Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 27 Jan 1959

Vol. 172 No. 8

An Bille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1958—Céim na Tuarascála. Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958—Report Stage.

Tairgim leasú Uimh. 1:—

I leathanach 7, líne 17, "as comhaltas Dháil Éireann" a scriosadh, agus i línte 18 agus 19 "as comhaltas Dháil Éireann" a scriosadh;

agus

I leathanach 11, líne 22, "from the members of Dáil Éireann" a scriosadh, agus i línte 23 agus 24 "from the members of Dáil Éireann" a scriosadh.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 6, line 17, to delete "as comhaltas Dháil Éireann", and in lines 18 and 19 to delete "as comhaltas Dháil Éireann";

and

In page 10, line 22, to delete "from the members of Dáil Éireann", and in lines 23 and 24 to delete "from the members of Dáil Éireann".

The purpose of this amendment is, briefly, to provide that the members of the proposed Constituency Commission would not be drawn from amongst the members of Dáil Éireann. I agree with the proposal to set up a commission. If the proposal to amend the Constitution and provide for single seat constituencies with the single non-transferable vote is accepted as a result of a referendum, it will require, in my opinion, a new commission— independent, competent and impartial —to determine the new constituencies. I do not believe that a commission such as is suggested in this Bill can be regarded as independent, in view of its composition. I doubt if it would be regarded as the most competent body that could be set up; and I further doubt if its report or findings would be regarded either by the Dáil or by the public subsequently as impartial.

Under the proposal set out in this Bill, the commission will be formed of seven members. The only member who will not be a member of Dáil Éireann will be the chairman, who will be nominated by the Taoiseach and who will be a judge of the High Court. Three members will be nominated by the Taoiseach, presumably from the members of his own Party in the Dáil; and three members by the Chairman of Dáil Éireann from the "Members of Dáil Éireann who are determined by him to be in opposition and on a basis and in a manner determined by him." Apart altogether from the difficulty of determining who is in opposition, I suggest that the Ceann Comhairle will have considerable difficulty in nominating three members to this commission from amongst the members of this House who are not members of the Government Party. I feel that a commission so composed will automatically be regarded as a political body.

I might say that I do not share the opinions expressed on the Committee Stage last week, that a person who has political affiliations is necessarily either incompetent or impartial only to a degree. Everybody who thinks at all has some political affiliations or views, whether or not he is a member of Dáil Éireann. This commission will be composed entirely of members of Dáil Éireann, with the exception of the chairman. Therefore, it must be regarded as a completely, or almost completely, politically nominated commission.

It is very difficult to believe that such a commission would not be divided in its deliberations. On the Committee Stage, some examples were given of instances which might occur, where two Deputies in the same constituency or in the same county to be divided, might seek to use their influence to have the new constituency determined in a manner to suit one or the other. If the six members of this proposed commission happened to be from six different counties—which is not an exaggerated possibility—they would personally be interested and open to influence from quite a substantial body of the electorate in this State.

The report of such a commission, if it produced a unanimous report— which I regard as unlikely—would be open to the suggestion that it was not impartial and it would be received by the Dáil and most certainly by the public in a hostile way.

As the Taoiseach himself pointed out during the course of his contribution on the Committee Stage, the drawing up of the new constituencies is a task which must be undertaken by competent people. I think it is possible to set up such a commission in accordance with the views of the Taoiseach, but I suggest that to do so it would be necessary to go outside the confines of this House. Personally, I would like to see the commission set up completely outside the confines of this House. I would like to see such people represented on it as the Director of the Central Statistics Office. I should like to see somebody from the Ordnance Survey Office on it and a representative from the universities, such as a professor of history or geography, together with, possibly, somebody from the Army and Garda, or possibly retired members of one or other of these forces who would have the necessary qualifications for the important task with which this commission is charged.

The report of such a commission would be accepted by the House and by the people whether or not they agreed with the proposal to abolish P.R. and the single transferable vote. The public would look upon the commission as independent, impartial and the most competent body that could be got together. They would expect its findings would be disinterested and given in the best interests of the country and that the members would carry out their task to the best of their ability.

As I say, apart altogether from the merit of abolishing P.R., the finding of such a commission would be accepted. That, in itself, would be one of the necessary prerequisites to the operation of the single seat, non-transferable vote system. When speaking on the Second Stage of the Bill, I mentioned that one of the essential prerequisites to the functioning of the new system is that the constituency boundaries must be drawn up in an independent, impartial and competent manner. The suggestion to set up a commission as outlined in the Bill cannot, of its very nature, be either independent, impartial and may well be incompetent. Therefore, I would urge the Taoiseach to accept the suggestion I have made here, which is to provide for the recruitment of the members of this commission from outside Dáil Éireann. My view is that all the members should be drawn from outside this House. It it possible there may be different opinions on that, but certainly a majority should not be members of the House. It would be a better, more competent and certainly more independent body if it could be recruited along the lines my amendment suggests.

The members of the Opposition took the view that this should be left entirely to the Oireachtas. Now, the Deputy is suggesting that the members of Dáil Éireann should not have anything to do with it at all, so to speak. His preference would be to have outsiders to determine it for them. The view we take—and I think it is a sound view —is that in the commission proposed you have representatives from Dáil Éireann, both from the Government's side and from the Opposition's side, in equal numbers; that they will know, and that they will be more alive possibly than outsiders will be to any dangers that may occur from the determination of constituencies in any particular way. You have, so to speak, people on the opposite side watching for any move by the Government to determine them so as to help their particular Party.

As I have already said, we have taken the view that gerrymandering, in our conditions, would be a very difficult task indeed. Certainly, at present, one cannot foresee or know what changes might occur, but as far as our community—in the Twenty-Six Counties—is concerned, we are a fairly homogeneous community. That is, taking the community as a whole, whatever differences of opinion there are, are fairly well distributed. Therefore, gerrymandering—cutting up constituencies—would be an extremely difficult task, even if you wanted to do it.

The commission to be set up will include representatives from both sides of the House. They will be aware of what gerrymandering could mean for one Party or another. It seems to me, therefore, that it is a simple committee of the House—with a judicial chairman—charged with the task of determining what the constituencies should be. They will, of course, have at their disposal any aid that can be given by the Civil Service or any branch of the Civil Service. If the Director of Statistics can help, he can be brought in—not as a voting member but as an expert—to give advice. Any other civil servants could be similarly dealt with. It would be highly undesirable to have civil servants as members of such a body. It might not be so easy to get people. We are trying to provide an impartial chairman, and you see the difficulties that are being raised. Every possible effort is being made in the Bill to see we will have an impartial chairman. I think it would not be desirable to accept the Deputy's amendment. I think it would complicate matters and would not be as good as the proposal in the Bill itself.

I like the Taoiseach's references to this being a simple committee of the House. I suppose he could nearly have said it was intended to be a straight committee of the House.

Tá tuairim sa Ghaeltacht dá nigheadh fear a lámha i mias uisge agus ansan an t-uisge do chaitheamh amach agus an mian do athlionadh agus a lámha do nighe naoi n-uaire i ndiaidh a chéile, beadh salachar eigin fágtha san uisge tar éis an naoiú nígheacháin féin. Ach dá ndeineadh bean an rud céadna, beadh an t-uisge glan tar éis an tríú nó an ceathrú nígheacháin.

They have a concept in the Irish speaking districts that if a man filled a basin of water and washed his hands in it and then threw out the water, filled the basin again, and again washed his hands nine times, even on the ninth time he would still leave some dirt in the water. But a woman after a second or third time, would leave no dirt in the water at all.

I was rather reminded of that when I heard Deputy Russell speak about his amendment. The Government want a simple committee. Nevertheless, in spite of the way in which it is set up, they want Deputies on it. But Deputy Russell, having been so impressed by the Fianna Fáil line of approach to this establishment, wants to be even purer and purer and more pure than the Fianna Fáil people. He wants to have a committee that will be clear of Deputies entirely. He is not really going as far as he thinks. He is only doing in a small matter what the Government are doing with the Dáil as a whole, that is, to push the Dáil as a deliberative assembly out of the picture completely, to settle things in the Party rooms, to be themselves the people who will carry on the business of the country and to use the Dáil as a kind of simple rubber stamp to do the straight thing of putting into practice by law here the things that Fianna Fáil, as the national element in society here, has decided.

This committee has been fairly well described, even in the short discussion which took place here previously on the Bill. I do not want to elaborate on it. Deputy Russell properly thinks that there are certain things the people would approve of and certain things they would not. In spite of the fact that the people are being asked to take the Third Amendment of the Constitution Act all in one lump, instead of being able to divide it up into the three very different things in it and exercise their choice with regard to one, two, and three, the Deputy thinks there are certain things in it the people would accept and certain things they would not accept.

In fact this commission is put into the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill as a kind of banana, at which the people may nibble and, in nibbling, may be prepared to swallow the whole, namely, the complete abolition of P.R. The Deputy has indicated that he believes P.R. should be abolished and even, I think, the single transferable vote. If that is his viewpoint, then I really cannot understand why he is interested in the commission appointed to arrange constituencies and I cannot understand why he thinks that task should be taken out of the hands of Parliament.

Every instrument Fianna Fáil can use to belittle the prestige and diminish the influence of Dáil Éireann is being used ruthlessly and, in a certain way, effectively. The proposal that the basis upon which Parliament should be founded geographically should be taken away from Parliament itself and that the Constitution itself should be used as a kind of medium through which to remove powers from Parliament is certainly something in keeping with the wiping out of P.R., the restriction of the rights of people who ought to have a right to be candidates for Parliament, and the restriction of the rights of voters who ought to have the right to have an equal voice in the election of Parliament. I would suggest to Deputy Russell that he put down this amendment for amendment sake; it is in keeping with the policy of those people who seek to reduce the prestige, the standing and the authority of this House as the parliamentary setup for the purpose of reflecting the people and serving the people.

Perhaps Deputy Russell will be more willing, having heard Deputy Mulcahy's speech, to withdraw this amendment than he might have been before the Deputy spoke. We can see from the line taken by Deputy Mulcahy what would have been said had the Government proposed that members of the Dáil should be excluded from this commission and that its membership should be drawn solely from people outside the Dáil. Deputy Mulcahy took the opportunity to say that what Fianna Fáil want to do "is to do away with the Dáil altogether" and "take everything out of the hands of Parliament".

Having considered this matter in relation to the type of commission to be set up for the purpose of delimiting constituencies, it was decided, I think, wisely, that, although theoretically, one might get more competent people outside the Dáil, it was only right that members of the Dáil should participate in the work of this commission. There will be less likelihood of members of the Dáil as a whole thinking there has been some backstairs conspiracy about the commission, if Deputies are represented on it and intimately associated with its work. Government and Opposition will know what is going on. They will be able to put the civil servants dealing with the matter on proof as to why a particular scheme is the best scheme, rather than some other scheme. Both sides of the House will know what is going on and that should kill to some extent the allegations of conspiracy.

It should be possible, out of the 140-odd members of the Dáil, to get three from the Government and three from the Opposition competent to take a common-sense view and express a common-sense opinion as to whether any scheme proposed is a right and proper scheme. If there is anything ludicrous in the scheme, it will be quite apparent to them. They will be in touch with their colleagues here in the Dáil and they will be a channel through which objections may be taken before the commission and debated. On the whole, I think the proposed system is as good as can be got.

Deputy Russell said Deputies would be open to influence. He hoped they would be open to influence of a good kind. They will be open to influence against the setting-up of constituencies which might not be suitable or which might run counter to the general principles of the Constitution. I think the people generally will have more confidence in Deputies. They might be much more suspicious of people whom they would not know at all as against well-known Deputies appointed from both sides of the House. On the whole, I trust Deputy Russell will see that the proposal contained in the Bill is better than the amendment he suggests.

I confess that I cannot understand Deputy Russell's attitude in this matter at all. He has swallowed this Bill a few times in the course of discussions here and in the course of divisions here. Why he coughs at this imperfection in the Bill is beyond me, because, of course, once Deputy Russell accepts the principle of the abolition of P.R., he is able to compound pretty well with political sin in this matter. If that is the position, what is the purpose of complaining about any imperfections there may be in the composition of this commission?

I think Deputy Russell misunderstands both the mind of the Dáil and the usefulness of outside people in a matter of this kind when he suggests the kind of commission he outlined to-day. I do not think a commission of that kind is capable of exercising the vigilance necessary in such a matter. While I have no use for this constituency commission or this Bill at all, nevertheless, if I had to express an opinion on the matter, I would say that, from the point of view of ensuring that constituencies are democratically delineated and democratically balanced, it would be much better that the balancing should be done by six members of the Oireachtas, three from the Government side and three from the Opposition side, in that at least the vigilance of one against the other would probably be a sufficient corrective of any naked gerrymandering. In any case, if such gerrymandering were attempted, there is nothing to prevent the three members of the Opposition side resigning from the commission and issuing a public statement saying that the commission was being rigged to achieve a certain purpose.

Because members of the Dáil have that right and would exercise that right because they would feel an obligation to those they represented in the House, I think a commission composed of members of the Oireachtas is to be preferred to a commission of the kind suggested by Deputy Russell.

If Deputy Russell wants to secure his point of view and wants to prevent the proposal in the Bill from going through, the most efficacious way in which he can do that is to oppose the Bill and, certainly, to use his influence to have votes cast in the referendum, when it is held, against the proposal to abolish P.R.

It is obvious from the case Deputy Russell made on this amendment that he is not happy about what may take place under this section, but this section is just as bad as every other section in the Bill which we have discussed already. There will be a constituency commission on which there will be three persons nominated by the Government and three persons, who will be regarded as members of the Opposition, nominated by the Ceann Comhairle.

We have had experience in the past of Deputies who joined the Fianna Fáil Party somewhere around 1951. Supposing those Deputies had been chosen before they joined the Fianna Fáil Party for their own personal reasons, instead of there being on the commission three members of the Government, there would be an additional member or members, as the case may be, nominated by the Ceann Comhairle who he believed were members of the Opposition and would act as an opposition on the commission.

There will be only six persons on this commission formed from the Dáil. Therefore, supposing the Referendum Bill embodying this proposal is adopted by the people, these six Deputies from six constituencies would have the arrangement of, say, 125 or 130 constituencies. Could it be expected that those six persons, no one of whom might be familiar with West Cork, West Donegal or South Kerry, for instance, could decide fairly and squarely, in the interests of the people residing in those constituencies, the manner in which they should be arranged? The features of the constituency must be taken into consideration, particularly the roads and——

Could I gently lead the Deputy back to the amendment?

Yes. The point I wanted to make is that Deputy Russell has suggested other persons instead of six Deputies. I have shown that the Deputies could not do a good job but they certainly could do a better job than six persons taken at random, who are not in the field of political activity and have no idea of the considerations that arise in connection with the organisation of constituencies and the representation of constituencies.

Deputy Russell's suggestion that we should look outside for persons who might be able to organise constituencies is, in his opinion, an ideal one, but, in my opinion, such an arrangement is impossible. It would be useless for the Dáil to support a suggestion without being reasonably satisfied that it would be helpful or that it would be an improvement on the proposal contained in the Bill, which has proved to be objectionable. It is obvious that the persons whom Deputy Russell has in mind would be presented with far more difficulties regarding the arrangement of constituencies than even six Deputies would be.

There would be the question of the inspection of constituencies, local inspection on the spot, local knowledge and all the other considerations which naturally will arise if an arrangement of constituencies is being carried out. It is very difficult to imagine what type of persons could be appointed to this commission. There is also the consideration that they would have a chairman who would be subject to the President at the time, according to the provisions of this Bill, so that the President would have the same type of control as it is proposed to give him——

The Deputy is not keeping to the amendment.

The amendment proposes that Deputies should not be appointed to the commission.

The Deputy is dragging in the President, who does not appear at all in the amendment.

The point I am making is that the President will have the same influence——

The Deputy has said that already.

That is the point I am making, Sir.

It is quite irrelevant.

I understood that the President would have a function in relation to the commission.

I am not saying he will not, but it is quite irrelevant to the amendment.

When Deputy Russell was making his case, he suggested only one or two sources from which persons could be chosen who might operate on this commission. Six persons are required and he has not put before the Dáil the type of person or the sources from which they could be appointed in order to carry out the revision of the constituencies required. For that reason, I feel Deputy Russell has not made any suggestion that would make this bad Bill any better.

The Deputy who has just sat down will permit me to refer to a statement he made that the chairman of the commission will be subject to the President. There is nothing in the amendment and nothing in the section dealing with the setting up of the commission which gives any justification whatsoever for that statement. It is, in fact, a blatant falsehood. I am sorry the Deputy's intelligence does not enable him to distinguish that fact and I am sorry to have to deal with it in these strong terms.

The Minister should read the Bill.

The Deputy knows as well as I know that the President will have no influence on the chairman of the commission.

He can sack the chairman. That is a fair influence.

I am sorry this amendment should have been made the occasion of an attack upon the President——

The Minister should read the Bill.

Deputies have made a positive attack on the Deputy who put the amendment down. It is the sort of amendment that might appeal to people who are not well informed about how the commission is likely to go about its work, about what is involved, but it is useful that the point has been raised even if only that the fallacy underlying the amendment might be exposed. The amendment was very much more worthy of discussion than the amendment put down by the main Opposition Party on Committee Stage which has been discussed across the House and I do not propose to revert to it.

If it is worthy of discussion why not discuss it?

The Minister has not read the Bill.

I do not want to flog a dead horse. I want to say it was advantageous and Deputy Russell has rendered a service in putting down this amendment if only because it extracted from Deputy Norton an admission as to the merits of the proposed commission and as to the practical advantage of constituting it in the manner now proposed.

Let us see how this commission will work. In proposing this amendment Deputy Russell suggested that the commission might consist of geographers historians and statisticians, together with public servants of one kind or another. I am glad to say you can find in the Department of Local Government civil servants who have all those qualifications in one way or another, officers who would be able to bring to their task the special knowledge which an outsider might not be able to bring in as useful a way to it.

I assume the commission will work in this fashion, that for the consideration of the commission a scheme or schemes will be drawn up in the Department of Local Government showing how the constituencies might be determined in order to satisfy the requisites which are set out in sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Schedule, the directives which, as the Deputy knows, provide that the boundaries shall be drawn up "on a fair and equitable basis, having due regard to geographical features and established administrative territorial divisions and, subject to those considerations, in such manner that the population of each constituency as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country."

I take it that the draft scheme or schemes to be submitted for the consideration of the commission will be drawn up to conform as closely as possible to and to give the maximum effect to these factors. They will be considered then by the members of the commission who will be, as has been said, drawn from the members of this House, representative, I hope, of the House as a whole. That is the real intention behind the proposals here. One half of the members will represent the majority of the House and the other half will represent the Deputies who dissent from the majority. You will have in this way a commission which, in its composition, should be fair and impartial. The commission will be thus composed of men who are very familiar with all the problems underlying this task of determining the boundaries of the constituencies. The commission as proposed will have very close contact with the people of the country and their problems and it will be composed of men who, I assume, will be alert to see that nothing will be done which would be in any way inimical to the interests which they are supposed to represent. Accordingly this body of investigators and supervisors —the members of the commission— will examine the draft schemes very minutely to see that the directives contained in the sub-section are carried out in the largest measure which is practicable.

I do not think you could get any other body of men with the same sources of information at their disposal. Every member of that commission will probably have behind him his immediate political friends and perhaps a number of people who could not be described as his political friends who would be anxious to ensure that their particular part of the country would receive fair representation and their economic interests would receive fair representation. With that background of information and all those sources of information at their disposal, I believe it would be very difficult to get a more competent body to determine this very difficult question and to do justice to every interest involved. For that reason, I suggest that Deputy Russell, having heard the arguments for and against, might see his way to withdraw the amendment.

Having listened to everything that has been said, I must confess that I do not find myself agreeing with anyone as to the purport of this amendment, and I am afraid that includes its proposer. It seems to be assumed that the effect of this amendment would be to exclude members of Dáil Éireann from the commission, whereas, as I read it, and found myself in agreement with it, it appeared to me to widen the membership, so that if, say, the Opposition had someone who was not a sitting member but whom they would like to see on the commission, this would give them the opportunity of putting that person on, and likewise the Government.

I take it that is the purport of the amendment and I think I may fairly claim that is the effect the amendment would have. Supposing the amendment were accepted, if the Government felt they wanted three sitting Fianna Fáil Deputies on the commission, the amendment as inserted will not prevent them from putting them on. Similarly, the Opposition will not be prevented from putting three sitting Opposition Deputies on the commission. It would leave each side a little more scope in the selection of the three people. May I say this, too? Having heard some of the Opposition speakers, I am more in favour of Deputy Russell's amendment because if they bring that type of mind to bear on the consideration of the constituencies, I think it would be much better for their own sakes to find people who are not sitting members.

An attempt was made to throw a cloud over this commission in regard to the way it will work. In some mysterious way, the country is to be divided up into constituencies which will return people of a certain political point of view. Considering that, it might not be any harm if the commission were wide enough to allow someone outside sitting Deputies in this House to be on it, someone who the people might feel, although he was long enough in opposition, had not quite the same personal interest as a sitting member would have in the reallocation of seats. That is the point from which I started off, looking at the amendment without hearing anything about it at all.

I must confess that my opinion has been somewhat shaken by the Minister for External Affairs. I had not thought of the precise angle that what is proposed to be sent up is a parliamentary committee. When one stops to think of it from that angle, I must confess that I would be very much swayed by the opinion that this is a parliamentary matter and that it would probably be better in the long run that it should be dealt with by a parliamentary committee. To do anything else might very well give the impression that we had no faith in ourselves. There are quite a number of people in the country who already have that impression without our giving it to them.

There is one point——

This is the Report Stage. The Deputy may not make a second speech.

Deputy Russell seems to fear that if members of this House deal with the constituencies, they will be too concerned with their own particular interest to give their unbiassed attention to the matter. If you have three members from each side of the House, provided they are satisfactory members from the Opposition point of view, they will be able to consult with their own colleagues. It is only natural that, when we come to consider the constituencies, they would be likely to consult. Any fears the Deputy has on that point may be dispelled.

The Taoiseach points out that this is an unbiassed commission. That may be. It may sound all right on paper. You have three members of the Government, three members from the Opposition and an impartial chairman. With respect to your ruling, Sir, I feel that the President does come into this commission.

We are discussing the amendment and not the commission. The commission was discussed on the Committee Stage; we are now discussing only certain of the personnel of the commission.

How the commission is constituted? It must be constituted by the President according to the Schedule.

The amendment is: "In page 10, line 22, to delete ‘from the members of Dáil Éireann', and in lines 23 and 24 to delete ‘from the members of Dáil Éireann'." It concerns only the personnel of the commission and how they are to be selected.

The personnel was brought in by somebody or other——

It is not who constitutes it but how it is to be constituted. The commission, as a commission was discussed on Committee Stage.

It is to be constituted by the President.

I do not propose to argue with the Deputy.

The matter before the House is the personnel of the commission. The Taoiseach thinks this is a perfectly unbiassed commission. In the Schedule to which I am about to refer there is a reference to the issuing of a report by the commission.

It does not arise.

It might arise this way. If you have three members from the Opposition and we are discussing the constitution of the commission at the present time——

We cannot discuss hypothetical questions as to what the personnel may do. This concerns only the personnel of the commission. Surely that is clear to the Deputy. That is what is in the amendment.

The three members of the Opposition, no matter who they are, are, according to the Taoiseach, able to voice their opinions so as to make this form of the commission absolutely unbiassed in every way. I submit that the three members of the commission are not really in a position to offer an opinion, whether they are members of Dáil Éireann or the Civil Service or from whatever source they come. If they do not agree with the other side's suggestion with regard to the limiting of the constituencies, they are not allowed to issue any report whatever in regard to the matter. As Deputy Norton said, they can resign. That is the only redress they have.

Deputy Russell wants to change the commission because he thinks that to have six members of the Oireachtas on the commission is not right because they might have a biassed point of view. The Taoiseach says the fairest way is to have three members from one side of the House and three members from the other. I disagree with both. It does not matter where the three members will come from. They are not allowed to issue a report if they hold a contrary opinion. If they try to issue a report they will not be allowed to do so and their only redress, therefore, is to resign. As the commission is proposed to be constituted, I do not think it really matters who is on it. I do not think it is a fair commission from beginning to end.

I do not think for one moment that there is such a thing as collusion between Deputy Russell and the members of the Government so far as this amendment is concerned, but there are people unkind enough to suggest that such might have happened. There is quite an amount of evidence available in the speeches made here to-day, but it would be uncharitable for people to pursue that line of thought because the members who have spoken have been more or less driven into the position of defending or praising what is embodied in the Bill as an alternative to the amendment suggested by Deputy Russell. It is not quite as bad as that, I admit.

The amendment of Deputy Russell has given an opportunity to the Government to say: "Well, now, your amendment is far more extreme than our proposition and really we have more respect for Dáil Éireann in our proposal than Deputy Russell has shown." There is no question in the world but that the implication of this amendment is the members of this House are not satisfactory persons to be on such a commission, whether or not we agree with the setting up of this commission. I think Deputy Sheldon was perfectly correct in his condemnation, in his concluding remarks. There are people outside who have contempt for this House and it is a bad day when Deputies of this House themselves show a lack of faith in the membership of the House by suggesting that it would be better to constitute this type of commission from outside this House.

I do not intend to allow myself to be led—because I disagree so much with this amendment—into pointing out the virtues of the section itself; that is the danger I see. That is why I think the Government are not a bit embarrassed by the fact that this amendment went down on the Order Paper. If there were no other choice available to me, and if this entire Bill goes through and if the people pass it, and if the only alternatives were Deputy Russell's amendment and the proposition of the Government then, at that stage, I would not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the Government's proposition rather than the amendment.

I was interested to hear the Minister for External Affairs say that, when and if the House adopts the Government's proposals relating to the setting-up of this commission, both sides of the House will know what is going on. If he is so desirous of having the House so completely conversant with what is going on, surely the thing to do would be to revise the constituencies as they have been revised before—and they were never revised under any Government but a Fianna Fáil Government. The Minister for External Affairs talks of conspiracy. Surely, in relation to suspicion and allegations that may arise in connection with the delineation of constituency boundaries, the best way to tackle the matter would be to do so in this House in the full light of day.

We do not see any merit in Deputy Russell's amendment but neither will we permit the Minister for Health to use that situation as indicating in some way an easement of our opposition to the Government's proposals or that we are in any way sympathetic to their proposals. There are often more than two points of view and here, definitely, there are more than two points of view.

I agree that, outside the membership of Dáil Éireann, it would be virtually impossible to find people with the fund of experience and information which members of this House have. This is a subject which is particularly peculiar to the members of the House. With regard to those who set out at any time to revise constituencies, those who constitute the commission, officials in the Department of Local Government, whose responsibility it was to advise on former occasions, have all the advice and all the material at their command which they would require.

The Taoiseach intervened and referred to the fact that we are a homogeneous community and that in such a community gerrymandering is an evil which finds it very difficult to raise its head. Nevertheless, he paid a fine tribute to the system of election we have had for the past 40 years when he referred to the homogeneousness of our people.

The Deputy is very ingenious.

The Deputy is going beyond the scope of the amendment which refers to the personnel of the commission.

He is gilding the banana skin.

I hope he does not slip on it.

I shall try not to. I feel that the members of this House should decide on the delineation of constituencies. I feel that any outside group could not possibly do the work which will have to be done. Consequently, we oppose the amendment and still more strongly do we oppose the Government's proposals in relation to the commission. We do not accept that our opposition to the amendment can in any way be construed as any change in our attitude towards the entire commission. We feel that, in the light of day, the whole House should decide and express the final voice on the boundaries of constituencies and that all that happened preparatory to the furnishing of a report should be brought into the open. In that way, we feel we would obviate any charges of conspiracy that might arise.

In calling upon such a minute number of members of the House I think we are requiring them to do an extraordinary job of work and one which will place them in a very awkward position. It might be said, no matter how fairly they may attack it, that they will be influenced by their personal considerations.

Consequently, we are in the situation, at this stage, in relation to the Bill, that no amendment can be forwarded which will counter the obvious defects in the Government's proposal but, at any rate, we do not think the present amendment would in any way ease the situation thrown up by the Government's decision completely to disorganise what has been the practice in the past. We cannot see either in the Bill itself or in the amendment anything which would in any way be a suitable substitute to the system we have had, despite the fact that we have known that system to be abused.

And that the amendment does not deal with anything that ought to be in the Constitution.

I suppose any discussion is better than no discussion. I got the impression from some of the speakers that they had forgotten what they said on the Committee Stage of this Bill against this very commission, the membership of which they are now defending. During the two months of this debate, this is the first sign of unanimity I have seen, even if it be only in opposition to my amendment. At least it is some encouragement that when the commission, in its suggested form, gets down to work there will be a suggestion that they will agree on the task allotted to them, assuming, of course, that the referendum goes through.

I was interested to hear from the Taoiseach and Ministers of his Government an outline of the mechanics of the operation of this committee. Reading literally from the Bill, I assumed the commission, as such would be charged—and they only—with the outlining of the constituencies and the drawing-up of the various boundaries. The Taoiseach, the Minister for External Affairs and other speakers have clarified that point to my satisfaction by saying that, before this commission enter on their task, they will be presented with the suggested outline of constituencies by experts, presumably from the Department of Local Government and possibly other Departments. I think the Taoiseach described the commission as more in the nature of watchdogs to ensure that any question of suggested gerrymandering would not arise. I must admit it puts rather a different complexion on the work of the commission and its operations from what I deduced from the Bill.

I think the intent of my amendment was misunderstood by some speakers. Some speakers referred to getting these members at random and putting them on this commission. I thought, when speaking on the introduction of this amendment, I specifically stated from where and what members of the commission might be recruited. Furthermore, in the second of my two amendments, I made it quite clear that the three members from the Opposition side of the House would be recruited by the Ceann Comhairle, after consultation with the Opposition, so that even if the six members were drawn from outside this House three would be nominated by the Taoiseach and three would virtually be nominated by the Opposition. In that way the balance, as provided for in this Bill, would be preserved irrespective of whether the membership came from the Dáil or outside.

I hope Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Norton will forgive me if, as a very junior member of this Dáil, I do not understand their arguments and their remarks in regard to my attitude to this Bill and my attitude in putting down this amendment. If I understand the procedure of Dáil Éireann correctly the Committee Stage on which these amendments were first put down is the stage on which there is general discussion on the details of a Bill. If any Deputy has any constructive suggestion to make whereby sections or a section of a Bill can be altered for the better, that is the stage on which he puts down the amendments and a discussion presumably takes place.

I do not think that cuts across a Deputy's right to defend or support a Bill in principle. If I am right again, I remember Deputy Norton arguing very vehemently at the start of the Committee Stage for the right to argue the Bill section by section because, as he pointed out, a Deputy might be in favour of certain sections and against others, and he wanted to preserve the right—and I agree with him—to vote for or against each section whether or not he opposed the Bill as a whole.

In putting down this amendment I was merely taking advantage of my position to suggest what I thought might make an improvement in regard to the setting up of this commission. I would be out of order if I referred again to my arguments in connection with the abolition of P.R. and the single transferable vote. I made my attitude on that perfectly clear and, having done that, I think I have the right to suggest amendments, whether they are accepted or not, just as other members of the Dáil have the right to argue against them if they wish. I believe it is helpful at this stage for somebody to put down amendments which he regards as desirable, however ridiculous they may appear to some Deputies.

Having listened to the discussion on the various stages of this Bill for the past two months, I could not see how any six members of this Dáil could sit down and hope to reach unanimity. However, from the remarks made on both sides this afternoon I have rather more hope now. Even if it is only a question of arguing that a commission, such as is proposed by the Government, is better than a commission composed on the lines of my amendment, we will have made some advance. In withdrawing the amendment I express the hope that the commission will meet in the amicable spirit in which the Taoiseach hopes it will meet and that it will go ahead and carry out its task competently and impartially.

Tarraingíodh siar an leasú, faoi chead.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Nior tairgeadh leasú a 2.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Tairgim leasú a 3:—

I leathanach 9, línte 42 agus 43, "nó is túisce a lán-scoirfear í tar éis cibé dáta roimhe sin a cinnfear le rún ar n-a rith ag Dáil Éireann," a scriosadh;

agus

I leathanach 13, línte 40 go 42, "or occurring next after such earlier date as may be determined by a resolution passed by Dáil Éireann," a scriosadh.

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 8, lines 41 to 43, to delete "nó is túisce a lán-scoirfear í tar éis cibé dáta roimhe sin a cinnfear le rún ar n-a rith ag Dáil Éireann,";

and

In page 12, lines 40 to 42, to delete "or occurring next after such earlier date as may be determined by a resolution passed by Dáil Éireann".

Section 7. 1º of the Schedule reads:—

"Until the date of the dissolution of Dáil Éireann occurring next after the 15th day of April, 1961, or occurring next after such earlier date as may be determined by a resolution passed by Dáil Éireann, Dáil Éireann shall be composed of members who represent the constituencies determined by the law in force on the 1st day of January, 1959, and all elections for membership of Dáil Éireann, including the filling of casual vacancies, shall take place in accordance with that law."

I wish this section to read so that it will be quite clear to the Dáil and to the country that it is not the intention to have a general election before 1961. When the Government brought in this Bill they gave two paramount reasons for doing so, (1) that they probably would not have the opportunity of a majority here again and (2) that it was for the purpose of political stability and for the purpose of securing strong Government. This Government has an overall majority of 20 and in a comparatively small Parliament such as this anyone could consider that a strong and stable majority.

The Taoiseach in the early stages of this discussion said that a strong Government is necessary so that a Government may implement its policy. This Government in the ordinary way has a period of five years from the time it was inaugurated. That is a period in which they could implement any policy they wished to implement. Deputies will realise there has not been any very great implementation of policy, so far as political debate goes, within the past three months, nor has there been very much opportunity of doing so. Some Minister may leap up when I have concluded and say we have prevented any business being discussed other than this Bill. The Opposition have duties to perform and one of their duties is to go thoroughly into any form of legislation proposed. Every fairminded person whether he is inside or outside Dáil Éireann will realise that an Opposition is only doing its duty in going through every section of this legislation conscientiously and in a painstaking way because this legislation proposes to amend the Constitution, and the amendment of the Constitution is a vital step in the life of any nation.

I hope the Government will accept this amendment and I cannot see how they can reasonably reject it. The life of this Parliament will then be assured until 1961. That is not a very long period. It means that the Government will have been in power for four years. If anybody opposite can convince me that there is any reason why these few lines, that I want deleted, should be in the Bill, I would be very willing to listen to any reasonable argument that may be adduced. If the referendum goes through, of course, any discussions that we are having on the legislation here must bear directly on the referendum.

The referendum is associated with this Bill and if the referendum goes through I do not know who the Taoiseach will be. He may be the present Taoiseach or there may be some other person, but he might quite reasonably say to himself that Deputies no longer represent, as a result of the referendum if it be passed, the particular constituencies to which they were elected and, therefore, it is necessary for the country to decide. Whether he does or does not do that, my argument is that if those lines are deleted it does create political stability. It creates the situation that even assuming the referendum goes through, if it does go through, Deputies are still considered to represent their constituencies until the 15th April, 1961, independent of any resolution that Dáil Éireann may pass on the matter.

I think that is reasonable. I think it is a reasonable request to make to the Government, and I think it would be acceptable to the country. As a public representative going round the country, I have not met anyone who wants an immediate dissolution of the Dáil. People may be discontented with the Government but generally speaking, when the people returned this Government, they expected that they would implement some sort of a policy. You might say there is no sign of their implementing any policy so far.

That does not arise on the amendment.

In some ways it does, because I am trying to give the Government an opportunity of implementing their policy if they accept this amendment. The grave risk is that if they do not accept this amendment they will run out to the country again as they have done before. I would say, therefore, it is reasonable to ask the Taoiseach and his Government to accept this amendment, and the main plea for that is political stability. That is the argument that they themselves have used. But, if they can show me that, by leaving this as it is, we still could be assured of political stability, in that case I want something more than the word of a Minister. I want some definite proof that we shall have political stability, and then I will be satisfied.

It is not my experience that any Government with an assured majority would run to the country. For what purpose would they? Why would a Government with an assured majority dissolve Parliament? They usually dissolve it to try to get a bigger majority. Usually they go to the country when their parliamentary position demands it, or when some other question of public interest would demand it. Therefore, I think the Deputy can be assured that no Government that has a parliamentary majority, and has work to do, is likely to dissolve Parliament.

You had a good majority in 1948 and you ran away.

In 1948? What is the Deputy talking about?

There was a position in the country which demanded it.

You had a big majority.

We were beaten in a couple of by-elections, and it was very important that it would be made quite clear what the opinion of the country was. If the Government was to carry on its policy and do its work properly, it would have to be in the position that it could not be taunted by the Opposition that it did not represent the country at all.

You are taunted at present.

If a position like that arose I do not think it would be wise not to let the people decide. I am told that it is likely that the earliest date by which the constituencies could be determined and everything made ready for the holding of an election under the new system and a new register would be about April 15th, 1961, the date that is mentioned here. That is, in all probability, the earliest time when the new register and everything would be ready for the new system; but we have to provide for all sorts of things that could happen, and if it should be in the interests of the country that there should be an election before that, and if things were ready, and an election had to be called, the matter could be settled by a resolution of the Dáil. It would be very unwise to tie ourselves up and say that, no matter what happens, when the work was completed—it could not be done before that—we could not have a general election on the new system to test public opinion. I do not think it would be wise that that should be prevented. I think the Bill is much more satisfactory, from the point of view of the public interest, as it is and the amendment proposed by the Deputy, therefore, cannot be accepted.

The point I want to make in favour of the amendment is that the present Government got a substantial majority in the last election, regardless of how they secured it. Several times during the course of this debate it was stated by the Taoiseach and others that they were now using this majority in order to put before the people, in a referendum, an issue which, in the opinion of the Government, could not be determined by the people if they had not this substantial majority. This Bill is being put through by this substantial majority, however it was obtained, and the result is that it is going to be placed before the people for their decision in the form of a referendum.

This is only one of the many things that the Government could do during their period of office while they hold their present substantial majority. As I say, when this matter has been decided one way or the other, the Government will still have a majority in this House to implement a policy, if any, during the authorised period of five years from February, 1957, when they secured their majority in the election of that year. They are entitled to stay here in Parliament for a period not exceeding five years. They are just finishing their second year now and, when this issue is decided one way or the other it could reasonably be expected that the Government will set about some others of the many major problems confronting the country. That is why I am in favour of the amendment moved by Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde, because he puts it fair and straight to the Government to tell the people now that they are asking them for a decision on an issue that can be put to them, in the opinion of the Government, only in the present circumstances, and that a decision is being asked from them one way or another.

As I say, it is being put up to the Government now to say that when this issue is decided, they will avail of the majority which they secured in 1957 to implement the policy which was promised to the people, and to stay in Government so long as they have the majority and the confidence of the people. I think it is a very reasonable proposition to put up and it should be embodied in the legislation, now that we are discussing this matter, realising very clearly that the majority at the present time is being used in order to have this particular issue decided. It is a pity it was not decided in a general election.

The Deputy is getting away from the amendment before the House. He should relate his remarks to the amendment.

As I say, it was not made an issue in a general election. Now it is being made an issue and when we get a decision, we ought to have an undertaking from the Government, in view of the very drastic changes it is likely to make for the people, particularly people who want to send representatives to the Dáil, that into this legislation will be put certain guarantees to the people that the routine of Parliament will proceed in the normal way. This is a specific matter. We are asking for a specific decision from the people and when it has been disposed of we expect the Government to carry on with the work. I feel that the House is entitled to have that assurance embodied in the legislation.

All we can say is that we hope the Fianna Fáil Government will accept Deputy Rooney's appeal to stay in office until 1961.

If the question of shortening the life of this Dáil has arisen, it has arisen because of the fact that the Government, by what they are doing, by what they are attempting to perpetrate, brought about political instability. It is because of the fact that there was a Government in office with a substantial majority, capable of pushing through this House, without hindrance, any measure they wished to enact. In those circumstances, they brought down on their own shoulders the question of this referendum. Should the referendum fail to secure the support of the people, and the indications are that it will so fail, then the Government will be in the position that they will have lost the stability they enjoyed up to the time they initiated all this business of changing the electoral system. It is in consequence of that that the whole question of stability arises. The Taoiseach may smile. The Taoiseach intervened and posed a question: "Why should any Government with a comfortable majority run to the country?"—as if he has forgotten that he is the man who ran to the Park in 1947, when he had a comfortable majority.

Surely——

The Deputy is too young to know.

The Taoiseach will recall very clearly that there was a very poor view taken of his action in those days by his own supporters. The Taoiseach was in this House when Deputy Cowan was sitting on the benches opposite and we can remember him telling us that he had an assurance from the Taoiseach that the Government elected in 1951 would not end their term of office until 1956. Repeatedly, the Deputy who voted for the election of the Taoiseach in 1951 told us—it is on the records of this House—that he had been guaranteed that the Government would not resign until their full term of office was up. Consequently, in view of our experiences, surely we can ask what the Government propose to do, if they suffer a reversal in the referendum? It is in that situation, not brought down upon the Government by the Opposition, but by their own action in this regard, that we are posing the question: "Will the Government permit, if the referendum is passed, the various organisations of the country at large to gear themselves up to the new situation before a new election is launched upon them or react to the people's rejection of the present proposals just as the Taoiseach reacted to the results in three by-elections"?

I do not think that in the whole history of Dáil Éireann we have had such a debate as that to which we are now listening. The whole of the Opposition, or at least those Deputies who speak for the Opposition, got up and with outstretched hands, begged this Government to stay in office until after 15th April, 1961. That is a great tribute and I am glad the Deputies have had the openness to say what they really think of the people who sit on these benches and are now telling the people that whatever happens we must not have a general election until some time after 15th April, 1961. I hope they will remember that on the day the referendum is being held.

We have been accused by Deputy O'Sullivan of trying to perpetrate something on the people. What are we doing? We are submitting to the people for their considered decision one single issue.

One single issue——

——as to whether the system which has been called P.R. shall be replaced——

By the British system.

——by the straight vote and we are putting that issue to the people without its being confused in any way with any other issue. Everybody knows what the referendum is to be about. We are not going to have one wing of the Coalition coming in and waving the red flag and preaching an extreme left-wing policy, and the other wing veering as far to the right as it is possible to do without running the country on the rocks——

Is this in order?

The Chair feels that we are getting away from the amendment, and that it would be more relevant, on Report Stage, to discuss what is in the Bill.

I am only replying to the accusations made by Deputy O'Sullivan, that we are endeavouring to perpetrate something-presumably an outrage—one perpetrates an outrage; one does not perpetrate a beneficial act—on the people of this country and I am trying to let the people know what we are doing. However, since you object——

Answer the speech. Do not look for a fight.

The Minister starts fights and then removes himself.

Since you are not prepared to recognise any virtue in the fact that we are asking the people to make their own decision, we shall look at what you are trying to do in the amendment. This is an innocent-seeming amendment, but, in fact, it embodies a very drastic amendment of the Constitution. The first thing it would do would be to deprive the President of his right to dissolve Dáil Éireann before 15th April, 1961.

That is what Deputy Esmonde said was the purpose of the amendment. He said he did not want an election and he wanted to make certain there would not be an election until after 15th April, 1961. The only way you can make certain of that is by depriving the President of his power to dissolve the Dáil on the request of the Taoiseach. The next thing is that you would deprive the Taoiseach of his right to make such a request to the President, irrespective of whether or not he had the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann. I am proceeding on the basis of the arguments made in support of this amendment——

In other words, the Minister refuses to read the amendment.

I am dealing only with the amendment as it has been presented to the House by Deputy Esmonde who moved it. The next thing is that you will deprive—at least Deputy Esmonde has admitted that he seeks to deprive—the people of the right to decide an issue of some fundamental importance if required by the Taoiseach of the day to do so. I think that is an absurd interference with the rights of the electorate under the Constitution. If the people decide in favour of this referendum, as I presume they will, surely we should take all steps to implement that decision as soon as possible, and with the greatest expedition. After we have taken the steps to implement the people's decision, if it should become necessary to dissolve the Dáil, why should the people not be entitled to have the benefit of their decision? That is what the mover of the amendment says they are not entitled to. He says that, irrespective of what the people may decide at the referendum—and the assumption underlying all the speeches, of course, is that the decision will go one way——

Against.

——in favour of the substitution of the straight vote for the present transferable vote. That is the assumption underlying all the statements. When the people have decided that issue, if it should be necessary later to have an election and the machinery for giving effect to the people's decision has been set up, why should the people not have the benefit of their decision? I cannot see any reason why we should be estopped from proceeding on the basis of a new system, if by any chance it is necessary to appeal to the people again. Of course I do not think it will be necessary to appeal to them. As Deputies have said, there is a strong majority in the House. I doubt if the people at a general election will vote to be thrown into the conditions of chaos and confusion which existed here before the general election of 1957.

In regard to the last point——

Deputy Rooney has already spoken, and, as this is the Report Stage, Deputies may speak only once.

The Taoiseach said that the earliest date on which they would be ready for a general election under the new system would be the date mentioned here, 15th April, 1961. Of course, that is not true. No matter how long a delay there is on this Bill we can accept it on the strength the Taoiseach has, the strong majority he has, that it will be steamrolled through the House. I do not think any Deputy need doubt that. Also the commission has to be set up within a limited period and if the commission has not agreed at the end of six months, the chairman will issue a report on behalf of the commission. That takes seven months. If the Taoiseach tots up the figures, he will find that if he wants to have a general election, as I now believe he does, having heard what the Minister for Health has said, he can have it far sooner than 15th April, 1961.

It has been said over there that we are afraid of a general election, that we want the Government to stay there. Nobody wants the Government to stay, but every Deputy has a duty to the people and if this Government were elected, whether rightly or wrongly, under false pretences, why should we in any way agree to legislation to let them play about with the Irish people? That is just what they are doing. Whatever doubts I had on the question, the Minister for Health has let the cat out of the bag. The purpose of this is to change the electoral system, if they can, and as soon as they have done that, try to have a snap election and perpetuate themselves in power. I have absolutely no doubt about that.

If this amendment is accepted, it is then the will of the people and it is embodied in legislation in accordance with the Constitution. That knocks down the argument of the Minister for Health. There is no reason why the amendment should not be accepted and there is no reason why the Government, if they were genuine in what they say, should lose faith. They said when introducing the Bill that it was pro bono publico, that it was generally desired and that they were introducing it because it would bring stability in the country. I put down this amendment to give the Government an opportunity of proving to the Irish people that they genuinely want stability. It does not matter whether the amendment goes through or not; I am perfectly satisfied now that they do not want stability, that they are running away from the issue and that they have got a majority under false pretences. They are not able to “deliver the goods” to the people. As Deputy O'Sullivan said, it is not the first time it has happened.

I do not propose to press the amendment but at least I have shown up the dishonesty of the Government from end to end in this Bill.

Tarraingíodh siar an leasú, faoi chead.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Cuireadh an cheist:—"Go nglacfar an Bille chun an breithniú deiridh a dhéanamh air"—agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh léi.
Question:—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and declared carried.
D'ordaíodh an Cúigiú Céim don Chéadaoin, 28 Eanáir, 1959.
Fifth Stage ordered for Wednesday, 28th January, 1959.
Barr
Roinn