§ MR. HEALYsaid, he believed they now came to the Irish part of the Schedule, and he wished to call attention to the innumerable inaccuracies in the Bill as printed. In looking down the Paper of Amendments, he saw there was not a single Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill; and he would therefore ask what steps were to be taken by the Government to insure accuracy in the measure?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was afraid that in the case of Ireland there had been greater liability to make mistakes than in the case of England or Scotland. People in Ireland were not so much alive to the Bill, owing to causes which must be patent to everybody, as were the people of England and Scotland. He had received a great many communications from various parts of England with regard to the proper names of places; and there could be no doubt that the best way of checking errors was for people locally interested to call attention to such mistakes as occurred. The best way of correcting such inaccuracies as remained would be for hon. Members to look at that part of the Bill which affected the district they represented. If there was anything wrong, it would then be easy to rectify it. Very often small errors, particularly in spelling, were very difficult to detect.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the matter was one for the consideration of the Government themselves. He wished to ask whether there was any fear that geographical errors of a substantial kind made in this Bill would interfere with the right of a person to vote? For instance, supposing a Sheriff had a Writ issued excluding by mistake a certain place which ought to have been in a constituency, would he be entitled to allow voters in the place so excluded to vote?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there would be very little danger of anything of that kind arising if they set out the whole list of parishes. If the whole of the parishes were given, no doubt electors would have a right to vote; but they might not in all cases exercise the right in the proper divisions.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he proposed now to move to report Progress. Earlier on in the evening an expression had fallen from the right hon. Baronet's lips to the effect that it would be as well to finish Scotland before terminating the Committee for that night. Well, that part of the Schedule affecting Scotland had been disposed of in a very short space of time, and a great many hon. Members who had heard the right hon. Baronet's expression had felt themselves at liberty to go home. Personally, he was not particular to what hour he stayed there. He would gladly remain until 3 or 4 o'clock for any useful purpose; but he did not think it would conduce to any very useful purpose to make further progress with the Bill under existing circumstances. To his mind it would be much better to have a clean start for Ireland to-morrow. He knew the Irish Members always liked to have a clean start if they could get one, and tomorrow they would be able to have it with a much fuller attendance than they had now. There were very few Members present at that moment, and as everybody had understood that nothing would be taken after the Scotch part of the Schedule, hon. Members, not only on the Conservative but also on the Ministerial side, had left in large numbers. It so happened that the very first counties to be dealt with in the Irish part of the Schedule were those in which Conservative and Liberal Members were much more interested than Home Rule 1953 Members. The counties of Antrim and Armagh, should not be discussed in the absence of Conservative and Liberal Members, because those hon. Members were more largely interested than anybody else. He did not say that with any feeling of hostility to any part of the House; but he certainly thought that it would be too bad to go on with the Irish part of the Bill now, instead of having a clean start to-morrow, when they could enjoy themselves thoroughly.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had communicated privately with the Whips of the Conservative Party, as well as with those of the Irish Party, about 8 o'clock that evening, and had informed them that he proposed only to take the Irish part of the Schedule until some seriously contested case was reached. They would reach that contested case, he thought, in the county of Armagh; and it was therefore proposed to go on now with the county of Antrim.
§ MR. WARTONI withdraw at once.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who had now left the House, had been thoroughly aware of the course he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) proposed to adopt.
§ MR. WARTONVery good. I withdraw.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to propose in page 90, to leave out "Bally-money," and insert "North Antrim." He might explain in a few words that the Boundary Commissioners had received Instructions to frame divisions with the names either of merged boroughs or of points of the compass. Localities were first proposed as the names of divisions; but these were opposed, and the Commissioners had then seen the desirability of making another arrangement. In only five or six cases, one of which being the case of the county now under consideration, it had been proposed to have the divisions named after towns. The reason why in Antrim the Boundary Commissioners had departed from their ordinary prac- 1954 tice, and proposed to name divisions after places, was explained by there being two merged boroughs in the county, and their names being adopted in the divisions in which they were situated, and the adoption of other local names for the sake of uniformity. He had ascertained that there was no strong opinion in favour of retaining for the divisions the names of towns, even in the case of the merged boroughs. The four towns which he was now dealing with were Ballymoney, Lisburn, Ballymena, and Carrickfergus, and those places had between them a population of somewhere about 25,000. It was proposed, therefore, to create divisions with territorial names in a district containing somewhere about 250,000, notwithstanding that the population of the four towns was only about 25,000 people. The first town giving its name to a division—namely, Ballymoney, was a very small place, situated very inconveniently at the extremity of the division; and to his mind there was no reason in the world why it should give its name to so extensive a territory. Probably it would be as well for him to move his Amendment in a slightly altered form—that was to say, to leave out the words "the Ballymoney Division," in order to insert the words "North Antrim." The Irish Members had not taken part in the discussion on the names of English and Scotch divisions, and they thought that their opinions as to the names of Irish districts should therefore have more force. He thought it would be enough in this case to call the Gentleman who would be returned by the constituency the Member for North Antrim.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 90, line 5, to leave out the words "the Ballymoney Division," in order to insert the words "North Antrim."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'the Ballymoney Division' stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, he only wished the hon. Gentleman could have given him this statement privately some time ago, for it might have saved him (Sir Charles W. Dilke) an hour or so of consideration and investigation. The matter was one not worth fighting over, and he should content himself by merely protesting in favour of the scheme of the Commissioners, and then yield. 1955 He trusted the hon. Gentleman would remember that, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) attacked him for the course he had adopted that he (Mr. Sexton) would defend him. As to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), he trusted that, looking at the circumstances of these alterations, he (Mr. Warton) would not, in his love for consistency, urge upon him the desirability of altering the whole of the titles in the English and Scotch parts of the Bill. If they were to attempt to do such a thing as that, they might be occupied until Doomsday—certainly until Christmas. He trusted the hon. and learned Member would allow them here, at all events, to indulge in a little breach of uniformity. Probably there was no case to be made for Ballymoney as against the proposed alteration of title; but he certainly thought there was in the cases of Lisburn and Carrickfergus.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he desired to save the time of the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill; and he, therefore, wished to say that it would be as well in one or two cases where there were towns possessing ancient names that those names should be attached to divisions coupled with titles derived from points of the compass. In his own county—Galway—there were one or two names which he should desire to see used in that way.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he might inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in England there had been no consistency with regard to taking local names and points-of-the-compass names. In some cases they had taken both the one and the other. No regard to consistency, he thought, need be had in this matter.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 90, line 9, to leave out the word "Ballymena," in order to insert the words "Mid Antrim."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Ballymena' stand part of the Schedule."
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he did not know whether, when the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) conveyed the intimation to which he had referred to the Conservative Whips, he had also 1956 conveyed to them any intimation that, so far as the Divisions of Carrickfergus and Lisburn were concerned, he was going to agree to an alteration in the names. He (Mr. Warton) thought that in the absence of the hon. Members for Carrickfergus (Mr. Greer) and Lisburn (Sir Richard Wallace), who were very highly respected Members of the House, they ought to stop after the present Amendment was adopted and report Progress. This course should be adopted, in order that hon. Members from Ireland representing the eight or nine boroughs which were to be disfranchised might be present to say what they thought about this part of the Bill. He was strongly of opinion that the shorter names of "North Antrim" and "Mid Antrim" were superior to the names "Ballymoney Division," and "Ballymena Division." He should also be in favour of "East Antrim" and "South Antrim," if such points of the compass could be applied to those districts; but he thought that those hon. Members who were interested in the places should have an opportunity of saying what they thought about the change. He was not opposing the present Amendment.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he trusted the hon. and learned Member would not be more Catholic than the Pope. The Members for Antrim were well able to defend themselves, yet they had not expressed any opinion against the alterations it was proposed to effect. The hon. Member interested in the North of Antrim, who enjoyed the respect of his Party, entirely approved the Amendments. If the hon. and learned Gentleman desired, under the circumstances, to report Progress, he would, perhaps, find it difficult to carry his object, as the hon. and learned Member would not be able to find 20 supporters. He would not be able to take the Committee into the Lobbies; but would be asked to stand up, so that his vote might be taken in the House. He (Mr. Healy) hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press his Motion, as he was anxious not to put the hon. and learned Member to the trouble of standing up.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that an hour ago, when the Government proposed to report Progress on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, and go on with the Registration Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton) and 1957 his Friends were as loud in opposition to that proposal as they were now in favour of reporting Progress. The Tory Members for Ireland knew what had taken place; and the right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Members for the University of Dublin would have been quite competent to state the case before their Party left the House, if they had had any case to state.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he now begged to move to report Progress. He had not 20 Members to support him he knew, and without them he could not take a division in the ordinary way, since the ancient rights and privileges of hon. Members had been very largely done away with. He knew that in some cases the Chairman could call on Members to stand up in their places. Considering, as he had said, that there were some seven or eight boroughs in Ireland—two of which happened to be in the county they were discussing—which had been disfranchised, he thought the Members for those places had a right to be heard before those arrangements wore effected. The Members for distinguished ancient boroughs might like to argue that it would be well that they should not die altogether, but that the name of their constituency should, at least, survive.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it had been perfectly known to the Party opposite, an intimation to that effect having been conveyed to them, that this county was to be dealt with that night—the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had been thoroughly aware of the fact. As to names, the Amendment had been on the Paper, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knew very well that he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was not altogether in favour of the proposed changes—in fact, that he had voted in minorities on those questions several times. Under those circumstances, he thought there was every reason why they should now go on and make further progress with the Bill.
§ Question put, and negatived.
1958§ MR. HEALYsaid, that before the next Amendment was proceeded with, he should like to point out that there was a great portion of the Carrickfergus Division in which he could raise the point as to the inclusion of the entire district. They would find, beginning in line 22, the words "Antrim, Lower (except so much as is comprised in Division No. 2, as herein described)." He had observed, on a former occasion, that any person who bought a copy of the Bill ought to be in possession of full information as to the entire areas covered by it. If they turned to the map of the Boundary Commissioners they would find exactly what had been done. The right hon. Baronet had declared that to set out the entire description of areas in these cases would take up too much space, and lengthen the Bill; but he (Mr. Healy) had pointed out that the alteration he desired, and which he considered essential, would not occupy more than a very few additional pages of the measure. In this particular instance, on page 16 of the Report of the Commissioners, they found the full description which he desired to see inserted under the heads "Divisions;" and he would, therefore, repeat his question—why should not those descriptions be in the Bill? If the Bill in its present form was scientific drafting, then all he could say was, that it was scientific drafting gone mad. The Bill should be a whole Bill, and not a part of a Bill. It was a monstrous thing that when a person had paid his Is. 2½d. for the Bill, in order to find where he was, he should have to pay a further 17s. 6d. for the Report of the Boundary Commissioners. They must bear in mind that before long this Report of the Commissioners would become obsolete, whereas the Bill might always stand on the Statute Book. In Ireland they were situated in this matter differently to England, and perhaps Scotland, because it was pretended there to go by definite divisions like baronies. If that were so, why should they leave out certain parishes, and after describing the districts in one division go on to say that so much should be included in No. 1 Division, and so much comprised in No. 2 Division? It was most absurd to put the thing in that way. He quite admitted that by the method pursued the drafters of the Bill were in less danger of being inaccurate 1959 in the matter of spelling or the matter of names; but those small difficulties could be got over with care. If they were careful about one thing they could be careful about another; and he maintained that those who bought the Bill when it became an Act of Parliament were entitled to find in it a full and complete description of the districts dealt with, instead of being compelled to find it out by some rule of subtraction. People who bought this Bill did not want to find out what it meant by a rule of three sum. It was not a rule of three Bill.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had promised the hon. and learned Member that he would consider this matter in consultation with the gentlemen responsible. Now, they had pointed out to him that the Schedule, was framed on the principle that where a Petty Sessional division or barony was divided in Ireland between two Parliamentary divisions the names of the parishes in one of those divisions were set out. That had been adopted for two reasons—one for the purpose of shortening the Schedule, and the other in order to make it certain that all the barony or parish was included in one division or the other. If all the names were put into the Schedules the length of the Bill would be very considerable indeed. On a former occasion the hon. and learned Member said that only a few additional pages would be needed; but that was not the case, and the description of Armagh, for instance, would be more than doubled. The Bill would be increased in size from 100 pages to more than 200. Any change of the kind indicated which might be carried out at that time would involve an enormous amount of alteration in the Bill, and the risk of error would be further increased.
§ MR. HEALYadmitted there was force in what the right hon. Baronet had stated. But he must look at the question from this point of view—the people in Ireland who took an interest in politics were of a class different from that to which the people who took an interest in politics in England belonged. In England they belonged to the intelligent classes—in Ireland everyone took an interest in politics. And he said they were entitled to see by the Bill the exact position they were in, and that 1960 nothing in the shape of a tax ought to be placed upon them. He had raised this question on the very first opportunity that presented itself in the discussion on the Bill—namely, when Kensington was under consideration—and he did so again that evening when they reached the description of the first Irish county. It was not correct to say that it was too late to make any alteration; it was very early; and he would ask the right hon. Baronet if he would distribute this information gratis, and whether he would reduce the price of the Report of the Commissioners from 17s. 6d. to 7s. 6d.? Why not publish with each Bill a little map, so that the whole thing should be en bloc, and people saved the trouble of looking from one page to another? It was very difficult for Irish Members familiar with the places and districts in Ireland to construe this Bill, and it would be absolutely impossible for the humble people who took an interest in the matter in Ireland to decipher it. As to the cost of producing the Bill in the form he wished, it was a mere bagatelle. The National Debt amounted to £800,000,000, and here was the right hon. Baronet, in a matter of this great importance to the bulk of the people, haggling over a few shillings.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEreminded the hon. and learned Member that the number of maps published by the Government was enormous, and the cost of Acts of Parliament was an immense item in the accounts. He would point out that the lists of the overseers must be placed on the church doors, and persons interested could see the names of the places included in any one division, even if the names of their own localities were not mentioned.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked if the maps could not be published separately at a small price?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the maps had not yet been published in the case of Ireland; but he had given orders that they should be.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked if the maps would be purchaseable at a low price?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the cost of the maps would be, as in the case of English counties, 1s. each.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he must refer again to a point on which he had been insisting from the very first. This was 1961 a question of the proper and decent drafting of an important Bill, and he said that no expense should have been spared by the Government in having it presented, in a complete and proper form. A great deal of the obscurity and difficulty complained of had arisen from the determination of the Government to chop up divisions which might better have been left as they were. In his opinion, it was disgraceful that the views of a paid official should be taken as against the opinion of Members of that House. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had put before the right hon. Baronet the exact information which he wished inserted in the Bill; and, therefore, he (Mr. Warton) objected altogether to the opinion of the draftsman being forced upon the Committee. The materials were ready at hand, and he should do his best to see that they were inserted, and that the will of Sir H. Craven was not forced upon the Members of that House.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there was not the slightest difficulty in the Government ascertaining the names in the various districts. That was not the point. He had said it would require the addition of over 100 pages to the Bill; that it would involve an enormous risk of error; and he was'not prepared to undertake that responsibility.
§ MR. WARTONasked what was the risk of error? Why should the Government describe a division as consisting of so much of a particular district as was not included in another division? The only risk that he could see was that some places might escape the attention of the clerks.
§ MR. HEALYstrongly appealed to the right hon. Gentleman that the book which cost 17s. 6d. should be translated for the information of the public. It would be 20, perhaps 40, years before another Bill of this kind was passed through Parliament; and it would not be too much to have a Bill of this length presented in an intelligible form, even if it did cost the country a little more money. Here was a very trifling matter, and yet, because his proposal would have the effect of adding another 100 pages to the Bill, it was not to be granted.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.