Deputy has been told the truth. Subarticle 4 of Article 16 of the Constitution lays down:

any alterations in the constituencies shall not take effect during the life of Dáil Éireann sitting when such revision is made.

That is the constitutional position and I want to keep within the constitution. Therefore, whether I like it or not there is nothing I can do about it.

Mr. Lemass

As I have stated, my notes were prepared in relation to section 7 but I did not get an opportunity of referring to that section.

Mr. Tully

I appreciate that and the Deputy did quite well on the section until Deputy Crowley interrupted.

Mr. R.P. Burke

This section states that the Electoral (Amendment) Act of 1969 is repealed. This Act when it came in in 1969 was the most abused piece of legislation ever introduced in the House. Many things were said against it here and in the newspapers, that it was a gerrymander operated by the Fianna Fáil administration to keep them in power ad infinitum but the democratic way in which the constituencies were divided in 1969 was reflected in the decision of the electorate in 1973. An Act under which Fianna Fáil had won a general election previously resulted in Fianna Fáil being put into Opposition and a new Government being elected in 1973.

If this Act which was much maligned in 1969 was as bad as was claimed by the then Opposition, the two parties now forming the temporary Government, Fianna Fáil would be in Government and the Coalition Parties would be on this side of the House fighting publicly instead of privately as they are at present. That Act had many good features.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not here to debate the 1969 Act. We cannot have a rehash of that Act.

Mr. R.P. Burke

This section refers to the Act of 1969 being repealed.

Mr. Crowley

If we cannot debate the 1969 Act what is the section about?

An Ceann Comhairle

What we are discussing now is the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1973. A passing reference to the 1969 Act would be in order but to go into it in depth or in detail would certainly not be in order.

Mr. R.P. Burke

Under the 1969 Act the people on the western seaboard were given fair representation with regard to and within the bounds of the decision of Mr. Justice Budd some years previously.

Mr. Tully

The Fianna Fáil Party took three seats off them.

Mr. R.P. Burke

The Minister, for reasons which are a massive political miscalculation, is reducing the representation for the people on the western seaboard and attempting and proposing to increase the Leinster representation, particularly the representation for Dublin city and county and adjoining counties.

An Ceann Comhairle

What the Deputy is referring to would be more appropriate to the Schedule.

Mr. R.P. Burke

I am relating what happened in 1969 under an Act passed by this House which was claimed to be the gerrymander of the century.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not in order to refer to the 1969 Act in any detail.

Mr. R.P. Burke

I am making a comparison between the 1969 Act and the Bill before the House. The 1969 Act resulted in Fianna Fáil winning one election and losing another. Surely that is an indication of how democratic that Act was. Constituencies were divided in such a way as to give the electorate the opportunity to change the Government if they wished. Under the new Bill the Minister is attempting to copperfasten the Coaltion but they will come apart without too much more time elapsing. I am anxious to make the comparison between the Dublin representation in 1969 which is referred to in section 8. That section talks of repealing the 1969 Act.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is purely a consequential amendment.

Mr. Crowley

Surely we are entitled to compare the 1969 Act with the Bill before the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

It would be in order to make a brief reference but it would not be in order to allow a rehash of the 1969 Act.

Mr. Crowley

We are not doing that; we are trying to draw a comparison.

Mr. R.P. Burke

We agree with one amendment suggested by the Minister, to increase the representation in this House from 144 Members to 148 Members.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is not relevant. The Deputy has been given a lot of latitude but he does not have the same scope under this section and he must appreciate that.

Mr. Crowley

I should like to ask for clarification of this point. The Ceann Comhairle, as a Member of this House, has strenuously debated on this side of the House and he must realise that we cannot discuss this section without referring to the 1969 Act.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have already ruled on that matter.

Mr. Crowley

It must also be taken into account that in the Act of 1969 provision was made for 144 Members but this Bill provides for 148 Members. Surely if Deputy Burke refers to the increased number of seats it is relevant to this section.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is not the occasion to deal with this.

Mr. Tully

This is a technical matter and the Deputy knows that perfectly well.

Mr. Lalor

The Minister will argue that the whole thing is a technical matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

On the matter of the numbers to be elected to this House this was disposed of in section 2 and it is not relevant to this section.

Mr. R.P. Burke

I should like to make a comparison between the 1969 Act and the present Bill. Under the 1969 Act there were 14 four-seat constituencies but in the 1973 Bill before us there are only ten such constituencies.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is quite irrelevant. It should be discussed on the Schedule but not on this section.

Mr. R.P. Burke

The Bill which was attacked viciously in 1969 by the Members of the then Opposition Parties who now occupy the Government side and which was attacked in the Press, on the radio and television as being a gerrymander resulted in two different Governments being elected, one Fianna Fáil and one Coalition.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is embarking on a Second Reading speech without any reference to section 8.

Mr. R.P. Burke

It is the repeal of the 1969 Act which I am talking about. I will accept your ruling and give way because I am sure there are other Deputies on this side of the House who would like to contribute to this gerrymander and this attempt to copperfacten the position of the Coalition Parties which cannot be done at the moment.

A Deputy

It will be on the record of the Coalition Parties they will be elected.

Mr. Lalor

The explanatory memorandum circulated with this Bill states that section 8 provides for the repeal of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1969, which specifies the existing constituencies. That should enable us to talk about the changes that are brought about by the Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973 in relation to the change in constituencies.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair must disagree. The Deputy will not that when we come to the Schedule there will be ample opportunity for debating the designation of the various constituencies. That is the proper time.

Mr. Lalor

I appreciate that when we come to the Schedule we take each constituency individually——

An Ceann Comhairle

And regionally, if the Deputy wishes.

Mr. Lalor

We can take in any region.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. Lalor

That will be useful. This is the only mention in the Bill before us of the fact that in order to bring this new Bill into operation it is necessary to repeal the 1969 Act. In the normal course an amendment is brought into the House which repeals a section or sections of an Act. There is a section built into this Bill which envisages the repealing of an entire measure.

Mr. Tully

That is not unique. I remember 11 Bills being repealed in one section of legislation before this House.

Mr. Crowley

The Minister was entitled to discuss them.

Mr. Tully

We were not. It was a formal thing that the Bills were being repealed.

Mr. Lalor

The Minister at that stage accepted that it was a good thing to do.

Mr. Tully

We accepted the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Crowley

The Minister agreed with the repealing of them. We do not agree with the repealing of this measure.

Mr. Lalor

I accept the ruling of the Chair at all times but I do not accept that the Minister for Local Government speaks on behalf of the Chair. The Bill we are discussing envisages the creation of a Dáil of 148 Members by comparision with 144 which we have at present.

An Ceann Comhairle

Again, I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy. I must remind him and the House that on section 2 the House decided and fixed that the number of Members in Dáil Éireann after the next dissolution would be 148. We cannot discuss it again. That matter has been resolved.

Mr. Lalor

We opposed it.

Mr. Tully

Do the Fianna Fáil Party not accept they were beaten?

An Ceann Comhairle

The matter has been accepted. We are now on section 8. That was on section 2. We cannot go back again to section 2. I am sure the Deputy appreciates that.

Mr. Lalor

I accept we are entitled to 148 Deputies and we are for that number.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy's party voted against it.

Mr. Lalor

We did because of the fact that in 25 counties——

Mr. Tully

It was decided there would be 148 Deputies but the Deputy's party voted against it. It is decided in the Schedule where they will go.

Mr. Lalor

It was decided in the 1969 Act, which we are now in the process of repealing, where the 144 Deputies went up to now. I am against the repeal of an Act which gave 25 counties one more Deputy than this 1973 Bill proposes to give.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is seeking once again to cover ground already covered under section 2 in regard to extra numbers to be elected to the House.

Mr. Lalor

We are opposed to this section. In the justification of our opposition to the repeal of the 1969 Act, I feel I am entitled to indicate to the House why we are in opposition to this section. The reason is that the Bill gives lesser representation to the vast numbers of electors in 25 counties of this Republic.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am afraid the Deputy has already had an opportunity of making these points on section 2, as I have already said. He will be afforded a further opportunity on the Schedule. This is not the appropriate section.

Mr. Crowley

On a point of order and for our guidance, as otherwise we will be in conflict constantly, how can you discuss the repealing of an Act without referring to its contents?

An Ceann Comhairle

I have already ruled on that.

Mr. Crowley

Perhaps for our guidance you would explain to us how we can discuss its repeal without referring to the contents of this measure?

An Ceann Comhairle

The amendment is purely a consequential one. There is not much meat in it for debate as such.

Mr. Crowley

I suppose, whether it is debatable or not, is a matter of opinion but we feel we cannot discuss the repeal of this measure without referring to its contents. I hope the Ceann Comhairle will help us in this.

A Deputy

He has already helped. He has ruled on it twice.

Mr. Lalor

I am rather worried about subsection (2) of this section which says that following the repealing of the 1969 Act "this section will come into operation on the dissolution of Dáil Éireann which next occurs after the passing of this Act". The Minister in his opening remarks on this section referred to a by-election. He indicated that one of the reasons for subsection (2) not coming into effect until after the dissolution of Dáil Éireann was to enable a by-election to be held in constituencies operating under the 1969 Act.

Mr. Tully

I do not follow the point of what the Deputy is saying.

Mr. Lalor

When the Ceann Comhairle called section 8 the Minister made a few remarks on it.

Mr. Tully

The 1969 Act and the present constituencies will continue in force for by-elections and so on up to the dissolution of the Dáil. Is that what the Deputy is referring to?

Mr. Lalor

Yes. I accept that. We are discussing this Bill in the light of the fact that even thought we pass today, next week or next session, this particular Electoral Bill, and, despite the fact we have already passed section 2 of it, the 1969 Act, which we are now being asked to repeal, will still remain law during the lifetime of the present Dáil.

Mr. Tully

The Constitution says that, not I.

Mr. Lalor

Does that mean the Minister disagrees with the Constitution?

Mr. Tully

No. I referred to it earlier. I read out the position as it was. It is a fact of life.

Mr. Lalor

It is a fact but it only operates in relation to by-elections.

Mr. McMahon

There is nothing in this about that.

Mr. Lalor

Were it not for the 1969 Electoral Act Deputy McMahon would not be in the House at all.

Mr. McMahon

The man who introduced it is out with you.

An Ceann Comhairle

Here again we have irrelevancies.

Mr. McMahon

There is a lot of talk about the 1969 Act but I notice the man's name has never been mentioned.

Mr. Lalor

I have spoken all the time about the man, about the Minister for Local Government in 1969.

Mr. McMahon

Name him.

Mr. Lalor

The former Deputy Boland. He was the man responsible for this Act.

Mr. McMahon

You seem to shy away from the name. I meet him practically every week.

Mr. Lalor

The Deputy must meet him in a most pleasant manner because he is indebted to him for the seat he now occupies.

Mr. McMahon

And he is indebted to me for taking it.

Mr. Lalor

And the Deputy is indebted now to the present Minister for Local Government for arranging a situation in which he will lose it.

Mr. McMahon

And he helped me to win it.

Mr. Lalor

I agree.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would ask Deputies to deal with the section before the House—Section 8.

Mr. Lalor

I have deliberately avoided using ex-Deputy Boland's name because he is not in a position to comment here in the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

We should not indulge in personalities especially in respect of a person who is not in the House to defend himself.

Mr. Tully

He does not need Deputy Lalor to defend him.

Mr. Lalor

I accept that. He is quite capable of defending himself. I do not want to make any remarks at all about the man. Every Member on this side of the House worked earnestly towards supporting the Bill in 1969 and seeing to in that it functioned properly.

Mr. McMahon

I would not be too sure of that.

Mr. Lalor

All the evidence we have had up to now, the non-support that has come from the back-up service for the present Minister for Local Government——

Mr. O'Brien

We are quite happy.

Mr. McMahon

We are quite happy.

Mr. Lalor

This is the first indication we have had from the back benches on the Government side that you are happy and you are only speaking on behalf of two.

Mr. Enright

I am very happy.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Lalor did not open his mouth on the last Bill nor did anybody in Fianna Fáil. There was the odd interruption and that was all. It was the very same as it is now. This is a matter for the Minister for Local Government and the people who are attempting to hold up the Bill.

Mr. Lalor

I am on record as saying that we are totally opposed to this Bill. We make no bones about that. We still support the 1969 Act which this section proposes to repeal. All our efforts have been concentrated on opposing this Bill. On the last occasion when section 8 was reached the then Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde asked the then Minister for Local Government what the position would be if the Dáil dissolved before the passing of the Bill. The obvious answer was that we would operate the 1961 Electoral Act. Even if this Bill passes through the House and has not got to the Seanad when the present Dáil dissolves we will be operating the 1969 Act. We are totally opposed to this Bill and will do our utmost to prevent its being passed. We are doing our utmost to prevent the Bill being passed.

Mr. Tully

If you were, you would have been able to get people in this morning to back up what you were saying and you could not. On two occasions you got an opportunity to out-vote us if you were able to get your people in. You are not doing your utmost; you are filibustering and you are entitled to do that up to a certain point.

Mr. Lalor

The Minister has introduced an extraneous point. When the Government Whip came into this House and instructed the Minister to put in the guillotine motion——

Mr. Tully

No.

Mr. Lalor

——he was giving him that instruction having counted heads so that there would be sufficient feet to ensure that the section would be passed if we put the question to a vote. The Minister was not in a position to introduce the guillotine motion until the Government Whip instructed him, having counted the heads.

Mr. Tully

I could not do so. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle was in the Chair. As soon as the Ceann Comhairle came in I took the first opportunity I got.

Mr. Lalor

The Minister had contemplated using the guillotine——

Mr. Tully

On section 8.

Mr. Lalor

I do not think section 8 could possibly be debated between now and 2.30. The four lines in section 8 cover a very wide area. They cover the wiping out of almost all constituencies. I was quite happy with my constituency and still am. Therefore, I had no reason to speak in 1969. The peculiar thing is that while some people on that side of the House are saying nothing in the House I know there are some of them very concerned outside of it.

Mr. Tully

Do they vote?

Mr. Lalor

They obey the Whip. There had to be a very late sitting outside this House last night because of the difficulty the Government were having——

Mr. Tully

We kept a House all night.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Section 8.

Mr. Lalor

I have been on section 8 all the time except when red herrings were drawn across the trail by the Minister and some of his vociferous backbenchers. What I am saying is that under section 8 it appears that if for any reason the rifts which exist within the Government Party surface and this Dáil is dissolved——

An Leas-Cheann Chomhairle

Section 8 deals with the repeal of the 1969 Act.

Mr. Lalor

But it also deals with the dissolution of the Dáil.

Mr. Enright

You would be terrified of a dissolution.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Moore

The Deputy would not be so happy himself.

Mr. Enright

I am very happy.

Mr. Crowley

Talk to the farmers about the proposed wealth tax and see how happy you will be.

Mr. Tully

Do you object to taxing wealthy people?

Mr. Crowley

Ask your colleagues in the Fine Gael Party do they object to it.

An Leas-Cheann Chomhairle

It is the Electoral Bill we are discussing.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Lalor

This Bill which we are discussing——

Mr. Tully

You are only helping him.

Mr. Lalor

It is extraordinary how the Minister for Local Government can see the mote in the other fellow's eye but cannot see the beam in his own. He is telling his backbenchers that they are giving me a hand but does not appreciate the fact that he is being most helpful all through the debate.

Mr. Tully

I was going to send a few notes over to you.

Mr. Lalor

That would only lead me astray. Unfortunately, Deputy Enright is leaving the House. I would not advise him to leave because we might be calling a House. The Deputy did say that I was afraid that there might be a dissolution——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not concerned with the dissolution of the Dáil. We are only concerned——

Mr. Lalor

We are very concerned because it is in the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It says that it will come into operation.

Mr. Lalor

Does that mean that we cannot discuss this Bill until the next Dáil assembles?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with section 8.

Mr. Lalor

Basically, the present Dáil will not be affected by this Bill at all except in so far as by-elections arise. By-elections between now and the dissolution of the Dáil will be conducted under the 1969 Act and, therefore, it is extremely difficult properly to discuss this section without referring to the dissolution of the Dáil which I think is reasonably imminent. I am anxious to ask the Minister if there is any order he can make which would provide for the election of 148 Deputies, as provided for in section 2 to the new Dáil, in the event of the Dáil dissolving before this Bill becomes law.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Lalor.

Mr. Tully

I thought Deputy Lalor had concluded.

Mr. Lalor

Sorry, I shall give way to the Minister if he has something useful to say.

Mr. Tully

I think the Leas-Cheann Comhairle made a mistake. I was on my feet when the count was called. I shall be very brief. One of the things that amazes me is that those on the opposite side of the House do not seem to know the facts of Parliamentary life. I do not mind Deputy Burke who is only new here and I do not blame him too much: he will learn from his father who was fairly good at this sort of thing but people who have been here so long should know the facts of life. The facts are that the Constitution lays down that following the last census the constituencies have to be changed. It also lays down that we should have a certain number of Members, not 144. That being so, we must repeal the 1969 Act whether we or Fianna Fáil like it.

Mr. Crowley

It is extraordinary that the Minister can refer to the number of seats in the old Act and we are not allowed to refer to it.

Mr. Tully

That is not fair to the Chair.

Mr. Crowley

The Minister has just referred to it and we have been prohibited from doing so.

Mr. Tully

I am making it relevant and when the Deputy is as long here as I am he will be able to make it relevant also. However, he is coming on; he is not a bad fellow.

Mr. Crowley

I admit the Minister is a master at his job.

Mr. Tully

This whole operation is purely a technical change which must be made under the Constitution. I thought I had explained in reply to Deputy Lemass that whether we like it or not we cannot hold by-elections under the new Act.

Mr. Crowley

Everybody knows that.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Lemass did not know it until the Deputy told him. Deputy Lalor repeated almost exactly the same thing when queried if an order could be made allowing for 148 seats without passing the Bill.

Mr. Crowley

He was drawing a comparison between by-elections and general elections.

Mr. Tully

He was drawing a foolish comparison because the Constitution says how it should be done. I do not mind new Members not knowing the facts of political life but I am eternally amazed at the comments of former Ministers. They did not do much study on the electoral laws while they were Ministers. I do not know what they were doing because they have nothing to show for their time.

Mr. Crowley

That is most unfair.

Mr. R.P. Burke

The Minister should look at the record of his front bench. He brought in some legislation but what did the rest do?

Mr. Tully

We have introduced 40 Bills in the past 12 months.

Mr. R.P. Burke

The Minister should look at some of them. When are we going to get the Second Stage of the Mining Bill?

Mr. Tully

The House will get it very quickly. We have a Planning Bill and an Environment Bill and we are interested in all of them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies should cease interruptions and discuss the Electoral Bill.

Mr. Kavanagh

We will bring in a Planning Bill and a Mining Bill.

Mr. Tully

What we are discussing is a procedural section that must be included. It shows that Fianna Fáil as an Opposition do not understand how things should be done. They spend hours attempting to discuss something that must be put into the Bill. If they want to object to the Bill or vote against it they are perfectly entitled to do so. They have had two opportunities already this morning to vote against the Bill and they did not take them.

Mr. R.P. Burke

The Minister has put a guillotine on the Bill.

Mr. Tully

Because of the poor attempt to filibuster. When section 7 was being put they pretended not to hear because they did not want to vote on it.

Mr. R.P. Burke

We did not hear because of the noise.

Mr. Tully

I will give the Opposition the third opportunity today. I will sit down and if they have the guts they can vote against the Bill.

Mr. R.P. Burke

The Minister made an interesting point about the necessity for the section and the Bill because of a constitutional implication. The Minister referred to the Constitution and I should like to refer to a few matters regarding the necessity for this legislation. Section 8 is a repeal of the 1969 Act. How the 1969 Act and this measure were drawn up is related to particular directions in the clauses of the Constitution.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not going to discuss the Constitution or the 1969 Act.

Mr. Crowley

On a point of order, the Electoral Act of 1969 will be repealed by section 8. We cannot refer to that Act without reference to the Constitution because by-elections are excluded. Therefore, discussion on the Constitution is relevant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Discussion on the Constitution is not relevant.

Mr. Crowley

I realise that discussion of the entire Constitution may not be relevant but as section 8 seeks to repeal the 1969 Act——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All that is stated here is that an Act is being repealed. Discussion of the Constitution is not relevant.

Mr. Crowley

With the exception of the constitutional requirement which is that by-elections are exempt.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not say any such thing in the section, either in subsections (1) or (2).

Mr. Crowley

It does in the previous Act.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not concerned with that.

Mr. Crowley

I should like the guidance of the Chair on this matter before we proceed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As the Deputy knows, this section is a mere formality.

Mr. Crowley

That may be so, but nevertheless we are entitled to debate here whether it is a formality. We are entitled to debate what is contained in the repeal of the Act.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is aware that if this Bill is to become law the old Act must be repealed when the new measure comes into operation. We cannot have a Second Reading discussion on Committee Stage.

Mr. Crowley

We had this argument with the Ceann Comhairle and I thought he conceded to us. He allowed the Minister to refer to the fact that there were 144 Deputies mentioned in the 1969 Act. Therefore, we would be entitled to refer to the 148 Members mentioned in the new legislation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is concerned only with section 8 (1) and (2) and has given the reasons why we will not discuss at the moment the Constitution or the 1969 Act.

Mr. Moore

This is the most important section in the Bill. What would happen if it were not adopted?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Burke was offering and the Chair pointed out to him that discussion of the Constitution or the 1969 Act would not be permitted.

Mr. Crowley

I do not want to hold up the proceedings but I am genuinely puzzled by the attitude of the Chair. I cannot see how we can discuss the repeal of the Act without (a) referring to the Act itself (b) referring to the Constitution in relation to by-elections and (c) referring to the number of Members.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is aware that the number of Members has been dealt with in section 2.

Mr. Crowley

How can we discuss section 8 without referring directly to the three points I have made?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has already pointed out that this section is a mere formality.

Mr. Crowley

It is more than a formality; it is the nub of the Bill. If this section is passed, practically the whole Bill is passed because by the repeal of the 1969 Act this measure will be brought into law——

Mr. Tully

That is not so.

Mr. Crowley

The Minister is long enough in the House to know that what I have said is correct.

Mr. Tully

It does not become law until it has received the President's signature.

Mr. Moore

It will, eventually.

Mr. Crowley

The Minister is now talking about constitutional matters.

Mr. Tully

It is a constitutional matter.

Mr. Crowley

We were told we could not refer to such matters.

Mr. R.P. Burke

I had not intended referring to the entire Constitution. I was referring only to Article 16 which provides for the election of Members from constituencies whose boundaries shall be determined by law. This is the law we are talking about here and the repeal of the 1969 Act.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When we come to deal with the Schedule the Deputy may make all his relevant arguments.

Mr. R.P. Burke

We are debating repeal of the 1969 Act. We are trying to show that when that measure was introduced it was attacked by the then Opposition but it resulted later in a change of Government in a democratic way. We are saying that a Bill replacing the 1969 Act will try to copperfasten a situation in which the Coalition parties, which form the Government today——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy had an opportunity of making that point on the Second Stage of the Bill. It is not relevant on Committee Stage.

Mr. R.P. Burke

As Deputy Moore said, the nub of it is that, if you knock the 1969 Act, then you might as well say the 1973 Bill is in, except for the constitutional qualification. I think we should test this particular section. It is unfortunate the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has decided we cannot debate the section in the way in which we would like to debate it. I accept the Chair's ruling, of course. The Chair is always very fair, but it is unfortunate that we will not have an opportunity of debating national averages and so on, which would be relevant to the 1969 Act and the 1973 Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy had that opportunity on the Second Stage.

Mr. R.P. Burke

There is very little for me to say now other than that I sympathise with the comments made by Deputy Lemass.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure the Deputy will make many comments yet on the Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. R.P. Burke

This section will result in massive changes in particular constituencies and the problems involved——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may debate that when we come to the Schedule.

Mr. R.P. Burke

I was about to make a general comment on subsections (1) and (2). This will pose a problem for political organisations. There was a hall mentioned—I think it was called "Tully's Tabernacle"—by Deputy Lemass. The hall was situated in one part of the constituency but the funds coming into it were coming from another part of the constituency. The provision in the Constitution specifies 12 years. We now have the problem of doing it more often because of the population changes and the massive growth——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These general comments would have been appropriate on the Second Stage.

Mr. R.P. Burke

I accept the Chair's ruling. I think we should press this section to a vote. The 1969 Act was democratic. It was a perfect piece of legislation under which two elections were held.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Burke on section 8 now.

Mr. R.P. Burke

I am talking about the 1969 Act under which there were two elections. The second election resulted in a change of Government. Surely that was the hallmark of perfect legislation. I hope we will be able to say the same about this legislation in the future despite the efforts of the Minister.

Mr. Moore

I am perturbed by the downgrading in this section. That was particularly obvious in the Minister's contribution. This is supposed to be the keystone of a democratic measure. If it is not passed the old legislation will stand and, as Deputy Burke pointed out, the 1969 Act resulted eventually in a change of Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We may not discuss the 1969 Act now.

Mr. Moore

I confess I am a bit confused because there is a reference to it here: "The Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1969, is hereby repealed". The side note reads: "Repeal. 1969, No. 3."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is a skilled parliamentarian and he should know that it is a question of procedure.

Mr. Moore

I regard that as a downgrading of the section. If it were merely procedural there could not be the power there is in this section. The section has tremendous power for good or ill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will agree that section 2 has already been passed by the House.

Mr. Moore

This section then should have been embodied in section 2. In fact that has not been done. I bow to the Minister's superior experience in these matters, but I believe we must give this section a full debate in order to prove that it is a very important section. Without it the Bill would not be effective. We must discuss the section and all its implications. There is the possibility that it might result in a change of Government. Naturally we would welcome that. In four or five years' time, as it stands, it could result in another change of Government. It has tremendous force. It is not a formal thing. This is one of the greatest catalysts of democracy because it underlies the whole Bill. We must examine it word by word to ensure that this most important section is given all the attention it deserves.

Mr. Tully

Before a vote is called, may I make it quite clear that, whether we like it or not, the 1969 Act must be repealed? That is the fact. It is contrary to the Constitution.

Mr. R.P. Burke

The Minister is not allowed to discuss the Constitution.

Mr. Tully

I am not discussing the Constitution. The 1969 Act must be repealed because of population changes and, therefore, whether Deputies like it or not, they must agree to change. Could they not be sensible and accept that there must be change? They are sensible men but they are making themselves look a little bit ridiculous now before the public. I hate to see politicians doing that.

Mr. Crowley

We appreciate the Minister's concern for our interests.

Mr. Tully

We must repeal the 1969 Act. Once that is accepted, as it appears to be accepted by the Opposition, why all the delay? If Deputy Crowley does not agree with this why does he not call for the vote they are talking about over there?

Mr. Crowley

Is the Minister suggesting that just because we do not agree with some things we should go into the lobby?

Mr. Tully

The Opposition have accepted that there must be change.

Mr. Crowley

Are we not entitled to debate the matter? The Minister is Minister for Local Government. He is neither Ceann Comhairle nor Leas-Cheann Comhairle and he cannot direct the debate. As the Minister rightly said, this section is the nub of the Bill.

Mr. Tully

Who said that?

Mr. Crowley

The Minister said it.

Mr. Tully

I certainly did not.

Mr. Crowley

He said this was necessary.

Mr. Tully

Necessary, yes, but not that this is the nub of the Bill.

Mr. Crowley

I say it is the nub of the Bill and the new Bill cannot come into existence without the repeal under section 8.

Mr. Kavanagh

It is only a formality.

Mr. Crowley

We disagree with the spirit and the endeavour of the 1973 Bill because it is a blatant attempt at gerrymandering and copperfastening——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have a Second Reading speech on this section.

Mr. Lalor

That is the first time the word "gerrymander" was mentioned in the last ten minutes.

Mr. Crowley

Nevertheless, I feel that the 1969 Electoral (Amendment) Act was proved to be a fair and honest——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have a discussion on the 1969 Act. It might have been relevant if the Deputy had wanted to deal with it on Second Reading but not in Committee.

Mr. Crowley

I find myself in the position——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The contents of the 1969 Act or its effects are not open for discussion.

Mr. Crowley

Its repeal is up for discussion. Therefore, we are discussing the repeal of the 1969 Act. I am at a loss to know how we can discuss it without mentioning it.

Mr. Kavanagh

One Member of the Opposition will not accept the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Crowley

If Deputy Kavanagh kept quiet we might hear the Chair's ruling.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The limits imposed by the 1969 Act are not subject to discussion on this section which is, in the opinion of the Chair, a procedural section.

Mr. Crowley

I accept the ruling of the Chair that it is a procedural section, but because it is a procedural section we are entitled to debate it in this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is trying to invite the Chair to enter into discussion.

Mr. Crowley

I am genuinely confused about how I can debate the section without referring to the Act itself, without referring to the Act which is to replace it and, merely in passing, to refer to the changes in it. This is a fundamental act of democracy: if we cannot have elections we cannot have democracy. Section 8 is fundamental to the whole democratic set-up of the country. One side's interpretation could be entirely different from the other. Nevertheless,——

Mr. Tully

They cannot be different. We both agree on this and that is why I cannot understand why it is being debated.

Mr. Crowley

Perhaps we are not getting through to the Minister but the reason we want to debate it as much as possible is because we are in agreement with the 1969 Act and do not want it repealed.

Mr. Tully

This cannot be. It is contrary to the Constitution.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The position as far as the Chair is concerned is that the House has dealt with section 2. Having dealt with this section and got it through——

Mr. Crowley

I realise that. I know the line is very fine when one is debating it but the Minister referred to the Constitution on several occasions. All the citizens of the nation should be cherished equally. The Minister has endeavoured by this section to ensure that a considerable number of those people are not being cherished as equally as, say, the people in Dublin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This speech would be more appropriate to the Second Reading.

Mr. Crowley

I know that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is probably in the same dilemma as I but I am so fundamentally opposed to the repealing of this Act that I cannot let it go without debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is concerned with keeping within the rules of the House. I do not want to inhibit anybody.

Mr. Crowley

As far as I can interpret the ruling of the Chair, and I do not doubt for one moment the bona fides of the Chair in the matter, in essence what he is saying is that we cannot debate it but must meekly accept it and go into the lobby and vote for it or against it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is a limited debate on the section.

Mr. Crowley

In this section, according to the ruling of the Chair, there can be no debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is not saying that.

Mr. Crowley

My interpretation of what the Chair said is that we cannot discuss the 1969 Electoral (Amendment) Act. Neither can we discuss its repeal nor the Act which is replacing it. How does one refer to section 8 and debate it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair stated clearly that the 1969 Act is not for discussion at the moment.

Mr. Crowley

But its repeal is.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, this procedural section is before the House at the moment.

Mr. Crowley

How can one discuss the repeal of an Act without discussing the Act or referring to the Act?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is proving his skill as a parliamentarian at the present time because he knows that this speech would have been appropriate on Second Reading. As he knows from the procedure of the House the other effects will fall to be dealt with when other sections and the Schedule are discussed.

Mr. Crowley

We find ourselves in a dilemma. Some of us who waited here for a considerable length of time to make a contribution in this debate found ourselves guillotined out of debating. The Chair may say that at certain times we will get an opportunity of debating the ramifications of section 8 but there is no guarantee of that. Therefore, we must take any opportunity which is presented to us of——

Mr. Tully

Deputies have five, six, seven or eight hours to debate anything which comes before the House.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Crowley, please.

Mr. Crowley

I was here almost all the time.

Mr. Kavanagh

The Deputy was not.

Mr. Moore

The Deputy is a very sensitive person and feels barbs.

Mr. Tully

I thought Deputy Moore said he was a sensible person.

Mr. Crowley

The Minister is very sensitive to his duties as a Deputy which——

Mr. Tully

I do not appreciate that. Does the Deputy realise how unimportant this is——

Mr. R.P. Burke

How can the Minister bring in a Bill and then say it is not important?

Mr. Crowley

I am astonished to hear the Minister say that section 8 is not important.

Mr. Lalor

Would the Minister care to withdraw the section?

Mr. Crowley

If the section is so unimportant, so harmless and so useless, I will sit down and let the Minister withdraw it.

Mr. R.P. Burke

As the Minister said, there is no point in putting in sections which are no good and do no harm. He told us that when we discussed the amendment on section 7.

Mr. Tully

It is a very necessary amendment but it is not important enough to spend hours debating it. The Deputy probably cannot find any more to say about it.

Mr. Crowley

I can find a lot to say about it but I appear to have been put in a straitjacket by the Chair by not being allowed even to refer to the Act. We are repealing something, we cannot refer to it and we have no guarantee that at a later stage we will be allowed to debate it because of the jackboot tactics by the Government. When we get an opportunity we are informed that we are constricted in the way in which we can discuss it.

We were in favour of the 1969 Act and in agreement with the increase of four seats which was required by the Constitution because of the population. We disagreed with the distribution of the seats. The 1973 Act which would replace the 1969 Act, would ensure that this becomes law after the passing of this Bill. Yet, on such a fundamental issue, we seem to be debarred from voicing our stronger opinions.

Section 8 may be referred to as a procedural section and nothing else. Nevertheless, this mere bit of procedure is fundamental to the Bill. This is the reason why we want to debate it, why we intend to oppose it, and why we intend to expose as much as possible every section and every line of every section for what they really are and the spirit and the views behind the Bill which are to copperfasten the Government in power ad infinitum. If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle feels that I cannot go into the merits of the Bill, the new one or the old one, there is not very much left for us to say except that we oppose section 8 and intend to vote against it.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá: 57; Níl: 48.

Tá

• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Dick.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Burke, Liam.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Creed, Donal.
• Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Enright, Thomas.
• Esmonde, John G.
• Finn, Martin.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Patrick.
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Keating, Justin.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Henry.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, John J.
• Spring, Dan.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Toal, Brendan.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.

Níl

• Ahern, Liam.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, Seán.
• Brugha, Ruairí.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colley, George.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• Flanagan, Seán.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Kenneally, William.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Leonard, James.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Moore, Seán.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Power, Patrick.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 9.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Tully

This is another formal section and we should not have any delay in dealing with it. It can be dealt with very quickly.

Mr. Lalor

The Minister has described this section as another formal one but in my view it is an extremely important one because subsection (2) envelops this proposed Bill into all of the Electoral Acts from 1923 to 1973. It has the effect of throwing open for discussion all of the Electoral Acts from 1923 to 1973.

An Ceann Comhairle

I beg to differ with the Deputy. That would be a very false assumption. This section deals merely with the Short Title to the Bill.

Mr. Lalor

I accept that section 9 (1) has the effect of giving the Short Title to an Act to provide for the number of Members to Dáil Éireann and the revision of constituencies which amends a law passed in 1969. I take it that when dealing with a section which is concerned with the Short Title a discussion on the Long Title is relevant.

An Ceann Comhairle

No. We will come to the Long Title after the Schedule has been dealt with.

Mr. Lalor

Subsection (2) of this section states:

This Act and the Electoral Acts, 1923 to 1973, shall be construed together as one Act and that collective citation shall include this Act.

This worries me in so far as we have already discovered that section 7 does not give the Minister the same powers as the 1963 Act.

Mr. Tully

That is not correct.

Mr. Lalor

The Minister indicated already that he finds that the powers he has under section 7——

Mr. Tully

Are the same as in the previous Act.

Mr. Lalor

——are not as comprehensive in a temporary way as the power given to him under the 1963 Act. I was wondering if this subsection solves the problem on the Minister's behalf.

Mr. Tully

I will take suggestions from the Deputy if he has any to offer which may improve the section.

Mr. Lalor

The Minister accepted that he had not the power he would like to have under section 7 and I was anxious to present him with more power than he was seeking under this collective citation whereby we have the Electoral (Amendment) Act becoming part and parcel of the collective citation.

An Ceann Comhairle

I should like to place on record the fact that this section, section 9, deals with the short title, construction and collective citation. It is not permissible for the Deputy to refer to other sections in this Bill under this section. This has been a long tradition in this House. Most of what the Deputy has been adverting to is quite irrelevant and it is very difficult to relate what he has been saying to the section.

Mr. Lalor

Subsection (2) states that the Act and the Electoral Acts, 1923 to 1973, shall be construed together as one Act and that collective citation shall include this Act.

Mr. Tully

There is a perfectly good reason for that and I will give that to the Deputy next week.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.