asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state, with reference to the Electoral Register, the number of adults living on the north side of Dublin city and the number of adults living on the south side of Dublin city.

According to the returns prepared by the registration authority, there are 163,967 Dáil electors in the part of Dublin county borough north of the Liffey and 159,830 in the part south of the Liffey.

May I inquire of the Minister where he has allocated the electors of Walkinstown and Greenhills? Are they in the north county Dublin area or north of the Liffey?

The north county Dublin area is not all north of the Liffey.

By what feat of geographical imagination has the Minister managed to put Walkinstown and Greenhills in north county Dublin?

They are north of the south county Dublin constituency.

The Minister's imagination is very good.

The question refers to the north of the county Dublin borough——

But not the Minister's electoral gyrations.

——and, unfortunately, the position is that there are not sufficient electors in the county of Dublin north of the Liffey to form a separate constituency under the provisions of the electoral representation legislation.

There is only a difference of about 4,000 there between 163,000 and 159,000.

No, that is the county borough. The Deputy does not know the difference between the county borough and the county. The county borough is the area within the city boundary.

Why did the Minister not take Walkinstown into south county Dublin and make——

Because it would not fit.

Why did the Minister make it a four-seater?

Because of——

Because the Minister might be uncomfortable himself in south county Dublin.

Because of Mr. Justice Budd's ridiculous decision endorsed in the referendum at the behest of the Opposition Parties. All these illogical and ridiculous things had to be done——

Is the Minister's remark in order? I think this remark "the ridiculous decision of Mr. Justice Budd" should not be made in Dáil Éireann. If I made any such remark about a judge I would be very properly ticked off by the Chair.

Not so.

Is everything the Minister says automatically in order?

Not everything.

I think the supplementary questions were not in order because this question refers to the county borough.

Is the Chair ruling that the Minister's remark, describing a decision of the High Court as ridiculous, is in order?

The Chair has not made any decision.

It is not in order to criticise judicial decisions in this House.

I did not criticise the decision. I criticised the position that it established and which was consolidated as a result of the campaign by the Opposition.

We will have no puffing and blowing in this matter. Is it in order to describe the judgement of Mr. Justice Budd as a ridiculous judgment?

It is not in order to criticise the judgment of any judge in this House.

Would the Chair indicate to the Minister that the remark should be withdrawn?

What I criticised was the position resulting from that decision——

The Minister is caught out.

Not at all. The judge interpreted the words of the Constitution in a certain way without any reference to the realties of the situation which are now at last making an impact on Deputy Desmond when it is too late.

Deputy O'Higgins.

On a point of order. You have ruled Sir, that it is not in order for the Minister so to describe a judgment of Mr. Justice Budd. I would now ask that you require the Minister to conform to that decision of yours in the traditional manner of this House.

The Minister is aware of my decision and in reply the Minister said that he was not criticising the decision of the judge but the position arising out of the decision given by the judge.

Your ruling, Sir, was that it was not in order to describe a decision of Mr. Justice Budd as a ridiculous one.

And so it was.

On a point of order——

There cannot be a point of order on a point of order. I am on a point of order.

I want elaboration of the Chair's ruling.

Wait until I finish. You ruled, Sir, that to describe Judge Budd's judgment as ridiculous was not in order. That requires that that description so given by the Minister must be withdrawn in accordance with the tradition of this House.

May I ask the basis of your ruling that it is not in order here to criticise a constitutional decision of the courts? Surely it might well occur that this House would bring in legislation to alter a position brought about by a constitutional decision of the courts and in those circumstances we would perforce have to criticise such a decision. I should like to know, Sir, the basis of your ruling that we cannot here criticise a constitutional decision of our courts.

How could the Minister for Finance——

We cannot have a discussion on this. The Chair has already ruled that it is not in order to criticise here the judgments of the courts.

I appreciate that. I am asking the Chair now what steps the Chair will take to ensure that that remark and description applied by the Minister for Local Government is withdrawn?

The Minister assures me that he has made no reflection on the judge's ruling——

Except to call it a ridiculous decision.

Would the Deputy listen? The Minister made it clear that he was not criticising the judge's decision but that he was criticising the position that had arisen as a result of that judgment.

This, with respect, will not do. The ruling which you gave——

What happened that the Deputy came in today?

——was that the Minister's choice of terms——

The first time this session.

——that the judgment was a ridiculous judgment was not in order. Until that is withdrawn your ruling is being challenged and disobeyed by the Minister for Local Government. There must be Cothrom na Féinne in this House. There is apparently, so far as I can see, one rule for Ministers and another for ordinary Deputies.

It must be what the Ceann Comhairle says and not what Deputy O'Higgins says.

I obey the Chair in this House and I will not have force applied to it by anybody.

The Deputy is here to-day at this time for the first time this session and he would not be here only he happened to be unemployed today.

The Minister is damn lucky to be in this House. He should take care of himself. He might lose his seat next time.

Question No. 43.

Chair, Chair.

I was referring to the position established by this decision which is a ridiculous position, as Deputy Desmond has now discovered, when it is too late.

I ask for a ruling on that.

Are you going to ask this gentleman to withdraw a statement which you yourself said was out of order or are you not?

The Minister may not use the expression "a ridiculous decision". That is totally out of order.

He has used it again.

A ridiculous position.

Go back to school.

This is a democratic——

That is Deputy O'Donovan. That is the man who brought about this ridiculous situation.

Thanks for the compliment.

Chair, Chair.

If the Minister wishes to make an explanation he is in order in doing so.

This is a ridiculous position that was established by the decision extracted by the ridiculous action of Deputy Dr. O'Donovan.

The Minister's performance is a disgrace to this House.

The Chair has made the position very clear.

The biggest majority that was ever given on any decision in this country at any time.

Deputy Desmond now realises how ridiculous that situation is.

That is what the Minister did.

That is what I had to do arising out of the ridiculous position established by the decision extracted by the ridiculous action of Deputy Dr. O'Donovan.