Earlier I referred to the consequences that might arise in Sligo-Leitrim, in parts of Donegal and in North and South Mayo. The present population of Donegal NorthEast and South-West is 108,549 and to maintain the position in regard to three-seat constituencies, they obviously would have to get an injection of population from some place or other. Indeed, for the Donegal people, this would be alien because they have always represented themselves. If the position is to be maintained, it is obvious that at least 10,000 or 11,000 of population will require to be transferred to South-West Donegal.

In Sligo-Leitrim, we are concerned about this position and I do not think that it is only Deputy Gilbride and myself who have to be concerned about it because Deputy McLaughlin and Deputy Gilhawley should equally be concerned. Certainly the people in Leitrim are concerned about it. I am just wondering, knowing the energy which Donegal people can put into an election in a three-seat constituency, what would they do in, say North Leitrim, assuming that portion of Leitrim could well be added to the Donegal South-West constituency. Certainly in many ways I am pleased that I am a bit more south than that. Again, it might well be that a bit would be added from Sligo which would take in, with Donegal, portion of the town of Sligo. Then we go more south to Mayo South and Mayo North. At present the population in Mayo North is 50,315 and in Mayo South, 67,798. Again there is a picture to be looked at there. How are these constituencies to be maintained? It is an appalling picture. No less than we in Fianna Fáil the Fine Gael representatives in the west of Ireland would do well to look at this matter and say clearly to the people whether they think this is the proper thing to do, whether they think this constitutional provision of 20,000 of population or as near as possible——

Is the Deputy reading from a script?

No, I am not.

One gets that impression.

I do not need one. That is the position. I do not think there is any doubt about what the western Deputies will do when they come before the people. I think they will recommend the acceptance of this Third Amendment of the Constitution which allows for this tolerance—that is, of course, if they are sincere in their motives.

Cuireadh an cheist.

(Cavan): I think it was agreed that there would be no discussion except on the Title.

It was agreed that there would be no discussion on the sections, which would lead to duplication of debate, yes.

Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh an cheist.

(Cavan): On the Title, I am not too clear as to what the position is. At the very top of the Bill it is described as the “Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968.” Then we have: “Bill entitled an Act to Amend the Constitution.”

Article 46 (3) of the Constitution says that every such Bill—this being one of those such Bills—shall be expressed to be an Act to amend the Constitution. That might be all very well and quite clear if we were likely to have but one Amendment Bill before the people. As I see it, this Bill, if the provisions of the Constitution are to be adhered to, shall be entitled "An Act to amend the Constitution". Now, when we come to deal with the next Bill on the Order Paper, it, I gather, will also be entitled "An Act to amend the Constitution". I should like the Minister to give the House some indication as to what he proposes to put on the referendum ballot paper because I suppose what goes on the ballot paper will depend on the Title of the Bill as decided upon by the Oireachtas. As I see it, if Article 46 (3) of the Constitution is to be followed, this Bill simply must be entitled "An Act to amend the Constitution" and the Fourth Amendment must be similarly described. I do not propose to say anything further at this stage but would like the Minister to clarify the position for us.

It is proposed to put on the ballot paper the Title of the Bill—An Bille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht—Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968.

Just so that everybody will know what he is voting for.

The explanation will be given, as before, on the voting card.

On the card?

Yes. The Title is all that there will be room for on the ballot paper.

(Cavan): Will the Minister tell us how he proposes to fit that in with Article 46 (3), which I have quoted, which says that this Bill shall be entitled “An Act to amend the Constitution”? That seems to be obligatory.

Yes, so it is. The Bill is entitled "An Act to amend the Constitution". It can be described as the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968, on the ballot paper and voters will be asked if they approve of the provisions of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968. The people will be asked to vote on the two proposals at the same time. That is the Short Title of the Bill.

This appears to be as clear as mud.

The Long Title is "Bill entitled an Act to amend the Constitution".

Again, may I say it appears to be as clear as mud? Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to the provisions of the Constitution which make it obligatory that the Bill shall be described as an Act to amend the Constitution.

It is so described in the Long Title.

What the people are asked to vote for is something other than the way the Constitution provides the Bill shall be styled. The people are to be asked to vote for the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, although the Constitution says it shall be an Act to amend the Constitution.

And so it is. The title is there in the Bill.

Can we start again slowly? Because the Constitution says that every proposal to amend the Constitution shall be entitled an Act to amend the Constitution——

That is complied with.

——that is what the fundamental law of the land provides. Now the Minister says blandly: "We shall not mind that; we shall style it on the ballot paper the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill". That is in defiance of the Constitution.

No, it is not. The Bill is entitled an Act to amend the Constitution. If Deputy O'Higgins will look at the Bill——

I am perfectly aware how the Bill is styled. I am concerned with what the people are asked to vote for. According to the Minister, they are going to be asked to vote for the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill——

Yes, the Short Title of the Bill.

——which is contrary to what the Constitution says they should vote on.

It is not. If Deputy O'Higgins and his Party——

I am on my feet.

I am sorry; I thought the Deputy was finished. He is saying the same thing over and over again.

This seems to be a complication brought about by reason of the desire of the Government to force two issues on the people at the same time. It is perfectly apparent now that, if the Constitution were to be observed and obeyed, there would be an absurdity because the people would be given a ballot paper——

On the point of order. A Cheann Comhairle, the Deputy is trying to discuss a Bill which is not before the House at all yet, the Referendum (Amendment) Bill.

There is nothing before the House at the moment except the Title of the Bill.

There is not even a point of order.

A Bill has to be introduced to deal with some arrangements for carrying out the referendum. Deputy O'Higgins is now attempting to discuss that Bill which has not been circulated yet.

With respect, I am doing no such thing. I am discussing the Long Title to the Bill in relation to the point made quite properly by Deputy Fitzpatrick and to the obscure and confused answers given by the Minister. I am pointing out that this situation has been created because, as is known, a proposal is before this House which if the Constitution is to be observed would result in a complete absurdity. The people would be asked to vote on the same ballot paper for an Act to amend the Constitution and asked to vote for it twice. The people could not possibly understand what is involved and this leads to a situation in which the Constitution itself is being disregarded by the Government. That is what appears to me to be involved in this. The constitutional provision is quite clear. If it means anything, it means that the issue to be put before the people is what the Constitution says it should be, and that is whether they are in favour of or against a particular Act to amend the Constitution. What the Government propose to ask them is whether they are for or against something else, something entitled the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. That is not within the Constitution.

Apparently it has not yet penetrated to Deputy O'Higgins that we have conceded their demand and that we are separating these two proposals. He is now trying to pretend that there is still going to be only one ballot paper, although if he had been paying any attention at all to what has been going on, he would know that in order to try, if possible, to dispel the confusion of the Opposition Parties, we have agreed to present the people with two ballot papers.

I know that: two ballot papers with the same question.

Now he says that these two separate questions are to be asked on the same ballot paper. He does not know what he is talking about. He is confused and it is not possible to unconfuse him. Having separated them in order to dispel the confusion, he wants them put together again.

The Minister is an expert on courtesy.

He pretends Fine Gael's objective was to ensure that there would not be confusion in the public mind. Now he objects to these things being differentiated to the people, so that they will know one ballot paper refers to the Third Amendment Bill and one to the Fourth Amendment Bill. Deputy O'Higgins wants them both to carry the same title so that the people will be confused. We have done everything possible to try to do the impossible, and that is to unconfuse the Opposition.

I am merely pointing out you are digging a pit and falling into it yourselves.

In fact, some arrangements for the taking of the Referendum have to be provided for in a special Bill.

(Cavan): It is quite clear what has happened. The Government at the outset hoped to have this package deal and to include these two proposals in one Bill. But, as I say, public opinion, the free press and this House would not stand for that. They had to run away from it and they did run away from it. As the Minister says, they have now introduced two Bills and they are going to have two ballot papers, but they are going to try to achieve what they set out to achieve by christening one of the Bills the Third Amendment and the other the Fourth Amendment, as if that will mean anything to the people. If the Minister can call this Bill in the Short Title the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, surely he can put some name on it that will mean something to the people? He can call it the Tolerance Bill, the Gerrymandering Bill, or anything else. Of course it is really a gerrymandering Bill but if he calls it the Tolerance Bill the people might know what he means. It is obvious—and I want to put this on the record—that the Minister, having been chased away from his efforts to confuse the people by the package deal and the two questions in one Bill, has now come along and introduced two Bills; but on the ballot papers they are going to be like Siamese twins and it will be impossible to distinguish them.

The Deputy is opposing the two of them.

(Cavan): That is what the Minister wants. He wants to try and confuse the people.

There is no point in replying to that kind of nonsense.

(Cavan): The Minister cannot contradict it.

Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.

It will not be carried in the country. The people have rights and they will not be taken away from them.

Tuariscíodh an Bille le leasaithe.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Now?

The quicker we go to the country, the better we will like it.

(Cavan): The Minister is going to walk it through the Dáil and he might as well walk it through now as any other time.

The Minister has an amendment on Report Stage.

(Cavan): When the Minister asked for Report Stage now, I did not realise that he proposed to introduce an amendment. I should like to have some time to consider it.

If the House does not wish to finish the Report Stage now we can adjourn the debate.

(Cavan): It is not a question of wishing to agree. It would be manifestly ridiculous to take Report Stage now and at the same time to be handed an amendment.

It was circulated some time ago.

We got it now.

I am sorry; I thought it was circulated a long time ago.

The Minister is confused again.

We only got it now.

That is all right if you only got it now.

It could not be circulated until Committee Stage was finished. Does the House agree to take Report Stage and the Minister's amendment now?

(Cavan): I am prepared to get the wretched thing out of the House as soon as we can. Could we take it to-morrow?

I think we discussed this earlier. We referred to it anyway. However, I do not mind.

(Cavan): It is probably introduced to deal with some points I raised.

It is.

(Cavan): I should still like time to consider it. Could we take it tomorrow, if that is acceptable?

D'ordaíodh go dtógfaí Céim na Tuarascála Dé Déardaoin, an 6ú lá de Mheitheamh, 1968.