Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Apr 1974

Vol. 271 No. 9

Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973: Allocation of Time.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kelly)

I move:

That in the case of the Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973 the remaining Stages of the Bill shall be proceeded with as follows:

(a) The proceedings on the Committee Stage (resumed) of the Bill if not previously concluded shall be brought to conclusion at 8.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 2nd April, 1974 by putting from the Chair forthwith and successively any Questions necessary to bring the proceedings to conclusion. Provided that after the said hour on that day no Question shall be put from the Chair on any amendment save an amendment put down by a Member of the Government and the Question on such an amendment shall be in the form, That the amendment be made; and after the appointed time notwithstanding the Instruction of 19th February 1974 to the Committee the Question to be put from the Chair to bring the proceedings on the Committee Stage of the Bill forthwith to conclusion shall be (as the case may require) That the Section/the Sections (as amended, if amendments have been made) stand part of and that the Schedule (as amended, if amendments have been made) and the Title be the Schedule and the Title to the Bill.

(b) The Fourth Stage of the Bill shall be proceeded with immediately upon the conclusion of the Committee Stage and the Proceedings on that Stage if not previously concluded shall be brought to conclusion at 9.30 p.m. on that day by putting from the Chair the Questions necessary to bring the proceedings to conclusion; and after the appointed time no Question shall be put from the Chair on any amendment save an amendment put down by a Member of the Government and the Question on such an amendment shall be in the form. That the amendment be made.

(c) The Fifth Stage of the Bill shall be proceeded with immediately upon the conclusion of the Fourth Stage and the proceedings on that Stage if not previously concluded shall be brought to conclusion at 10.15 p.m. on that day by putting from the Chair forthwith the Questions necessary to bring the proceedings to conclusion; and after the appointed time no Question shall be put from the Chair on any amendment save an amendment put down by a Member of the Government and the Question on such an amendment shall be in the form, "That the amendment be made".

I should like to say a few words in support of this motion in reply to the many things that were said by the Minister for Local Government over the past weeks and I may, perhaps, be allowed to begin by adverting to something the Leader of the Opposition said here last week: he said he could see no urgency in this Bill and, in particular, he said that there was no whitewashing to be done because there did not seem to be much legislation lined up behind it.

The present situation is that there are six Bills before the House in one shape or another, ready for processing, as Deputy Lenihan used to say. They are the Trade Union (Amalgamations) Bill; the Control of Importation, Sale and Manufacture of Contraceptives Bill; the Food Standards Bill and the Finance (Taxation of Profits of Certain Mines) Bill. All these Bills will be ready after the Easter Recess for Second Stage. There are two further Bills—the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Bill and the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill—the Second Stages of which have been passed and they are now ready for Committee Stage. I do not need to tell the House that the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill is a very long piece of work. For the Committee Stage the Opposition have put down a large number of amendments and we can anticipate several days will be occupied on this debate.

In addition to that, the Finance Bill and the Social Welfare Bill are routine pieces of legislation which follow the budget. I am sure the House will agree with me that in that list of eight Bills we will have more than enough to keep the House occupied flat out until the end of July. That is a fair load of work and I hope that that recital will sufficiently rebut what the Leader of the Opposition said here and implied and which, of course, has been faithfully echoed by the unthinking Press over the past months.

Deputies

Oh!

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Kelly

In regard to an allegation of insufficient legislation, the fact is that in the 12 months subsequent to the election of Deputy Cosgrave as Taoiseach this House passed 40 Bills. That compares with an annual average number of Bills passed by the Oireachtas in the ten preceding years of 32. That is a record for which there is no need to apologise.

Mr. Haughey

On a point of order, the Parliamentary Secretary has moved Motion No. 4. Is he relevant, in moving that motion, in indulging in this political diatribe?

An Ceann Comhairle

He may make a speech.

Mr. Haughey

But is it relevant to the motion?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will decide that. The mover is entitled to make a speech. That is the usual procedure. He is entitled to make his case.

Mr. Haughey

This is a political diatribe.

Mr. Kelly

Everything I have said in the last five minutes has been provoked by the implications in what the Leader of the Opposition said last week. Had he not made them I would now have been that much further on.

Mr. Cunningham

On what?

Mr. Kelly

This debate has some features to which I wish now to draw the attention of the House. I hope everyone will listen carefully because this is the background against which this "Allocation of Time" motion is set. The account of the time taken by the corresponding debate in 1968-69 based on a more accurate, I hope system of computation, not on columns in the debate but on the hours noted in the report, shows that we somewhat underestimated both in regard to the last Bill and in regard to the current Bill the number of hours spent. I will give the House now my best effort at producing a final figure for these two debates.

Mr. Cunningham

Forget it.

Mr. Kelly

In 1968-69 the entire Bill occupied about 48 hours.

Mr. Cunningham

And what about the three minutes?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Cunningham is repeatedly interrupting. He is disorderly.

Mr. Kelly

I will get back to the three minutes very soon. In 1973-74 the entire Bill from start to finish has so far occupied over 58 hours—that is the Bill with the corresponding purpose of the 1968-1969 Bill—and by the end of the day we will be well up to the 65 hour mark. That has been achieved—rather, it has been kept down to that—only after the application of pre-closures; in other words, it is no thanks to the Opposition if the figure is still as low as 58 hours. It is 58 hours after on three occasions a closure had to be applied. That contrast speaks for itself if one were to look at it as though one had all the time in the world at the beginning of the Committee Stage.

The Opposition have succeeded in wantonly and flagrantly wasting that much time before getting to the real guts of the Bill—at least, ostensibly getting to the guts of the Bill—because, in fact, although Deputy Molloy complained about this on the last occasion, Committee Stage speeches were persistently made and repetitiously made time and time again by the Opposition during the debate on the Second Reading.

The next point is that the sections at the beginning of the Bill, which, with the appropriate changes and references, which are not really material, are identical with those in the 1969 Act, passed in 1968-69 in a matter of minutes.

Mr. Molloy

Inept Opposition.

Mr. Kelly

There was nothing inept about Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan), the Fine Gael spokesman, or about Deputy Tully, the Labour spokesman, on that occasion.

Mr. Molloy

They did not do their homework. They were too lazy.

Mr. Meaney

They did not bring those qualities with them then to the other side of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. The Parliamentary Secretary, without interruption.

Mr. Kelly

We were a responsible Opposition. We knew our job and we did our job. Those sections, which anyone might have thought uncontroversial, such as the increase in the number of Deputies in the House corresponding with the increase in population occupied only a few minutes in 1969, but on this occasion occupied over 23 hours. That, too, speaks for itself.

Mr. Molloy

And still they are not right. The Minister has amendments now to improve the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Molloy must restrain himself. The Deputy will have his opportunity.

Mr. Kelly

The third point is the number of quorum bells rung during the course of this debate.

Mr. Colley

How relevant is that?

Mr. Kelly

It shows that the Opposition were not all that keen.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Kelly

We are not babies in here and we know what is meant by a quorum bell. Something like an hour and a half was wasted in the wanton calling of a House.

Mr. Power

Where was the Government Chief Whip because it is his duty to keep a House? Is the Government Chief Whip now trying to draw attention to his own ineptness?

Mr. Kelly

The quorum bells were sounded for the purpose of annoying the Government and wasting time. The last point I want to draw attention to is a conclusion which I was forced to after a conversation this day fortnight with the Opposition Whips. On that day on the Government's instruction I called on the Opposition Whips, Deputies Lalor and Browne, who received me with their usual courtesy, and I put to them a proposal that we might agree between both sides of the House a schedule for finishing before Easter this Bill, the budget and the Health regulations, which at that time I thought would have to be introduced.

Mr. Haughey

This is a litany of incompetence.

Mr. Kelly

I put this to the Opposition Whips. The Opposition Chief Whip was in collusion with the Leader of the Opposition and returned to say that my suggestion was not acceptable, that we could do what we liked about it but there was going to be no question of agreeing to a time schedule for the remainder of the business between then and Easter. I told the Opposition Chief Whip that the Government would be obliged to allot time for the finishing of this Bill but that the Government would consider extending the hours whether by means of sitting on Friday of last week or by longer sittings on a Wednesday or in any way he chose to suggest if that would be of any use to him. The Opposition Chief Whip may not have realised the inference he was inviting but he turned down that suggestion without hesitation.

The Opposition Chief Whip allowed me to conclude that the Opposition were not so much interested in having extra hours in which to debate the rights and wrongs of this Bill as in dragging this Bill out for as long as they could. An extra 15 or 20 hours might have been fitted in for this Bill between then and now but that was no good to the Opposition because they wanted to drag the Bill out until after the Easter and into the summer if possible.

Mr. Lemass

Are we about to have a general election? The Coalition must be bursting up because we are not in a hurry about this Bill.

Mr. Kelly

I want to ask the House to consider what the outlook is if this debate is not brought to an end today by the operation of the motion I am moving. There are still 19 Opposition amendments undecided. Discussion has begun on one amendment but there are still 19 to be decided. They are arranged in four groups and there is a fifth constituency, North Tipperary, which is not accommodated in any of these groups. In addition, there are 41 constituencies which have still not been voted on. Allowing for the overlaps, the possibility that an amendment if carried necessarily negatives the constituency, it still leaves us with a possible 52 divisions. A division occupies between 10 and 15 minutes and we saw here on Tuesday and Wednesday the Minister's opposite number is not above making us race up and down the steps twice in half an hour on effectively what is exactly the same issue.

Mr. Cunningham

That is democracy.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Kelly

My calculation is that at that rate of going if the Dáil reassembled on the 24th April and did no other business on Tuesdays and Wednesdays it would have some hope of completing the Committee Stage of this Bill by 22nd May.

Deputy Lalor, in his amendment, has suggested that we might finish the Committee Stage by an earlier date, I believe he suggested 8th May but that would be impossible at the present rate of progress. At the present rate of progress the Committee Stage could not be completed before 22nd May and the succeeding Stages, the Report and Final Stages, would be completed God knows when. I have to take literally what I hear from the Opposition spokesman on Local Government and I heard him say last week that the Opposition intended to fight this Bill line by line.

Mr. Molloy

Why should we give it to the Government on a plate?

Mr. Kelly

Deputy Molloy obliged this House to divide so that we would be able to establish the name of the Bill.

Mr. Colley

Does the Parliamentary Secretary want a rubber stamp or a jackboot?

Mr. Kelly

That is the approach of Deputy Molloy and it is against this background that I have to assume that if we were to allow this debate to go on it would meet with this kind of treatment all the way through. If that happened there would be no way by which the Government could decide when this debate should come to an end.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

I am calling Deputies on both sides of the House to Order.

Mr. Kelly

There would be no way the Government could decide when the debate would end and the Bills which I have described, none of which I hope will be put down as unimportant by the Opposition, would not be touched by June or mid-July. That is not an acceptable position. The Opposition have made a dog's dinner of this Bill from the beginning.

Mr. MacSharry

That is a good description of the Bill itself.

Mr. Kelly

It cannot be said that this Bill has not had an adequate discussion. Committee Stage speeches have been made on Second Stage and Second Stage speeches on Committee Stage. This Bill has been discussed up and down, in and out and enough is enough.

Mr. O'Malley

Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us another one tomorrow?

Mr. Lalor

I move amendment No. 1:

In paragraph (a) to delete "Tuesday 2nd April" and to insert "Wednesday 8th May" and to delete all words after "bring the proceedings to conclusion."; in paragraph (b) to delete all words after "bring the proceedings to conclusion;"; and in paragraph (c) to delete the words "on that day" and to insert "on 29th May 1974".

Unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach does not appear to have read my amendment. The situation is that the Government Whip was so busy doing his sums that he did not get around to seeing that we were making a reasonable offer to the Government in order to meet their time limit and enable us to be able to present the case as we want to. We have got a lecture from the Government Chief Whip in relation to this. It is remarkable that he comes into the House and tells us that the Bill must be put through the House by 10.30 p.m. in one breath and in another breath says that it would be impossible to complete the Committee Stage by the 8th May. That contradicts anything the Parliamentary Secretary has said in this regard.

The Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with and publicised a semiprivate conversation conducted in a friendly was between himself and my colleague and myself in my office. While the Parliamentary Secretary drew certain inferences from that conversation he did not explain to the House that when he came in and told us that the Government only intended taking the Electoral Bill, the budget and the budget debate I asked him what was happening in relation to the Anti-Discrimination Bill and the other Bills on the Order Paper. I asked why those Bills were being shelved because the contents of those Bills are important to the workers. We are more than anxious to see that those Bills are passed.

As an indication of the situation that exists at present within the two parties which make up the present Coalition Government, of the various blisters that are developing and difficulties that are arising there is this desperate urgency from the Government's point of view in putting this Bill through because it is obvious to them that the writing is on the wall and that they will be forced to go to the country shortly after the Easter Recess. Therefore, they want this Bill to go through before then.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Cluskey)

The Deputy has a sense of humour.

Mr. Lalor

That is what I describe as whistling past the graveyard.

Mr. Cluskey

But the party opposite are in the graveyard.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Lalor, without interruption.

Mr. Lalor

Last week we had the spectacle of the Taoiseach losing his temper in response to an interjection and an observation from the Leader of this party. In terms similar to what we have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, the Taoiseach went out of his way to tell us that when we had the opportunity we did not introduce a Bill of this kind. We had other business and we were aware that the Electoral (Amendment) Bill was not as important as that other business.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must be allowed speak without interruption.

Mr. Lalor

On Tuesday last the Taoiseach reminded us that the former Government had neglected to change the constituencies in a way that would bring them into line with the decision of the High Court and with the confirmation by the Supreme Court of that decision. We have the farcical situation whereby before that day was over and despite those strong words of the Taoiseach there was another constitutional requirement in respect of which the Taoiseach was not able to muster the support of his Party. Instead, he allowed the dog with the big tail from Mountmellick to wag the whole party.

Since the tail is wagging the dog in so far as this Government is concerned it is hardly surprising that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach should be so quick to make his dog's dinner comments. He knows that there are people in the back-benches of his own party who are making a dog's dinner of the National Coalition Government. It is because of this and because of the cracks that are appearing that we have the Parliamentary Secretary, acting on behalf of the Government, moving a motion to guillotine this Bill, a Bill that is of no great national importance. As the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, there are Bills of national importance being held up. The Government have held up these Bills until such time as they would have rammed through the Electoral (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. L. Belton

If as the Deputy alleges the Bill is of no great national importance, can he say why his party have spent so much time debating it—58 hours?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Lalor

The Bill is important from our point of view because in its own way it is an endeavour by the Coalition to create a dictatorship. It is remarkable that the Parliamentary Secretary should go to such lengths to draw comparisons between the time taken to debate the last Electoral (Amendment) Bill and the time being given to the present one. The fact that the present Government are sitting where they are is proof that the last Bill was extremely fair. That Bill went through in 46 or 48 hours' debating time.

I would draw the attention of the House to a piece of legislation which we introduced in 1971 but which was opposed vehemently and filibustered by the then Opposition. I refer to the Forcible Entry Act. At that time the Government did not consider the use of the guillotine until almost 100 hours of parliamentary time had been spent debating it. Much of that time was absorbed by the allegedly learned Deputy Dr. Cruise-O'Brien, now the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. While only 12 hours were spent discussing the Second Stage of that Bill 15 hours were spent on Committee Stage and 69 hours were spent on Report Stage. It was a very important and necessary piece of legislation. The Government of the day needed power to deal with a problem that had arisen. The effect of that legislation has been proved by the fact that to a great extent it has overcome the problem with which it was intended to deal. Might I say that the menace that had developed at that time had the full support of the two parties who now form what is alleged to be a responsible Government?

Mr. Crowley

The Act has not been rescinded.

Mr. Lalor

On that occasion the legislation was held up from early January until the 6th of August. It is unusual for the Dáil to sit during August but we were forced to do so in 1971 in order to have that Bill enacted. On this occasion we are dealing with a Bill which the Minister for Local Government introduced in March of last year but in respect of which the Second Stage debate did not begin until the 15th of November. Therefore, in effect, this Bill has been before the House since November 15th. We are now into April but there has not been an inordinate amount of discussion on the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach has indicated that on the occasion of the last Electoral (Amendment) Bill valuable contributions were made by Deputy Fitzpatrick, who is now the Minister for Lands. In relation to the opposition of the then Fine Gael spokesman on Local Government to our introducing a guillotine after about 69 hours of debate on Report Stage—this covered ten days of debate here—Deputy Fitzpatrick said that it was most undemocratic of the Government to prevent valuable discussion on Report Stage.

Today the Government have introduced a motion for a guillotine when we are discussing the Committee Stage of a Bill and at a stage when, to use the Parliamentary Secretary's words, we had not got to the guts of the Bill. I submit that there is no urgency about this legislation but that there is urgency in relation to other legislation but in respect of which, for some reason, the Government are reluctant to press forward. The Parliamentary Secretary has given us a list of the necessary legislation that is awaiting enactment. The Government order the business of the House and there is nothing to prevent them from giving precedence to that legislation instead of to the Bill now before us but the only reason they will not do that is because they are afraid of what is happening in the rear at present.

It is very wrong for the Government spokesman, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, to come into the House this afternoon and to convey the impression that the reason why necessary legislation has not been passed in this House is because the Opposition are holding up the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. I never heard such poppycock from Government benches as I heard during the quarter hour of the Parliamentary Secretary's contribution.

I do not want to hold up the House on this motion but I think it is necessary to point out that on the one hand the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach accuses the Press in this House of giving the wrong image—I do not know whether it is of him or the Government—and on the other hand he uses the Press to get across a message to the people that the reason why we have not had the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Bill, the Food and Standards Bill, which was circulated only last week, the Trade Union (Amalgamations) Bill and the Control of Importation, Sale and Manufacture of Contraceptives Bill is because Fianna Fáil were filibustering in relation to the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. This is the most ridiculous allegation I ever heard and, without trying to give too much offence to the Parliamentary Secretary, the most stupid contribution I have ever heard.

Mr. Molloy

I should like to record my utter dismay at the motion proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach. The decision of the Government to introduce this motion is a retrograde step. It is a serious reflection on Parliament, and parliamentary democracy in this country and cannot but rebound to the total discredit of the Government of the day. As the House and the community know well, the Electoral Bill is one which will lay down the pattern on which future elections will be held in this country. Obviously any observer of politics or any interested member of the community could not but agree that such a Bill is bound to be a very sensitive implement as far as politicians and persons involved in politics are concerned. It could not but have been expected of the Fianna Fáil Party in Opposition that they would examine the Minister's and the Government's proposals line by line, that they would examine them in a critical way and that, when the Bill came before this House, they would offer their considered criticism of the Government's proposals. We have been doing this and the Bill has been given a fairly thorough examination. The debate has not continued for a very long period. It has been progressing through the House.

It came as a great shock to me to find that this measure was to be adopted by the Government. We had come to the amendments which are down in my name on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party. These were placed in various groupings, a total of five. The amendments are very thorough and comprehensive and are a fair alternative to the proposals introduced by the Minister in his Bill. We expected that the least that could be offered to any Opposition Party would be an opportunity to debate in a frank and open way the proposals contained in our amendments to the Minister's Bill. We have shown the serious discrepancies in the Bill. We have shown the discriminatory aspects of it and the political manipulations afoot in it. The whole country are entitled to be suspicious of the motives behind a Government which bring such a measure before the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As the Deputy will appreciate, the subject matter of this debate is whether the remaining Stages of this Bill be concluded in the time set out in the motion before the House.

Mr. Molloy

I am well aware of what is contained in the proposals in the Parliamentary Secretary's motion.

Mr. Haughey

The Parliamentary Secretary was allowed to range very widely in his speech.

Mr. Molloy

The argument used in favour of this motion was that sufficient time had been given for the debate on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. We do not accept that is a true statement of fact. The Bill has only reached the Schedule in the last two days of the debate. We have disposed of our amendments where we suggested changes in relation to the Dublin area and the Wicklow, Wexford and Carlow-Kilkenny areas. The debate is coming to a conclusion, as the Minister well knows, in relation to the second group of amendments we had down in relation to the Cavan, Monaghan, Louth and Meath areas. We have more or less said what we wanted to say on those amendments. We have highlighted the discrimination in relation to those areas. We are anxious to move on to the set of amendments which deal with the western constituencies. After a full discussion on these amendments we would like time to be given to discuss proposals for new constituencies in the Munster area and our amendments in relation to this area.

It seems that because of the wording of this motion we are to be denied the opportunity to discuss all those areas, the amendments put down by us and the Minister's proposals in relation to those areas. The Minister knows there are many Deputies on this side of the House who are very interested in contributing to the debate as far as it relates to all of the constituencies in the western area from Donegal to Clare. He also knows that there are many Opposition Deputies who are anxious to contribute to the debate when the Munster area is being considered. It is a bit much to expect any Opposition to meekly accept such a guillotine motion as the one the Parliamentary Secretary introduced to completely cut further debate on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill.

We are entitled to examine the motives behind this and the reasons for this particular motion being brought before the House. It is a well-known fact that there is dissension among the Cabinet members and among the parties in the Coalition Government at the present time. This came to a head in recent weeks and particularly last week——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should keep to the motion.

Mr. Molloy

We are being told and have been told on numerous occasions that a Bill dealing with the availability of contraceptives was to come before the House——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not dealing with this subject.

Mr. Molloy

——and yet it has not been ordered for today's business. It has not been allowed.

Deputies

Chair.

Mr. Molloy

If it is urgent, as it was said, why are the Government running away from it? It is total hypocrisy——

Mr. Haughey

On a point of order.

The Parliamentary Secretary dealt at some length with the Government's legislative programme in proposing this motion. I suggest therefore that the speakers on this side of the House are fully entitled to deal with the Government's legislative programme by way of reply.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The subject matter of this debate is whether the remaining Stages of the Bill should be concluded in the time set out in the motion.

Mr. Haughey

Was the Parliamentary Secretary out of order in what he said?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Parliamentary Secretary was giving reasons as to why what is in the motion should be accepted he was in order. Deputy Molloy.

Mr. Haughey

If he was in order, then Deputy Molloy is in order.

Mr. Molloy

The Chair's reputation for fairness has been established before now; we would expect that it would continue to apply. The Parliamentary Secretary ranged over a series of legislative proposals which he said were waiting in the pipeline and which he indicated to the House were, in his opinion, being held up due to the debate on the Constituencies Bill. We refute his allegation totally. We invite him to bring forward those pieces of legislation which he says he is so anxious to bring forward, particularly the Contraceptives Bill, which we have not seen. The country and this House well know that this argument is completely spurious and is not based on any facts whatsoever.

The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that the discussion on the Constituencies Bill, 1968, was proceeded with without much delay, and he mentioned a debating time of 48 hours. If Deputies would like to go back and to examine the Opposition's contribution on that occasion to what they claimed then and since was a major piece of legislation, they will see that no debate whatsoever took place on the sections to the Bill, that the then Opposition, the Fine Gael and Labour Parties, were lax and lazy in the manner in which they carried out their responsibilities as an Opposition, and did not question or debate any of the sections of the Bill except for one brief reference to one of the sections. When the Committee Stage came before the House, the then Opposition had not put forward any amendments whatsoever to be discussed on Committee Stage. The House knows that that is normally the time for Opposition parties to put forward their amendments if they do not agree with the proposals in the Bill introduced by the Government. It is a well-known fact that the then Opposition, Fine Gael and Labour, were opposed to the 1968 Bill, and yet they did not take the time and the effort to prepare constructive criticisms by way of amendments to the Bill, because they were too lazy to do so.

I have prepared a comprehensive range of amendments to this Bill and —I mentioned this already and I do not want to labour it—anyone who tries to set down proper amendments which would comply with Constitutional requirements and the High Court's interpretation of that Constitution, cannot but agree that it is a mammoth task and that it involves many hours of hard work. Having gone to the trouble of showing up the weakness of the Government's proposals, the least one would expect in a parliamentary democracy is to be allowed to debate those amendments in this House, but we are being denied that opportunity today.

The major contribution from the Coalition parties when they were in Opposition and discussing the 1968 Constituencies Bill was to complain at Committee Stage, which went on for five days, that they did not have time to put down amendments between that and the Report Stage. The Minister gave then a further week, they having not availed of the time from which the Bill was circulated, to put down such amendments. They shirked the difficult task and made light criticisms without coming forward with positive alternatives. The alternatives we have suggested are fair, just and can be defended on any score. We would not quibble about certain minor changes, but the basic principles outlined in our proposals could stand the test of a true examination as to whether they were just or fair.

The Parliamentary Secretary deemed it an occasion today to compliment that lax, lazy, inefficient and inept Opposition which stood in this House in 1968 and made no effort to make alternative proposals to the then Minister's Constituencies Bill. It is the epitome of frustration for us to have to listen to that type of comment from a man who has the reputation of being the professorial type, who on occasions likes to lecture this House. Anyone who would state that one and a half hours of time were used up while quorums were being called, especially a man who is the Chief Whip of the Government Party, cannot but be the most naïve person ever to stand in a Parliament in any part of the world. The House knows that he himself, as Chief Whip, is responsible for ensuring that he has Government Deputies here to keep the House at all times. During the Committee Stage of this Bill there has been total silence on the part of the Government Deputies. Obviously an instruction has gone out——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is straying from the subject under debate.

Mr. Molloy

An instruction has gone out from the Government to their Deputies that they are not to contribute to the Constituencies Bill, that they must pass it as quickly as possible, as the time must be coming near when the people's patience with them is running out and when they will be forced to hold a general election. This is very much on the cards following the events of recent weeks and particularly of last week.

The Parliamentary Secretary complains that last week he was obliged to vote twice in this House. It was the first two votes that were taken on the Schedule to the Bill. One was a vote on an amendment which we proposed, and the other one was a vote on the Government's own proposal. If the Parliamentary Secretary is getting so lazy that he deems it a terrible inconvenience to have to go up those steps and through the lobbies here and cast his vote to pass legislation which he himself and his Government are bringing before the House, then he is reducing this House to a farce and very little heed should be paid to what he has been saying. He has done so much whingeing and crying here that one would think it more appropriate if he had been allowed to sit down with a lollypop or run away and lecture students elsewhere instead of coming in here and displaying the type of attitude he has displayed not only today but on a number of other occasions.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the Minister's Bill as a dog's dinner. Even though the Parliamentary Secretary has claimed that this Bill has been adequately debated, we have seen amendments circulated by the Minister over the past weekend which indicate clearly that this Bill is not in its proper and correct form yet, that the Government themselves are not even pleased with the Bill as they presented it originally. In page three, line 25, and in page three, lines 54 to 55, certain changes are proposed; in page six, in the second column of the entry relating to Dún Laoghaire, a minor adjustment is proposed; that is only a typist's error. However, the other two are quite substantial changes. The Government now come forward with a major amendment to the Schedule to the Bill which they say has been adequately debated. In page nine, in the second column of the entry relating to West Mayo, it is proposed to delete "Crossmolina North, Crossmolina South, Deel,", "Kilfian South," and "Lackan North,", and also to delete "Dalgan, Houndswood" and to substitute "Coonard, Dalgan, Hollymount, Houndswood, Kilcommon". If this amendment by the Minister is an important one—and we know the real political reasons why it has been brought forward——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not debate the amendment.

Mr. Molloy

I challenge the Minister to say there is any reason for that amendment other than protection for the Deputy behind him.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must leave the amendment aside.

Mr. Tully

In fact, it is the same as the Deputy's amendment.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister has made a change.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to get away from the amendment.

Mr. Molloy

I am sorry. With all the interruptions, I did not hear you.

Mr. Haughey

I did not hear Deputy Molloy's reason for the amendment.

Mr. Molloy

A guillotine motion is now proposed by the Government, and it is being suggested that this motion should be accepted by the House, that the Constituencies Bill has been debated adequately; yet we have an amendment brought forward by the Minister himself to a section in the Schedule which this House has not even debated yet. I think that is bringing things a bit too far, particularly when one realises that this amendment is designed specifically to ensure more votes for Deputy Henry Kenny than in the last election.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Molloy

I am trying to get at the truth and there is agitating——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is not agitating about the truth. The Chair is concerned about order in the House and has already indicated to the Deputy that the amendment which he is proceeding to talk about is not yet before the House.

Mr. Molloy

That is correct, and it will never come before the House and cannot be debated. That is the extraordinary situation that has developed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The position is that we have to stay with the subject of the motion and the amendment to it.

Mr. Haughey

The Parliamentary Secretary did not do so.

Mr. Crowley

He was allowed to range over a wide number of subjects and the spokesman for Fianna Fáil on Local Government should be allowed the same scope.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has given its ruling in regard to the matter. Deputy Molloy, on the subject matter of the debate.

Mr. Molloy

I have been on the point that the Bill has not been debated adequately——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputy Molloy tries to get away from the motion and the amendment I will have to rule him as being completely out of order. The subject matter of this debate is whether the remaining Stages of the Bill should be concluded within the time set out in the motion.

Mr. Crowley

The Parliamentary Secretary made the statement that the Bill had been debated adequately. Therefore, Deputy Molloy is entitled to prove that the Bill has not been debated adequately.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is quite in order in making the point that in his view the Bill has not been debated adequately. The Chair is not ruling him out on that, but the Chair is the judge of order.

Mr. Molloy

The proposed amendment to the Schedule is all the more regrettable because it has been done at the expense of Deputy Finn. It is no credit to the Minister that he has selected a preference between two Deputies sitting behind him, Deputies Kenny and Finn.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Molloy used to be worried only about Deputies Haughey and Colley.

Mr. Molloy

I am worried only about fair play.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is worried only about maintaining order.

Mr. Molloy

If I heard the Parliamentary Secretary correctly he suggested that if the debate continued along the lines which he had indicated, a pattern would develop—I do not know of any pattern that has been established—which would mean that the Bill would not take longer than others. He took a rather imaginatively lengthy period and suggested that if the debate were to continue in this vein the Bill, with the amendments, might not be passed before July. That is what apparently was concerning the Parliamentary Secretary and we suggest to him that he would accept the date in our amendment to the motion, which I will read again for the record:

In paragraph (a) to delete "Tuesday 2nd April" and to insert "Wednesday 8th May" and to delete all words after "bring the proceedings to conclusion."; in paragraph (b) to delete all words after "bring the proceedings to conclusion;"; and in paragraph (c) to delete the words "on that day" and to insert "on 29th May 1974".

We are asking that full and adequate time for debate be allowed by the Government on this important Bill and the wording of our motion asks that the Government allow the debate to continue up to 29th May next. We do not consider that our request is in any way a difficult one for the Parliamentary Secretary to concede. We feel we would have adequately discussed the Bill, the amendments to it and the overall philosophy behind it if the Parliamentary Secretary were to agree to that date. If we had the debate concluded by 29th May, it would have been all signed, sealed and delivered one way or the other long before July. Our amendment to the motion is reasonable and we suggest that if the Parliamentary Secretary is sincere in all that he has said he cannot but accept our amendment.

Mr. Tully

It appears to me as if the Opposition are not quite sure what they want. They are prepared to put in speaker after speaker to oppose the closure motion, yet later on they will complain loudly that the time is not adequate to discuss certain matters. After the Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy Lalor had spoken, if there was a vote on the motion there might have been adequate time for debate. It sounds good to hear Deputy Molloy here this afternoon, and indeed some of the interruptions which followed from his side, about whether the Bill to date has been adequately debated. I suggest it has not because the Opposition simply got up one after the other and repeated parrotwise what they had heard somebody before them say. This went on over and over again.

The reason why we have not had the kind of debate which we could have had is that any complaint from Fianna Fáil is due to themselves. They continued to make statements about the Bill which were not alone proved to be inaccurate but which they knew to be inaccurate. We have had the spectacle when, having said everything they could think of about trivia in the Bill and having looked around wildly to find if there was anybody else who would be able to keep the thing running, they fell on two hapless Deputies who happened to come into the House and who were not aware of what was being discussed. Those two Deputies got up within half an hour of each other and attempted to discuss what was before the House. They knew what the Bill provided but they did not know what was under discussion. This type of antic shows the efforts which have been made to try to hold up the Bill.

I am glad Deputy Haughey is here because I wish to make a point he made earlier. During a discussion on the number of Deputies we should have after the next general election— and I should like again to make it clear that the next general election will be held in approximately four years, so sit back, boys, and relax, there is no rush——

Mr. Molloy

I will give the Minister five to one, I will give him ten to one, I will give him 100 to one——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion and the amendment.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister is running away from it.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Haughey said there should be 200 Deputies and I was proposing 148. Every other Deputy here suggested 148.

Mr. Molloy

Would the Chair please rule whether the Minister is relevant? He is repeating again what he has said ten times already.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The only matters relevant are the motion and the amendment.

Mr. Tully

If you allow me for one minute I will make it relevant.

Deputies

Order.

Mr. Tully

There is one thing typical about Fianna Fáil between the time they were over here and the time they moved over there. It is that they could dish it out all right but they could never take it. They will take it this evening and they will get it. In this motion we are saying that adequate time has been given to the Bill and therefore we feel it should be concluded. I have been trying to prove that the time given before to-day has not been used properly by the Opposition and that they have no reason to moan. They have spoken again and again about the same trivia. Indeed they voted against a motion which every one of them were agreeable to—that there should be 148 Deputies. Deputy Haughey, of course, suggested 200. They marched through the Lobbies to vote against it. If that is not a low type of filibuster I do not know what it is.

Mr. Crowley

We were objecting to the distribution of the 148.

Mr. Tully

They were not. They were opposed——

Mr. Molloy

We were opposed to every section in the Bill.

Mr. Tully

The distribution of the 148 seats was not at issue. Is it that they did not understand it?

Mr. Crowley

The Minister should not be losing his head.

Mr. Tully

Fianna Fáil have been saying we were a bad Opposition. They are a crowd of children. They do not know which side of the House they are on and when they get up to speak they do not know whether they are Ministers or backbenchers——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion.

Mr. Crowley

The Minister is losing his head completely. I am surprised at him—I thought he had more experience.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Crowley can be satisfied that I will never do that. I will not lose my head nor will I lose my seat.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. G. Collins

The Minister was a little worried.

Mr. Tully

Unfortunately we have not time to debate that but anybody who is 1,000 votes over the next man up has nothing to worry about. In regard to the motion we have reasonably suggested that this debate has gone on as long as could be reasonably expected. If Fianna Fáil wanted to have items in the Bill debated they had plenty of time to do so. The items that have been passed, with one exception, have only been passed because a guillotine was introduced. Is that how a responsible Opposition deals with a Bill? Even ordinary matters such as the name of the Bill, the number of Deputies, all had to be guillotined in order to get them through. Fianna Fáil told me they intended to oppose every line and section of the Bill. If that is what they want to do for opposition sake there is only the one way to deal with it. As I said on a number of occasions, they were wasting their own time and apparently they were not intelligent enough to take up the point. They had plenty of time if they used it properly but instead they behaved like children repeating things which had been said before.

Mr. Harte

I think that is a reflection on children.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Loughnane

Why not give a little time to the west?

Mr. Tully

I am glad the Deputy mentioned that because Deputy Molloy said he went to great trouble putting down amendments and one of the reasons why he wanted more time was to have them fully debated. But in the amendments which he put down, as I said last week, Deputy Molloy did not even know the areas in respect of which he was putting them down and he put places into constituencies which were miles away and included them in his amendments. He does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Crowley

The Minister, with all the bureaucracy behind him, did the same thing.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister on the amendment.

Mr. Tully

One of the amendments which I put down and to which apparently there is objection and the Opposition want more time to debate it, is almost identical with one that Deputy Molloy had down. I do not know what he is objecting to.

Mr. Crowley

The Minister said he did not know what he was doing.

Mr. Andrews

Lifting Deputy Molloy's amendment.

Mr. Tully

I have given him credit for it.

Mr. Andrews

No, the Minister has not.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Tully

You are worried about Dr. Loftus.

Mr. O'Malley

How well he knows. The Minister has been well informed. Who told him about Dr. Loftus? Look at the grin now.

Mr. Coogan

Conduct yourselves.

Mr. Tully

The position is that if the Opposition were prepared to deal with this matter in a reasonable way even today they had from 4 o'clock to 8.30 p.m. to deal with the remaining amendments. They were not interested in that; all they wanted to do was to come in and to put up speaker after speaker with some crazy idea they have that it makes them a better party. Of course the Bill is important in that on it will be elected 148 Deputies to the next Dáil. That does not mean that it is terribly important to the general public.

Mr. Crowley

Bring forward the Bills that are more important.

Mr. Tully

I think I am quite in order in insisting that we get this Bill through. The Deputy spoke for about 15 minutes and if he would sit down and not filibuster——

Mr. Crowley

I think the Minister is filibustering.

Dr. Loughnane

The Chair allowed discussion on the eastern section the other day and will not allow it on the west now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are only discussing the motion and amendment before the House.

Mr. Tully

It was not on the Schedule that the time was wasted but on the title of the Bill. We spent 5½ hours discussing the title. The Deputy should talk to his front bench about that.

Mr. Molloy

Why, then, did the Minister bring in an amendment?

Mr. Tully

Somebody referred to the Press in connection with this debate and, in fact, the Press have printed what they think about it and they have made the case, if anybody wanted it made, why this should not continue. The Irish Times on 29th March said that little parliamentary or public interest had been manifested in the Bill throughout the very long debate already held on its proposals. The Independent on the same day said that the decision to curtail the Dáil debate on the constituencies Bill “will attract the approval of anyone who is concerned to see that our national Legislature get on with the pressing and important business of the day”.

Mr. Molloy

They also said that it should be done by commission— would the Minister not quote that?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Tully

: The Sunday Press on 24th March might be pardoned for having a different viewpoint. It said that what Deputies on all sides are really fighting over is Dáil jobs each worth some thousands a year——

Mr. Molloy

On a point of order, may I inquire whether, first, the Minister is relevant, secondly, whether it is proper for him to repeat something he has already said? He is taking up the time of the House. He is filibustering.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Harte

Is Deputy Molloy questioning the competence of the Chair?

Mr. Molloy

The Deputy will not intimidate me.

Mr. Briscoe

How many times have you been put out, Paddy?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister to continue.

Mr. Tully

: The Sunday Press went on to say that while Deputies were absorbed in this very personal contest “our business, yours and mine, is going unattended to in several sectors”. Fianna Fáil have deliberately held up other work in this House and, if allowed, will continue to do so, in order to prevent this Bill passing. There are two questions that I should like to answer, with the permission of the Chair. One is whether it would be better to have a commission. Nobody in Fianna Fáil ever thought a commission was a good idea until they were beaten at the polls and then five minutes afterwards Jack Lynch thought it was a good idea.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this motion.

Mr. Tully

The other matter is that we had to bring in this Bill; we were duty bound to do so. We are duty bound to get it through. Fianna Fáil waited years after the time to do it and there is no use in their saying now that it should not have been brought in at this stage, that it could wait. It is now three years since the census was taken and detailed results were published in July, 1972. Fianna Fáil were bound under the Constitution to bring in the Bill then and they did not do it——

Mr. Molloy

You took eight months to do it.

Mr. Tully

But you were two years there and you did nothing about it. The reason you made no move to do it was that you could not get general acceptance. They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Mr. Crowley

So you must agree among yourselves before you can bring in the Bill.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should allow the Minister to speak on the subject matter of the motion and the amendment.

Mr. Tully

I should like to point out to Deputy Molloy when he says that this could be put back, that it was not terribly important, that he said, as recorded in the Official Report at column 1998, Volume 268, for 15th November, 1973, when he was replying to my opening speech on the Second Reading:

As the Minister said in his introductory statement the House does accept that a revision is necessary at this time. We in the Opposition recognise the legal framework within which the Minister must operate. I have already referred to it. We accept that in order to comply with the legal requirements and the interpretation of the Constitution handed down to us by our courts, it is necessary to revise the constituencies. There is agreement on that. The Minister was right in assuming that there would be.

This was the only part with which he agreed since we started. He opposed everything else. He is opposing now the decision to finish the debate this evening so that we can get on with the important work which has to be done.

If Deputy Molloy wants to go ahead with the debate on the Bill I am perfectly prepared to proceed with it. If he wants to filibuster, for some extraordinary reason which I cannot understand——

Mr. Molloy

How can it be for an extraordinary reason if it has not happened yet?

Mr. Tully

If the Bill is prevented from being considered further that is the fault of the Opposition. They need not cry and wail like banshees, as they did on other occasions when the guillotine was imposed, when time has caught up with them. It caught up with them last year and it will catch up with them again this year on this Bill. Unless they are prepared to agree to debate it now, they need not wail when the time for closure comes and say that they were not given enough time for discussion. They have had adequate time, 58 hours to date.

Dr. Loughnane

Why the obvious favouritism for the east?

Mr. Tully

If Deputy Molloy allows us we will discuss that and then Deputy Loughnane will be in a position to express his views.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with a time motion.

Mr. Tully

We have a closure motion down which we propose to put to this House. If the House is not prepared to accept it, and we are not prepared to accept the amendment because the Deputy picked a figure out of the air——

Mr. Molloy

We picked a reasonable date.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy talks about a "reasonable date". He could at his leisure decide that if we used all the Government time between this and that date he could debate this Bill. We do not believe he is entitled to do that.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister can order other business.

Mr. Tully

We will have to ask somebody to take the Deputy outside while I am trying to make a point.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. MacSharry

Can the Minister say for definite when the Dáil will sit after Easter?

Mr. C. Murphy

Does the Minister find it hard to make the point?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies must allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

Mr. Tully

I did not hear Deputy Murphy making many points on this Bill and I am sure he will not be allowed to contribute to this debate.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister, to continue on the motion.

Mr. Tully

The motion is a reasonable one. The time spent today would have been adequate to allow the Opposition to debate this mtoion if they wanted to. Instead of that they put up speaker after speaker. If they had been prepared then to have a vote, there would have been no speaker from this side, but they decided they would filibuster the motion. We will not accept their amendment and insist that our motion be carried.

Mr. O'Malley

I propose to speak for half the 25 minutes which the Minister has used. I should like to quote from the Official Report, volume 255, column 3255 of 4th August, 1971, when Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan), who is now the Minister for Lands, said that:

the guillotine is a procedure which takes away from Parliament the function of Parliament to examine, discuss and scrutinise legislation, particularly legislation of a controversial nature affecting the rights of ordinary citizens.

One would expect, therefore, that when a resolution like this is introduced in the name of the Taoiseach's Parliamentary Secretary, it would be justified on the grounds of urgency at least.

I cannot think of anything which sums up today's situation better than the words of Deputy Fitzpatrick on that occasion.

Mr. Reynolds

What Bill was Deputy Fitzpatrick discussing?

Mr. O'Malley

The Forcible Entry and Occupation Bill, 1970, Report Stage.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. O'Malley

The debate on the Report Stage of that Bill lasted 69 hours——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies must allow Deputy O'Malley to speak.

Mr. O'Malley

At that particular time when Deputy Fitzpatrick spoke on the Report Stage—Deputies are allowed speak only once on each amendment on that Stage—the debate had lasted 69 hours. When it concluded on the night of the 4th August, 1971, sometime after 11 p.m. the Report Stage had lasted for 72½ hours.

I recall as one of the highlights of that arrogant and futile debate, particularly on the Report Stage of that Bill, the performance of Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. With the assistance of an usher he came into the House carrying a number of volumes of a dictionary which defines words in——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies on all sides of the House must allow Deputy O'Malley to speak without interruption.

Mr. O'Malley

The dictionary in question, which runs into many volumes, goes back to about the 12th century and gives the usage of each word in different times in each century from the 12th century to the 20th century. It also gives the variations in usage in different regions of England in the earlier periods and throughout the English-speaking world in the later period. The word "encourage" was picked out by the then Deputy. For six hours he read to this House every definition in that enormous dictionary of that word, from the 12th century to the present time, and the different meanings in different parts of England and the English-speaking world.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy claiming that this is relevant to this debate?

Mr. O'Malley

I am claiming that on that occasion the Government sat through that and equal rubbish for a total of 72 hours on the Report Stage alone. On that Bill, which was a matter of public importance and of importance to the security of the country unlike the present Bill, we finally moved a guillotine motion on the 4th August, 1971. The discussion had gone on since before Easter of that year. The Bill was passed in the Seanad on 21st August, 1971. That Bill was very different from this. It was urgently required to deal with a serious problem. As soon as it was passed the problem disappeared and the organisation which went on under the aegis of certain organisations was given up more or less overnight because they saw that the Bill had called their bluff. The squatting that took place after that was as a result of unorganised private individuals going into the houses themselves. The Minister for Local Government today referred to what he described as "antics" on the part of this Opposition. I want to ask the House in all fairness was that performance of six hours on one word with all those dictionaries anything but an antic, a joke? We had no criticism from any quarter at all practically of that filibuster at that time. It was alleged to be a good thing. It was alleged that that Bill was a dangerous one which would undermine all kinds of people and that the newspapers could expect to be dragged into court. We were told that that Bill was so bad that the parties who were then in Opposition and are now in office could not get into Government quick enough in order to repeal it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must keep to the motion.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. O'Malley

In the course of his lecture Deputy Professor Dr. Kelly told us that the figures he had given earlier in relation to the debate on a similar Bill in 1969 were wrong and the correct figures indicate that the debate the last time lasted 48 hours and that the debate up to the present on this particular Bill has lasted 58 hours.

Mr. Kelly

It is now over 60 hours.

Mr. O'Malley

It is not, because we are not debating the Bill now. We are debating the motion in the Parliamentary Secretary's name.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. O'Malley

The fact is we have now spent ten hours more on this Bill than was spent on the corresponding Bill five years ago. That means that about 20 per cent more time has been spent on this Bill. We are told that even to have 20 per cent more time in discussion than was spent the last time is unreasonable, that this is a farce and that we are indulging in antics. Deputy Molloy, I and others on this side of the House have over the last several weeks, pointed out various defects in the Bill before the House. We were pooh-poohed by the Minister and told that the Minister thought it was good but that the officials advised him against it. The Minister now comes along with a number of amendments and we are not to be allowed even to discuss them. One of the amendments is almost precisely what Deputy Molloy and I sought to get the Minister to accept several weeks ago.

Mr. Tully

That is not true.

Mr. O'Malley

The Minister is making a major change in the two Mayo constituencies because, as he told us himself, it suited a certain Dr. Loftus to have the position the way it was.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not dealing with the motion and the amendment.

Mr. Tully

That was Deputy Molloy's reason.

Mr. O'Malley

The Minister is now going to change those two constituencies. This change is to be made for blatantly improper reasons. We are being deprived of the opportunity to discuss it or any other amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy on the motion, please.

Mr. O'Malley

The nature of the Bill is basically that it is a political Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with the motion.

Mr. O'Malley

I am coming to the motion. The motion relates to depriving the House of any further time after tonight to debate this Bill. The precedent that is now being set, that the Government of the day resort to a guillotine not to put a measure through in the public interest but simply to put it through in their own narrow, political interest, is a very significant precedent indeed. If our democracy goes down the hill from this day onward, it will be easily seen that this was red-letter day the beginning of the death of democracy in this country. That is a matter for which future generations can thank the present Government.

Mr. Tully

Deputy O'Malley talking about democracy—my God.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. M.P. Murphy)

I would like to address myself to the question before the House.

Mr. Colley

I would like to move that the question be now put.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is aware that that motion may only be put when the Ceann Comhairle is in the Chair.

Mr. O'Malley

Send for the Ceann Comhairle.

Mr. Cluskey

I am not surprised the Deputy is reluctant to hear a reply to Deputy O'Malley's contribution.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The question is whether this Bill has been sufficiently debated and whether the time allowed—some 58 hours—is adequate and sufficient. The question is whether the contributions from the opposite side of the House are or are not of a filibustering nature, with no purpose other than to use up valuable time in this House at public expense. The guillotine is being put on at the desire of one of your own party.

Mr. Tully

You are hoisting your own petard.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Minister was obliged to bring this Bill before the House. In my view he brought it forward in a fair and reasonable way. I do not see the implications in this Bill which are attributed to it from the Opposition benches. The Members opposite may feel that their electoral support is steadily declining, as I am sure it is. I was here when a former Minister, the then Deputy Boland, brought in a Bill which changed the constituency I represent. It changed it drastically. I accepted the fact that he was a Government Minister of the day.

Mr. Molloy

Is Deputy M.P. Murphy speaking on the motion?

Mr. Cluskey

I was here when Deputy O'Malley was Government Whip and he would trample all over you.

Mr. Tully

If he was let.

Mr. Cluskey

Was I not right not to let him?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

We did not have to go crying around the House.

Mr. Cunningham

You did, of course.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

We voted against that Bill. Everyone knows that the Bill was one to give advantage to the Government of the day. I am not going to argue on that point. I am coming to the motion as set out. As a Member of this House I am satisfied that the guillotine should be introduced only when there is a good case for its introduction, and there is no better case than this.

Mr. Molloy

It suits the Parliamentary Secretary to say that.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Why not? We have had contributions for 58 hours.

Mr. Harte

Contributions?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The discussion has been quite adequate. The Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister and the Government would be remiss in their duties if they did not bring forward this motion. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated that measures of much importance to the State are awaiting discussion and cannot be discussed——

Mr. Colley

Why not order them?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

——by virtue of the unnecessarily long time spent on the Bill.

Mr. Colley

Why do you not order them?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Repetition is not allowed in this House. The Parliamentary Secretary told the House what they are. If the Deputy was not present to hear him I will not repeat them.

Mr. Colley

Why do you not order them? That is the question.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

How can they be ordered when you people are wantonly wasting the time of the House and, in so doing, causing unnecessary expenditure of public funds? The Opposition realise that this filibuster is not justified. The constituency changes proposed by the Minister are much more reasonable and much more impartial than those proposed by the former Minister. I am satisfied that this motion is justified. The Opposition should stop the crying, go out to the country, and try to regain some of their electoral losses. We had to accept changes in 1969. We had to accept the changes ordered by the Government of the day and passed by a majority in the House.

Mr. Molloy

There was no discrimination against the west or against Munster.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I did not take part in the discussions on this Bill because I was satisfied the Minister was doing a reasonably good job. As a matter of fact, in some instances the Opposition did very well and they should be satisfied.

Mr. Crowley

We could not all be guillotined.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

It is only right that we should accept this motion and stop this nonsense to which we have been listening.

Mr. Molloy

The nonsense is in the Bill.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I should like to speak very briefly and very sincerely on this motion. The ultimate weapon in a parliamentary democracy such as ours is the instrument popularly known as the guillotine. This instrument is used not by a Minister but by Government decision. As Deputy O'Malley pointed out, unless there are the gravest reasons for its use, parliamentary democracy suffers if it is used. I believe that the circumstances in which the Government have made a decision to use the guillotine on this occasion do not justify it. I assert that Deputy O'Malley was not irrelevant when he pointed out that, on the last occasion on which a Fianna Fáil Government used this ultimate weapon, the Government were justified because of urgent public considerations. I submit in all sincerity that these considerations do not obtain today and that, therefore, the decision by the Government to exercise this bludgeon on the Opposition is a bad one, and one which they may very well live to regret.

I am sticking solely to the motion. Obviously it was incumbent on the Minister to bring in a Bill. No matter what Minister for Local Government was in office at this time, some electoral reform Bill would be necessary. Some such electoral reform Bill will continue to be necessary as a result of the Supreme Court judgment some years ago. The merits or otherwise of the various clauses in the Bill will be the subject of debate and disagreement obviously. I believe profundly that the circumstances in which the Government would be justified in using this ultimate parliamentary weapon against a parliamentary Opposition in a free democracy do not exist, and that the Government are wrong and have done a disservice to the country and to parliamentary democracy by what they are doing today.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare.

Mr. Colley

May I request that the Ceann Comhairle be sent for? I wish to put the motion that the question be now put.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A message has been sent to the Ceann Comhairle in accordance with the Deputy's request.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Cluskey)

I did not intend to intervene in this debate but I was prompted to do so by the contribution made by Deputy O'Malley. First, I should like to comment on the contribution by Deputy Flanagan who spoke about the effects on parliamentary democracy of using a closure motion too lightly. I accept that fully. I accept that it is an ultimate weapon but it is there for one reason, that is, to safeguard the people from an irresponsible Opposition who are prepared, for their own ends, irrespective of the general good, to continue a filibuster on any Bill. There is no doubt that that is what has happened on this Bill. Having listened to the contributions made by the Opposition on this Bill over the 58 hours in which it has been discussed, nobody, no matter how biassed he might be in favour of Fianna Fáil, could honestly come to any other conclusion except that a filibuster was being engaged in.

Mr. S. Flanagan

That is not the principle at stake.

Mr. Cluskey

Because we had repetition, we had statements completely contradictory to one another from the same benches. When they ran out of any limited argument they may have had, one of their members—who was not even sure what was before the House—was sent in to call for a House. This was engaged in repeatedly over the 58 hours this Bill has been discussed.

Mr. Moore

That is not true.

Deputies

It is true; it is a disgrace.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cluskey

We had the spectacle of leading Fianna Fáil spokesmen running around the country trying to list the amount of legislation and number of Bills put through by this Government.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cluskey

They seemed to think the only necessary part of a Government's business was to put through Bills. We accept fully that it is a major part of any Government's business to put legislation through this House but it is not solely the responsibility or business of government. What Fianna Fáil were trying to do in their filibuster on this Bill were two things——

Mr. Colley

Why did the Government not give us other business?

Mr. Cluskey

First of all, they were trying to justify the lack on behalf of their own spokesman on local government, when he was Minister for Local Government, in not putting through the Bill himself. And there is no doubt it would have been far more acceptable to the gentlemen across the floor than the one being put through by the present Minister for Local Government. It would not have been as impartial but there is no doubt it would have been far more acceptable to some Fianna Fáil backbenchers.

Mr. Colley

Did the Parliamentary Secretary say "impartial"?

Mr. Cluskey

That is why Deputy Molloy is so anxious and making such a song and dance about this Bill. He is trying to take some of the heat off himself from his own backbenchers. The other reason is that if they can delay the passage of this Bill through the House and occupy the time of the House long enough, they will prevent us putting through necessary urgent legislation——

Mr. Cunningham

More urgent than this one?

Mr. Cluskey

And they will be able to carry on the same cant that the Government have not run through the machine a certain number of Bills. We do not go in for quantity. We go in for quality.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cluskey

Something that Fianna Fáil could never be accused of.

Mr. Colley

I move: "That the question be now put".

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair accepts the motion.

Mr. Kelly

I am entirely bound by a ruling but, in raising this point of order, I hope you will allow me draw attention to the fact that the Opposition are now trying to short-circuit the debate in exactly the same way, by closuring it, because they are afraid of allowing me——

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

The motion must now be put without debate or amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".

The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 65.

Tá

• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Dick.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Burke, Liam.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Creed, Donal.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Keating, Justin.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McDonald, Charles B.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Connell, John.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• 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.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, John J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Thornley, David.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Toal, Brendan.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.

Níl

• Ahern, Liam.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, Seán.
• Brugha, Ruairí.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• Flanagan, Seán.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Leonard, James.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Murphy, Ciarán.
• Nolan, Thomas.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• 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.

Amendment declared lost.

Question declared carried. Motion put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 65.

Tá

• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Dick.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Burke, Liam.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Coughlan, Stephen.

Níl

• Ahern, Liam.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, Seán.
• Brugha, Ruairí.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahev, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• Flanagan, Seán.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Leonard, James.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Murphy, Ciarán.
• Nolan, Thomas.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• 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.

Creed, Donal.Crotty, Kieran.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.

Kyne, Thomas A.L'Estrange, Gerald.Lynch, Gerard.McDonald, Charles B.McLaughlin, Joseph.McMahon, Larry.Malone, Patrick.Murphy, Michael P.O'Brien, Fergus.O'Connell, John.O'Donnell, Tom.O'Leary, Michael.O'Sullivan, John L.Pattison, Séamus.Reynolds, Patrick J.Ryan, John J.Ryan, Richie.Spring, Dan.Staunton, Myles.Taylor, Frank.Thornley, David.Timmins, Godfrey.Toal, Brendan.Tully, James.White, James.