Amendment No. 2 proposes to delete all references to North-East and North-West Dublin and amendment No. 3 proposes to delete the same references and to substitute something else. I am putting the question on No. 2, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" and if that is affirmed, No. 3 cannot be moved. They will, therefore, be discussed together.
Registration of Maternity Homes Bill, 1934—From the Seanad. - Electoral (Revision of Constituencies) Bill, 1934—Committee Stage (Resumed).
The following amendments were on the Order Paper:—
2. In Part I to delete all references to the constituencies of "North East Dublin" and "North West Dublin" and substitute the following:—
"
|
NORTH DUBLIN. |
The Arran Quay, Clontarf East, Clontarf West, Drumcondra, Glasnevin, Mountjoy, North Dock, Inns Quay, North City and Rotunda Wards and the Townlands of:— |
Eight |
|
Artane South, Ballyhoy, Bettyville, Charleville, Clonturk, Edenmore, Foxlands, Furrypark, Glebe, Hampstead Hill, Hampstead South, Harmonstown, Kilbarrack Upper, Killester Demesne, Killester North, Maryville, North Bull (Drumcondra Rural), North Bull (Howth Rural), Puckstown, Raheny North, Raheny South, Sibylhill, Botanic Garden, Cabragh (Castleknock), Cabragh (Finglas), Castleknock (Phoenix Park), Chapelizod, Grangegorman, North, Prospect, Slutsend or West Farm, St. James, Tolka Park, Violet Hill Great and Violet Hill Little, in so far as the same are situate within the County Borough of Dublin. |
"
—William Norton.
3. In Part I to delete all references to the constituencies of "North East Dublin" and of "North West Dublin" and substitute therefor the following:—
"
|
DUBLIN BOROUGH NORTH. |
The County Borough Electoral Divisions Numbers TWO and THREE. |
Eight |
"
—Risteárd Ua Maolchatha.
Is No. 2 not moved?
I formally move it.
If nothing more than that can be said on amendment No. 2, may I move No. 3?
I do not like to interfere in other people's constituencies.
The Minister proposes in his Schedule to divide the North City of Dublin constituency—an eight-member constituency—into two constituencies, one of three members and one five members. I should like to hear from the Minister the grounds upon which he makes this division. The constituency has been accepted as it stands at the present moment, with the exception of small rural additions arising out of the Greater Dublin Bill, since 1923. I do not think any question has arisen, all during the time the constituency existed as such, that the size of the constituency in any way created any particular difficulty. The Minister proposes a division which gives one three-member constituency. I think it has been argued here before that the position which the Minister is creating under this Bill, by which he provides an excessive number of three-member constituencies, is a blow at the particular type of proportional representation which we have had up to the present. I should like to hear what justification the Minister can put forward for dividing an eight-member constituency, which would still continue as an eight-member constituency, into one three-member constituency and one five-member constituency.
The amendment standing in the name of Deputy Norton is aimed at preserving the larger unit. In this particular constituency I do not think it can be alleged that there is any diversity of interests amongst the residents of the area. There is nothing that can be alleged in support of the alteration of the existing constituency, except that it is alleged to be unwieldy. I do not think that could be the case with such a concentrated unit as you have in the City of Dublin, which is so easily traversed by all forms of transport either at election or other times. There certainly could not be any serious suggestion that it would be difficult to traverse that particular constituency. By leaving the larger unit you are certainly preserving the letter and the spirit of proportional representation. Viewed from any angle, seeing that the eventual number in the amendment is identical with that proposed in the Bill, I do not know any reason why the Minister cannot see his way to accept the amendment as put down. It would allow the existing constituency to stand, and, as I said, assures the continuance of the letter and the spirit of proportional representation, which are obviously given better freedom and better scope in the larger than in the smaller constituency. Those are the reasons which actuated the putting down of the amendment, and I certainly think there is nothing to prevent the Minister from accepting it. It does not effect any serious alteration in the proposals. He will have the same number of members as originally intended in the Bill; he will be leaving a larger measure of satisfaction amongst the residents in the district, and will be preserving the spirit of fair play as adumbrated and carried out in proportional representation.
Now we have the mover of the amendment in the House.
The person we would particularly like to hear would be the Minister on his proposal.
The case for the amendment in the name of this Party has already been made, I think, on the Second Reading of this Bill. We then indicated that we were in favour of maintaining the scheme of large constituencies, because of the fact that large constituencies enable the working of proportional representation to the greatest possible limits; whereas under a scheme of carving up constituencies, dividing them into two, to be represented by a small number of Deputies, the position would be that proportional representation could only be carried on to a very limited extent. As a matter of fact in the three-member constituency proportional representation could only be carried on to an extremely limited extent.
On the Second Reading of the Bill the Minister made a case for trying to reduce large constituencies and make them more compact. I cannot understand on what grounds it is sought to divide up North Dublin, if the principle of making constituencies small territorially has guided the Ministry. West Cork is still to be left as it is, and if one looks at the map it will be found that the constituency is about 120 miles in length. That is a very big factor in considering the task of a Deputy in representing his constituency, but it cannot be said that North Dublin is 120 miles long. One could go from one end of the constituency to the other on a tram or bus in about 20 minutes or half an hour. It cannot be said, therefore, that it is unmanageable territorially, and I do not think that is pleaded by any Deputy. It certainly has not been said by any of the Deputies representing North Dublin that it is unmanageable from the point of view of dealing with correspondence, or interviewing constituents frequently. I think the Minister might agree to leave North Dublin as it is, with eight seats, rather than to divide it up and create two constituencies out of one which is already sufficiently compact. It is not by any means territorially too great, and has been known for a very long period as North Dublin. I think it would be much more convenient administratively; it would be much more convenient from the point of view of the constituents in North Dublin, and would be preferable from the point of view of proportional representation if the constituency were left as at present, instead of being divided up, not for the purpose of reducing the seats but merely for the purpose of having it divided.
I hope the Minister will indicate that he is prepared to accept the view which was expressed by many Parties in this House on the Second Reading of the Bill, namely, that the large constituency is preferable to the small constituency. If the Minister agrees to meet that claim he will make it possible for proportional representation to work much more effectively than it can be worked in the smaller constituency. If the Government does really believe that proportional representation is desirable and has virtues, then there is no reason why it should not be tested to the last and given an opportunity of running the full gamut of its virtues. That can only be done on the basis of the large constituency. On the basis of the small constituency, I do not think any administrative object of any value is achieved, and certainly the principle of proportional representation is seriously interfered with, if, in fact, it is not altogether strangled.
I think I explained on the Second Reading my views on the large versus the small constituency. I believe that the small constituency, such as is proposed in the Bill with regard to North Dublin, South Dublin and certain counties, would be more manageable from many points of view. In North Dublin particularly it would give as good an opportunity of working proportional representation as would the arrangement of eight members at present in vogue. I know there is an opinion in the House that the large constituency is preferable. I do not know whether it is on all sides of the House, but I know it is to a certain extent among members of my own Party. I have heard, since the Bill was introduced, that some of them, at any rate, would like the large constituencies. I do not share that view. I should prefer, and I think it would give fairer results for everybody, that the House would accept the proposition which I have put forward in this Bill. I do not say that Dublin (North) is a constituency that, as it stands at present, is unmanageable. I do not say it is. It is not comparable in size to West Cork or some other constituencies. But with a population of 180,000 it is a very big constituency. I suggest that it should be divided into two. With this eight-member constituency divided into two there would be a better opportunity for all Parties in the two constituencies to work the constituency more satisfactorily and to get no less good results under that system than would be got under the system as at present worked. I think smaller constituencies not alone in North Dublin or Dublin City, but all the smaller constituencies that we have proposed for the several other counties, Tipperary, Donegal, Kerry, Galway, and so on, will give, at any rate, not less satisfactory results.
That is my opinion on the matter, but I know that that view is not shared everywhere. However, I think it ought to get a trial. I think for all political Parties concerned, particularly for the smaller Parties, there will be better opportunities. Take any Party you like—take the Labour Party. I think they would get a better chance with the smaller constituencies. They seem to believe, judging by the amendment here, that their chances would probably be better in the larger constituency. I do not know that that is so. I think it remains to be proved. I think the smaller constituencies would be better, particularly for the smaller Parties.
As I said on the Second Reading, with the larger constituencies you require a very big and, comparatively speaking, wealthy organisation to work them. Unless you have a powerful political machine behind you, you cannot cover a big constituency with the literature that is necessary. You cannot provide the necessary transport and everything else, all of which would be much more costly than in the case of a smaller constituency. Therefore, a large constituency is hampering any moderately-sized organisation. In order to work the small constituencies of three or five you require a far less powerful organisation. I think this is a much better way—to divide the constituencies into moderate-sized constituencies than have constituencies consisting of a county or a constituency with a population like that of North Dublin. I think the system of smaller constituencies is much better.
The Minister does not seem to have considered this matter very much. I notice when speaking here we talk about proportional representation as if the system we have was the only form of proportional representation. Personally I think the system of proportional representation we have is a bad form of proportional representation. You can say about proportional representation in general that it is unlikely to produce a situation in which a Party or a combination of Parties who have received only a minority of the votes in the country are likely to get into office. The Minister says he thinks it is more favourable to have smaller constituencies for the small Parties. Personally, I do not see why one should go out of his way to favour the smaller Parties. Why is a Party small?
Yours will be a small one in the near future.
Possibly, but not likely to be as small as Deputy Davin's Party. A Party is small because it has a small following in the country. The Constitution demands that the representation of the people shall be one representative to not less than so many electors, and that not more than a certain number of the population shall be represented by one member. Therefore, there is a co-relation between one Deputy and a number of people. The Vice-President says that the smaller constituency is more advantageous to the smaller Party. Clearly that is completely wrong, and his saying this shows that he has worked on an entirely false assumption in producing this Bill.
Take, for instance, the Labour Party referred to by the Minister. In North Dublin or in any other constituency they can get a Deputy elected provided they are supported by any number of units representing between 20,000 and 30,000 of the population. The Vice-President says that the smaller Party finds it much more difficult to work a large constituency. Now the Labour Party can only get one Deputy elected in North Dublin as the system stands. The reason that that is true is that there is only a certain proportion of the population supporting them. Roughly it means that they must be supported by one voter in nine. Let us take it you reduce the number of Deputies, so that instead of having eight Deputies you reduce the area to a voting population equivalent to three Deputies. Now, if the Labour Party could only get one Deputy elected previously, they have not a dog's chance of getting one now when the population is divided.
I think a lot can be said for this geographical representation of the country. Proportional representation has the advantage that it tends to make it more or less impossible to bring about the position you have in a country like England in which the Party receiving only the minority of votes may secure office. If you take the form of proportional representation that the Minister insists upon maintaining, it is perfectly easy to demonstrate that that system does not operate in constituencies of less than five members. Then one of the prime purposes and the one argument in favour of proportional representation, that it prevents a minority Government, has disappeared. When you have constituencies of not less than five, the system in no way prevents the possibility of a minority Government. The real reason then for maintaining that form of proportional representation has gone.
Looking at the Bill as a whole, it is clear that the Government has aimed at three-seat constituencies. In doing that they have eliminated any argument for and eliminated any beneficial effects that could follow from the form of the proportional representation that we have at present. If they wanted these smaller constituencies they could clearly have adopted a different form of proportional representation. What they have done is to eliminate the desirable results of the form of proportional representation we have. They have not got certain desirable results of that form of proportional representation or non-proportional representation. If you take any constituency the position is this: In a three-seat constituency, say, you require one-fourth of the voters plus one to form a quota. In that three-seat constituency the result I have indicated means that, roughly, you can say that the Party with half of the voters plus two is sure to get two-thirds of the representation. If you take the country as a whole, it means that you are just as likely to get the effect that sometimes comes from the non-proportional system of a Government that has been elected by a minority of voters.
This Bill, as it stands, with its three-seat constituencies and an occasional four-seat constituency, means that it is depriving this form of proportional representation of the one good thing that could be urged in its favour. That is the situation. The Government has done this in the case of every constituency. Possession is nine points of the law, and there is a lot to be said for that. It means if a certain thing is that you require less argument for leaving that thing as it is than for changing it. A better case has to be made for changing. The Government is proposing to make a change in these constituencies, and the onus of proof, therefore, was on them to show that the change they were proposing was an improvement on the existing order.
Now, you can take it that big areas have a lot to be said against them. It is very difficult to represent one big area, and there is less personal relationship between the Deputy and the people he represents. North Dublin, in area, is one of the smallest constituencies. With its eight members, it is smaller practically than any of the constituencies made in this Bill. So far as the question of area is concerned, it certainly does not apply here. They have divided the area into two, one constituency of five and one of three. So far as the latter constituency is concerned, it is clearly running completely counter to the object of the present form of proportional representation. The Government could have abolished that form. There are plenty of other forms.
They should have abolished it altogether. It is only a freak.
They could have achieved the desired effect in other ways. They could have smaller constituencies. They could have avoided the situation of a Government representing a minority, and they could have provided also that small parties would get representation. Off-hand, I could give you a dozen proposals. You could have a single-member constituency as in England, and then you could provide that the constituencies directly would not send the full number of representatives to the Dáil. If you were to have 120 members in the Dáil, you could have 80 or 90 constituencies each returning one member.
The Deputy surely realises that he is making a Second Reading speech. If the Deputy were to continue on those lines other Deputies could not be precluded from resuming the Second Stage debate.
I quite understand. Here is a constituency approximately the smallest in the country, and the Government has divided it. The division is clearly not in favour of geographical smallness. If that were so, they would have to divide every other constituency into minute fractions. They seem to desire to have three-member constituencies. The Minister has put forward no argument in favour of this. In order to placate Deputy Norton, he said that the three-member constituency is beneficial to a small Party. No one will accuse me of being unjustly preoccupied with the benefits that may accrue to the Labour Party. I want some decent system which will achieve good results. A lot might be said for the English system, and proportional representation has something to be said for it; but the Government has destroyed whatever benefit can be got from proportional representation, and has prevented the benefit that could be got through the English system. I was going to suggest alternative systems under which they could have retained the advantages of proportional representation and could have gone some way towards the position which the Minister desires, that is, more direct touch between the people and their representatives.
In making a change, the onus of proof is on the person who proposes the change. The Minister has made no attempt to justify the divorce in this particular constituency of North Dublin. He said that the smaller constituency was beneficial to the small Party, which is directly contrary to truth. The Vice-President merely said: "I think," and "my opinion is." He implied that on the whole he would prefer that the Dáil would approve this division of the North Dublin constituency. He did not nail his colours to the mast and say that he would resist this amendment to the death. I would like a sound argument for the change. I would like to hear if the Minister is prepared to resist this amendment very strongly. Deputy Donnelly has indicated that he is not in sympathy with this type of thing. Is the Minister prepared to leave the issue to an open vote? I do not think there is any Party question involved. I know that I have not examined the first preferences, nor have I examined whether our Party would have a bigger representation one way or the other. It is quite possible that this change would be beneficial to our Party. Perhaps the Minister will give us some indication that, if he is going to resist this amendment, he will leave the issue to an open vote?
I would like to hear the Minister develop the point he makes, that the division of an area like this is good for a small Party and will be particularly good for the Labour Party. If he looks around him in County Dublin he will find that the situation at present is that we have one eight-member constituency north of the river, one seven-member constituency south of the river, and one eight-member constituency in the county. If the boundaries are left practically as they exist, with the exception of the transferring to the City constituencies of the rural parts that have been transferred to Greater Dublin, that would still leave eight members for the North City, seven for the South, and a nine-member constituency for the County. The Minister has turned these three constituencies into six. He provides three three-member constituencies, one four-member constituencies, and two five-member constituencies Interested as I am in giving different sections of the people representation under the proportional representation system we set up, I would like to hear the Minister develop how the change of these three constituencies into six is going to help the Labour Party.
I hope the Minister will at least tell us if he is going to have a Party vote or a free vote.
You are taking the capital of the country and the area immediately surrounding it. You are asking the citizens and the electors in the county to take it that the change now being made is for the purpose of giving a better chance to have proportional representation properly carried out, to have a closer connection with the people and their interests and a closer representation here in the Dáil of what they want. A more detailed review of the situation by the Minister is called for.
Speaking yesterday evening, the Minister said he would resist the amendment moved by Deputy Cosgrave on the grounds that it involved changing the boundaries of constituencies as set out under the Bill. That plea cannot be made against this amendment, because the amendment does not involve any change in the boundaries which would involve a reshuffling of the other contiguous constituencies. All that is involved in this amendment is simply taking out the bar, so to speak, between the two sections of the present North Dublin constituency and making the constituency one as at present instead of leaving the bar in and making the constituency two. Now, the same principle is operating in the case of the South Dublin constituency and in the case of Galway, Tipperary, Kerry, Donegal and Limerick. In all these five cases a bar has just been put in to divide the constituencies in two, for no apparent purpose except to divide them in two.
I suggest to the Minister that since there is a big principle running through the amendments affecting these constituencies, he ought to allow the House to decide, free from Party ties, whether it wants large or small constituencies. I gathered from what had been said that the Minister was expressing mainly his own view and, perhaps, the view of groups in his own Party, but the Minister himself indicated to the House, so far as I understood it, that there were people in his own Party who preferred the present large constituencies to the proposed small ones. If that is the position, and I can well believe that it is the position, I would suggest to the Minister, in view of the fact that there has been a definitely expressed preference for large constituencies from all groups in the House and apparently from his own Party, that he ought to allow the House to decide, free from Party ties, whether the House prefers the large or small constituencies. If he does that, we will get a vote then which will be a fair reflex of the opinion of the House on this important matter. After all, it is not a Party matter in any strict sense of the word and I think it ought not to be made a Party matter. I hope that the Minister will allow it to go to a free vote in the House so that the feelings of the House, apart from Party affiliations, can be reflected truly.
I said on the Second Reading, and I believe it to be correct, that a Deputy representing a small constituency has a greater opportunity of getting in touch with his constituents than in a large constituency, and that his constituents have greater opportunities of getting in touch with him than exist in a constituency like my own and that of Deputy Mulcahy, North Dublin. With eight Deputies representing 180,000 people, the Deputy is in an entirely impersonal position towards his constituents, except in relation, perhaps, to his own particular group of friends and those who know him well and intimately. I believe it would be better for the representative and better for the constituents that the individual representative should be in closer touch with his constituents and with every section of his constituents. I believe that better work would be done. That is my view, but I knew that it was not possible to go the length of doing away, as it would mean, with proportional representation if one were to go back to the single-member constituency. We are in the position that we must preserve the principle of proportional representation, and this Bill does that.
That is open to question.
It does. It decidedly preserves the principle of proportional representation. The Deputy knows that there are some other people in the House who know something about proportional representation and who know it, perhaps, as well as the Deputy. Some of these have discussed the Bill with me and have put up a variety of systems of proportional representation. I have examined a variety of systems in vogue in different parts of the world, and I believe that what we propose in this Bill will give us as good a result for all Parties, and for the country as a whole, as any system that is likely to be adopted. I am particularly keen on the small constituency, and I am particularly keen that Deputies should be in the closes possible touch with the community they represent. That is my own view. I know that it is not shared by every member of my own Party. There are some in my own Party who have objected since the Bill has been introduced. I do not know what number in my own Party objected. I did not consult them all, and I am certain that they did not all speak to me about the Bill. A good many did, however, and I heard a good many criticisms from different people. I have no idea what number there would be in my Party who would accept the principles put forward in the Bill as against the system at present in vogue. I believe that it is not a Party measure, and that, as I said on the Second Reading, political opinion in this country is fluid at all times. We do not know with great certainty what any constituency may do at a future election. Therefore, whatever divisions there may be, or whatever recasting of particular constituencies there may be in the country as a whole, it is not likely to alter the opinions of people. The people are usually well enough up in political matters and take enough interest in political affairs to be able to decide for themselves what way they will vote in any particular constituency. Therefore, if there is a strong feeling in the House that constituencies like North Dublin and South Dublin and the other counties that are divided, such as Donegal, Kerry, Galway, Tipperary, and Limerick——
What about Roscommon?
No, not Roscommon.
Why not?
Those counties divided in two are constituencies that have been divided in two. In several constituencies there has been a small bit taken away in order to regulate the population.
It makes it much worse.
Oh, no. Perhaps in Cork a corner has been taken off to enable County Waterford to keep its representation. I would not agree that there should be a free vote concerning these constituencies, but in the other constituencies, where the constituency is being divided in two, I would be content to leave the House absolutely free to decide whatever way it wishes in the matter. My own personal view, however, held very strongly, is that the system I have proposed, the system of smaller constituencies, will give by far the best results from the point of view of the country, from the point of view of the constituency and, I believe, from any Party's point of view.
I cannot accept the Minister's statement that a three-member constituency obtains what was sought to be obtained in this system of proportional representation. The Minister got up and stated that it is desirable that there should be a sort of personal relationship between the Deputy and his electors. I quite agree that that is one of the desirable things to be got. It can be got, however, to a greater degree than he is getting it by these constituencies, and you can retain the proportional representation system. The Minister, however, talks about a case like Roscommon or these other cases he mentioned, and said that it was done there on account of the necessity in respect of the population. In the general election his Party stated that part of their economy campaign was that they were going to reduce the number of members of the Dáil. The Constitution, or the Electoral Act, as far as I remember, provides that there shall be not less than one representative per 30,000 and not more than one representative per 20,000. It seems to me that the Minister, in making that stipulation as to constituencies, is making it because the Government went out of its way to see how it could make the Dáil as big as possible. I think the Minister or the President stated that he did not think that an efficient Dáil could be got with 100 members.
I said it.
I think that statement is completely devoid of proof. When in certain constituencies the population has diminished the law requires that those constituencies should cease to have the representation that they have had so far. There are cases in which the situation was created that if you wanted to keep the idea of proportional representation the diminished population would reduce the representation of those constituencies to such a point that proportional representation would cease to operate. Apart from that, if you take County Wicklow, for instance, it was a three-member constituency. The population decreased so that it would have ceased to have three. If the Vice-President's idea was right, and, following on the programme they proposed in their manifesto at the last election, they should have said that Wicklow should continue as it is now, and if it had not the required number for three members it could have been left with just two members.
The Vice-President assumes a whole lot of things quite wrongly. He said with regard to some constituencies that a certain portion had to be taken away. I understand that he meant that it had to be added to another constituency so as to make it eligible to have a certain number of representatives. The case cannot be made for making the representation of the country as large as possible. If he was saying that you require each constituency to have a certain number of representatives before proportional representation operates, then there would be some point in it, but the way he has gone with the Bill destroys everything. For instance, he takes a bit from one constituency to add to another. Is that done so that there would be as nearly as possible one representative for every 20,000, when there is a margin up to 30,000 before they need bother about it according to law? It seems that the Minister is aiming at having as many representatives as possible, and that is why this gerrymandering is done.
I do not want to put this into controversial terms, but one of the effects of this is certainly to favour the large Parties. Personally, there is every indication to me that our Party is more likely to gain than to lose. There has been a lot of rot talked about proportional representation. It seems more likely that we shall gain rather than lose. I am not unduly concerned to see Labour with increased representation in this House, because I do not think it is necessarily desirable. What I do want is that we shall have some objective in mind. There are a number of desirable things to be looked for in the system of representation that we have. They are not all obtainable. You have between these to select what you think is more desirable, and in the interests of these, you have to sacrifice what you think is less desirable. What I object to is that the Minister is retaining all that is undesirable and failing to get what might be desirable. He eliminates the good effect of this particular system of proportional representation and he achieves nothing.
By the whole Bill he has put the country in the position that you can have a minority Government elected. I am not going to say that there is anything fundamentally wrong with that, but the argument made for proportional representation is that it prevents that happening. The Minister says that other people have studied proportional representation as well as I have. I do not deny that. All I do say is that the propagandists of the Fianna Fáil Party, who were working out a sum in simple arithmetic, stated that if there had not been proportional representation at the last general election there would have been a 100 per cent. Fianna Fáil Dáil. These people completely overlooked certain facts. They assumed that there were going to be one-member constituencies and that they would be identical with the present ones.
This amendment brings out in a particularly glaring fashion what the Minister is doing. Geographically, there has been no argument put up in favour of it. He talked about one member representing 180,000 people. 180,000 people are not represented by one member in North Dublin. The law provides that one member shall represent a population of not less than 20,000 and not more than 30,000. If there are 180,000 people in North Dublin, they should have nine representatives. The Minister would allow each Deputy to have his election with a circle of friends. As a matter of fact, that comes out very much better with a big constituency, because there are different interests. If Deputy Norton were elected for North Dublin he might have one set of friends in that area, if he could get them amounting to 20,000 and Deputy Mulcahy might have another. The Minister's suggestion that one man representing North Dublin represents 180,000 people is a suggestion that the other seven Deputies are having an easy time and not bothering about their constituents.
What I object to about the Minister's two statements is that both of them have completely misrepresented the position. He has failed to bring up any argument in favour of this and yet he has brought this solemnly before the Dáil as a change that it is desirable to make in order to improve the situation. The only thing it does is to get rid of something that might possibly be desirable and it does not provide anything that could conceivably be desirable.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 33.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Anthony, Richard.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Corish, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Everett, James.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Moylan and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Corish.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 3 falls, consequently, and the decision will also govern amendment No. 24.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In Part I to delete all references to the constituencies of "South-East Dublin" and of "South-West Dublin" and substitute therefor the following:—
"
|
DUBLIN BOROUGH SOUTH. |
The County Borough Electoral Divisions Numbers One and Four. |
Seven |
"
I think that the arguments that have been submitted in respect of the previous amendment apply equally to this amendment. The Minister may argue that the Bill causes no mutilation of Dublin as an electoral area, but I think he must admit that it is a slow method of abolishing proportional representation. I would have expected that, on any revision or redistribution of the constituencies, Dublin City would have been entitled to some preferential consideration in the matter of its representation. I am rather surprised that, on the introduction of this Bill now, Dublin is to be cut into four different sections and reduced to a three or four-seat constituency. I think, as the capital city, with its trade, commerce, industry and all that, it would be reasonable to expect that it should receive better treatment than it gets under this Bill. As regards the south-west Dublin constituency, to which three seats are allocated, I think it is too small, and the points that were made yesterday about the work of Deputies can, I think, be well justified as far as Dublin is concerned. I think all Parties or Party representatives have a good deal of work to do, and I think that when it comes to the three-seat constituency their work will be greatly increased. I am afraid, now that the Minister has already expressed himself on the North Dublin amendment, that this will receive the same fate. At any rate, I move the amendment, and I hope the Dáil will accept it.
The Minister made no attempt to answer the questions that were put to him on the last amendment. Again I say, when dealing with a constituency like South Dublin, which ought to have labour representation, which had labour representation at one time, and which, if we were more sensibly led to-day, might have labour representation too, that the Minister, when he parades this Bill as a friend of labour, as it were, ought to make some attempt to explain to the House how the division up of a constituency like South Dublin, which at the present moment has no labour representation, say outside of Deputy Peadar Doyle——
Do not try that joke now. That is a damp squib.
If the Deputy will tell us who the other Labour members for South Dublin are, we will be glad to hear it.
I thought you were going to claim to be the only living one yourself.
This is a matter which the Minister, if he is not talking entirely with his tongue in his cheek, will make some attempt to explain.
I do not think I need say anything on this amendment. We have debated the subject on the last amendment, and I suppose the same question—in principle at any rate—will be up before us again. I should like to make a remark about a statement made by Deputy Fitzgerald. He said that in certain constituencies—he mentioned Wicklow—where the population had fallen, all we need do, if the constituency had three members and was no longer entitled to three members on account of reduction of the population, was to leave it so. We could not do that, as long as we try to put into operation the terms of Article XXVI of the Constitution. Deputy Fitzgerald said that we were bound, according to the terms of the Constitution, to have not less than 20,000 and not more than 30,000 of a population per member, but there is a little more than that in the Constitution. It says here: "Provided that the proportion between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the the last preceding census, shall, so far as possible, be identical throughout the country." That made it necessary to keep within certain limits—within the bounds of 20,000 and 30,000. As far as possible, you have to make it identical; therefore, you cannot let every county stand on its own. Let us take the case of Wicklow, where the population had fallen. The Deputy did not suggest, I think, that it should be kept a two-member constituency under the present system of proportional representation. After all, the present system is one of the few remaining systems in the world to-day. There was one system that was praised and recommended, not alone to this country but to many other countries, and that was the German system. It did not last very long, and one of the reasons why it did not last may have been because of the type of proportional representation it was. We here are anxious to keep proportional representation. We believe it works well for the country and for the Parties as a whole. To keep proportional representation, you had also, remembering the principles laid down in the Constitution, to try to take from the neighbouring area a sufficient amount of the population to keep the constituency where the principle of proportional representation could operate.
Does the Minister say that he talks in those terms of proportional representation when he puts before the House a Bill which contains 20 three-member constituencies?
Certainly.
May I judge from what the Minister says that in this Bill, within the margins of 20,000 and 30,000, the Minister sought to have more or less uniformity of representation through the country, and that this was the best way of getting uniformity in the country, and maintaining the reality of proportional representation? First of all I main tain that the reality of this form of proportional representation is gone under this Bill. Secondly, I am quite satisfied that there would have been less of what I might call arbitrary changes by allowing a margin of between 20,000 and 30,000; but if you want to have as many representatives as possible, and if you are aiming at a representation of one to twenty rather than one to thirty, then it seems to me this would explain some of the things done in this Bill. The Minister says that in Germany the system of proportional representation went. One of the things that were obviously in mind in this system which we have here was a pretence that Parties did not exist. That is clearly pretence. I could give a dozen quotations from the President's speeches showing that it is perfectly ridiculous to maintain this pretence. This system of proportional representation is to my mind wrong for a number of reasons. For one thing, the idea of a Government is to make for unity in the country. The idea of this proportional representation is to translate into the Dáil, as far as possible, all the divergencies that exist in the country, whereas the very idea of the Dáil is to disregard divergencies, and to recognise a substantial unity in the country. There is no excuse for clinging to this particular form, except the pretence that Parties do not exist. In Germany it may be that the existence of rival Parties had to be wiped out, and that would be a very good reason for abolishing the German form, but in this country is it necessary for us to pretend that Parties do not exist? The President, time and again within the last two months, has got up and, in effect, said that it is perfectly ridiculous to pretend any such thing. The recognition of this particular form which the Minister speaks of is based on the assumption that the existence of Parties is in itself bad, and that the law and the Constitution should refuse to recognise any such fact. If it is a fact the best thing one can do is to recognise it. One could overcome all the defects of proportional representation or one could have all the benefits of small constituencies by merely recognising the fact that Parties exist.
In arguing this matter, I am not moved by Party motives at all because I think that whatever the Fianna Fáil Party is doing at the moment to benefit themselves would ultimately actually be a benefit to us if there is any advantage in getting more representatives than one is due to have. There is an assumption somehow or other that once a Party has a majority, it matters a great deal how big or small that majority is. Personally, once the Fianna Fáil Party has a majority of one, I see nothing to rejoice about in the fact that it may have a majority of a dozen. Once I knew the Fianna Fáil Party was going to be the Government, it would make no difference to me if they had a majority of a dozen. There is no doubt that it is by virtue of the majority of one which they got that the Party are carrying out their present policy but they would have done exactly the same thing if they had a majority of a dozen. The Minister seems to be making statements on what I might call an inadequate consideration of the facts. I regarded Wicklow, Meath and Monaghan, even under our régime, as counties in which proportional representation did not operate because each had only a representation of three Deputies. I could quite understand the Minister's saying that because the system was ineffective in these counties, apart from any changes in population, something should be done about these three constituencies but I say that within that margin which the law permits, of between 20,000 and 30,000 electors per member, these arbitrary and definitely harmful changes that have been made in the Bill could have been easily avoided provided whoever was drawing up the Bill had had in mind that the only thing to be aimed at was uniformity of representation within 20,000 and 30,000 electors for each member.
It is not quite correct to say that the only condition is that the number of population per member must be between 20,000 and 30,000. That is conditioned by the other circumstances.
I quite agree.
The proportion must as far as possible be identical throughout the country. You must remember that, in arranging the number of members, you must try to bring them as close as possible to the number of persons that each Deputy would represent. If we take the country as a whole the population is 2,900,000 odd. If we took the whole area of the Free State and divided it up on the basis of that Article in the Constitution, we could have as many as 149 members. You would disregard county boundaries. Deputies must remember the fact that the leader of the Opposition Party brought in an amendment to this Bill proposing that it should be thrown out because it disregarded certain county boundaries. There is a feeling rightly or wrongly in the country, that county boundaries should be recognised.
There are some areas more than others in which there is a kind of feeling that county boundaries are sacrosanct and that, for Parliamentary purposes or local government purposes, it would be a sort of treason to the locality not to have regard to the county boundaries. There is a certain sentiment attached to county boundaries in some areas, and it is one which cannot be entirely disregarded by anyone. It has been disregarded in some cases unquestionably, but that was unavoidable because of this condition laid down in the Constitution, that we must not exceed 30,000 per member or have less than 20,000, and that we must have the proportion throughout the country identical. We did not produce the Bill, as was suggested, to get in as many members as possible. If we did, we could have elected 13 more members, and it would have provided a reason for anger to the Party opposite, if the leader speaks for the Party, possibly to a greater extent than was expressed when the amendment was being debated in which it was proposed that the Bill should be thrown out because it interfered with county boundaries.
The Minister suggested that in drafting the Bill he had to consider the sacrosanctity of county boundaries, but he has not done that. I have not gone into the question of uniformity of representation to see how far he has achieved it, but what I do say is that as far as county boundaries are concerned they have been disregarded. I can point to what has happened in my own constituency. There are county boundaries there which have been established for quite a long time, and which have a definite meaning. If the Minister applied the standard of between 20,000 and 30,000 electors per member, and sought as far as possible to achieve uniform representation, he could have avoided an enormous number of anomalies——
And I would probably create many more.
I would like to hear about the other anomalies that would have been created. It is clear to me that this Bill is the result of more limitation than was really necessary, because the limitation of boundary was no hindrance to the Minister. We have the most extraordinary things happening, such as taking a bit of Galway and putting it on to Clare. There were certain things that the Minister should have had in mind, things laid down by law and by custom. There was the existence of the present constituencies to which the people have got accustomed, and which have a certain meaning. There were county loyalities—another thing to keep in mind. The Bill is not in its present form merely by virtue of that limitation, as many boundaries have been disregarded altogether. There are other limitations which were not imposed that are clearly answerable for the changes.
I have not disregarded the county boundaries in the Deputy's constituency.
As regards the boundaries of Carlow, I shall deal with them when my own case comes along.
Deputy Norton drew the Minister's attention to the position in West Cork where the constituency extends over a very wide area. It was mentioned that the constituency is left as it is, although parts of it are 70 miles distant from each other. No one knows, again, how long these miles may be. They would be known locally as mile móra fada— long Carberry miles.
Some districts are 120 miles apart.
At any rate, the miles are long and the miles are many. Nevertheless, when we come to the position in a seven-member constituency, in a fairly compact city, we get the constituency divided into a four-member and a three-member constituency. One of the principles on which the Minister, or at any rate the Minister for Industry and Commerce, stands, is that he is opposed to a four-member constituency. Yet we have a fairly big constituency divided up like that, a constituency which was admirable for the purposes of proportional representation. The Minister's proposal, so far as we can see in this matter, is nothing but gerrymandering, and he has the support of the Labour Party in his gerrymandering.
That is untrue.
I should like to hear the Deputy upon the matter of dividing South Dublin into a four and three-member constituency, and I should like to know whether that has not been done by arrangement with the Labour Party. The Minister told us that he did not want to have a Party vote, but the division that has just taken place showed us that he had his whole Party lined up behind him in favour of the splitting of South Dublin.
We could have carried the amendment only the Deputy Belton section of the Party opposite had left.
We could have carried it only that some of the farmers are in the Mansion House, at this moment, discussing the conditions in which their industry has been placed by the Fianna Fáil Party and the Labour Party, acting together.
Is that official?
The Deputy will have the pleasure of hearing about it in good time.
And this is neither the time nor the place.
I think it is not the time for Deputy Norton to raise these matters when, as a matter of fact, he should be afraid to mention them. We are now discussing a serious question, and the Deputy has responsibilities in the matter. If the Deputy has nothing to say on this particular point we must only take it that some arrangement has been come to between the Party at one of the fortnightly conferences that take place.
I only wanted to give Deputy Mulcahy an opportunity of displaying his eloquence, of which he is so proud, or else I should have spoken before now. He has a high regard for his own eloquence, and I did not want to do anything that would be considered to be putting an embargo on it and preventing the House hearing him. I wonder whether Deputy Mulcahy was more concerned with the amendment or with the Labour Party. He made it perfectly clear that the Labour Party is coming between him and his night's rest. The Labour Party has nothing to do with this proposal.
The last amendment seemed to be coming between the Minister and his night's rest.
And the Deputy feels that he has overslept himself, and he is going to put some of the responsibility on the Labour Party when he talks of gerrymandering. He says the Labour Party are in collusion with the Government in gerrymandering South Dublin. The other day we had Deputy Bennett going down to Limerick and stating that 75 per cent. of the people are behind him and his Party, and will be at the next election. Now what is Deputy Bennett's position in regard to this Bill? Section 8 of this Bill provides that it shall come into operation immediately on the dissolution of the Oireachtas, which shall occur next after the passing of the Act. This Bill cannot come into operation until the present Dáil is dissolved. We have Deputy Bennett, the mathematician of the Party opposite, announcing that 75 per cent. of the people are behind his Party. What does that mean? Is it not quite clear that if this Dáil dissolves and 75 per cent. of the people of the country are backing Deputies opposite, that will amount to such an electoral force that you cannot gerrymander the constituencies? I want to know whether Deputy Mulcahy or Deputy Bennett is right.
Talk about the particular constituency dealt with in the amendment.
Deputy Bennett says 75 per cent. of the people are behind the Party opposite, yet Deputy Mulcahy talks about an attempt to gerrymander the constituencies. Which of them is right?
Both.
I knew Deputy Fitzgerald would have a different point of view from any normal person.
I certainly have a different point of view from that of the Deputy.
I am very glad to know that. Deputy Mulcahy was, I think unnecessarily, peevish about this amendment. He has not had time to restrain his impetuosity. I asked the Minister to leave to an open vote the question of taking out the central bar in Galway, Donegal, Tipperary and Limerick. I was not in favour of taking out the central bar. Having assured the Deputy of that, I hope he will not be unduly concerned about the situation from the Labour Party point of view and that he will be able to concentrate more. I think there is a very strong case for leaving South Dublin as one constituency. I think both the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Local Government, on the last amendment, committed themselves to the principle that even-member constituencies were administratively and electorally, from the parliamentary point of view, awkward and not desirable constituencies, and that the desirable constituency was an odd-membered constituency. Here is an amendment now designed to eliminate the principle of even-member constituencies by substituting seven in South Dublin for two constituencies of four members and three members. I think it is a good amendment. We have the contention of both those Ministers for accepting this amendment and eliminating the principle of even-member constituencies, and substituting an odd-member constituency. Quite apart from that, the Minister again urged, in the case of North Dublin, where it was sought to substitute eight seats, the creation of two constituencies and dividing them into five-member and three-member constituencies. The Minister might have made the section read so as to show that he did not want even-member constituencies and that odd-member constituencies were desirable, and to that extent he might have preserved the virtue of odd-member constituencies.
Given the principle suggested, can the Deputy divide seven into two without having an even number?
Why divide it into two?
Why not?
Because it is better as it is.
The Minister will not deny that on the last occasion he had different views about even-member constituencies.
And large constituencies.
And large constituencies; but let us at least now confine ourselves to even-member constituencies. We contend that in the substitution of a four-member constituency and a three-member constituency for a seven-member constituency the four cancels out whatever virtue there is in the three. The Minister tells us that he is against large constituencies. How can he possibly claim that South Dublin is a large constituency? It stretches from Inchicore——
Knockmaroon.
That is the extreme end of the constituency. The populous end of the constituency could be covered on a 2d. or 3d. tram ride. One could go from one end to the other on a bicycle in half-an-hour. If one could get a motor-car, one could go from one end to the other in less than 20 minutes. In view of the fact that the Minister is leaving the whole of County Clare as one constituency, and the whole of West Cork as one constituency, by what process of reasoning is it held that a constituency that can be covered on a bicycle in half-an-hour is a large constituency? Clare and West Cork are deemed to be small constituencies suitable for retention in their present form. If the desire was to avoid large constituencies, I do not see why Carlow-Kilkenny was torn as it was, nor can I understand why that elongated constituency of Carlow-Kildare has been created. Possibly, the Ceann Comhairle would not permit me to discuss that now, but I may be permitted to say that, while the Minister for Industry and Commerce is against large constituencies, we have a constituency like Carlow-Kildare which stretches from Leixlip to Bagenalstown. If the Minister refers to the map, he will find that that constituency is the most curious looking one in Ireland.
I think that the Minister should accept this amendment. It cannot be claimed that South Dublin is a large constituency. It cannot be claimed that it gives you an even number of members; it gives you an odd number. The constituency is represented by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. We can have the assurances of himself and his colleague that it will not be overlooked so long as he represents it, because, according to all the Press accounts and according to the tributes from Deputy MacDermot, the Minister possesses an enormous reservoir of energy. That will, I am sure, find itself in service on behalf of people who might otherwise be overlooked, on the reasoning of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce has an extraordinary way of reasoning. He agrees that even-member constituencies should be avoided.
I do not recollect the Minister having spoken to this amendment.
By interjection. Even-member constituencies, he says, are bad. How can you divide a seven-member constituency into two, without having one over, he asks? When he is asked "why divide?," he asks "why not?" He gave the answer himself. You cannot divide seven into two parts without having an even number and he says that even-number constituencies are bad. Deputy Norton said that Deputy Mulcahy said the Bill was a gerrymandering one and that Deputy Bennett said that 75 per cent. of the people of his constituency were supporters of his own Party. One, he says, contradicts the other. That is perfectly ridiculous. I imagine that the most extreme object of a gerrymandering Bill would be to make it possible for a minority party to get elected as a Government. I myself believe—at the same time, I do not want to run the risk of being unjust to the Vice-President—that there is a very considerable gerrymandering element in this Bill. The treatment of constituencies in which I have been particularly interested makes that, in my opinion, perfectly clear. I think that the gerrymandering will fail because Fianna Fáil will not be able to get re-elected even with this Bill. As some people think it matters a great deal whether a Government has a big majority or a small majority or whether the Opposition is a big or small party, they may want to create representation for the minority when the election comes. I regard that as silly because, as I said before, once a Government has a majority, it does not matter whether it is a majority of one or a majority of 11.
Why should the Deputy repeat that argument?
I was trying to correct the reasoning of the other side.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 50.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Everett, James.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Moylan and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Corish.
Question declared lost.
Resign!
It is proposed that the words in amendment No. 4 be inserted instead of the words set out. If amendment No. 4 is rejected, amendment No. 5 will be put. As the House may desire to discuss amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together, I shall allow some discussion on the general point, but the question will be put on amendment No. 4.
It is just a question of the difference. The amendment standing in Deputy Doyle's name would leave South Dublin constituency with the boundaries that it has at the present time. The amendment standing in Deputy Norton's name would add part of what was the old County Dublin, part of Ringsend, to the South Dublin constituency. There is an amendment standing in the names of Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Costello, the intention of which would be to leave County Dublin as it is at present, that is, with Rathmines and Pembroke, and County Dublin would remain as one constituency. That position dovetails in with the position now as regards South Dublin, and what the House is faced with deciding now is whether the South Dublin constituency as it stands at present should remain with its present boundary or whether it should be enlarged by having the portion of what was Pembroke added to it.
May I ask for the ruling on this? Is it proposed now, if I move amendment No. 5, the question that will be put to the House is to substitute No. 5 for the amendment of the Bill brought about by No. 4?
Amendment No. 4 must be decided first. If No. 4 is carried, No. 5 falls. If No. 4 is negatived No. 5 will be moved. What has been decided is that the words in the Bill do not stand. No. 4 has now to be decided.
What will happen if Nos. 4 and 5 are defeated?
I cannot prophesy, but I think Dublin will not be disfranchised.
No 5 is not being moved.
I would prefer No. 5, because it is the present constituency rather than a divided constituency. If there is to be any change, and the House has indicated its desire for a change, I would rather have the present constituency with the present boundaries that are proposed in the Bill, and that would be No. 5.
I submit the Minister would desire that, for the reason that he wants to divide up County Dublin.
We are not discussing County Dublin.
The Minister, in saying that he prefers No. 5 to No. 4, indicates that he would like to take a piece away from what would otherwise be County Dublin, and add it to South Dublin.
Will the Minister give any indication as to his reason for taking from the constituency of County Dublin a portion of Ringsend and Sandymount in a purely arbitrary fashion? It runs down along the proposed new line, cutting off portion of Ringsend, and it runs in an arbitrary fashion along the Shelbourne Road, cuts off portion of Landsdowne Road and runs down over the railway line towards Ringsend. What the reason is for that I cannot understand. It cuts into the old Pembroke area for no reason that has been given in this House, so far as I know. The Pembroke area consisted of Ringsend and Sandymount, and why it should be put into the City passes my comprehension. Perhaps the Minister will indicate why he proposes this lopping off from the Pembroke area of this portion, and why he would prefer it to the proposal that has already been carried by the House.
May I put this point? If No. 6 is defeated a curious difficulty will arise if No. 4 is carried.
Yes.
In these circumstances No. 5 would be better perhaps than the position that would thus be created.
Except it invites the defeat of No. 6.
But if No. 6 is defeated, notwithstanding all your Party and our Party can do, a difficulty has to be met, and No. 5 may well meet it.
It can be met on the Report Stage.
I suggest that if the Minister would be prepared to let an inconvenient position stand at this stage, I would be quite willing to reinsert No. 5 on the Report Stage if No. 6 is defeated. That will have the advantage of enabling the House to study the position after the Bill has left Committee. The inconvenience will last only a week.
I do not see any reason why we could not have now whatever debate there will ultimately have to be on the section before us. Let us have it now rather than a week hence.
I want it on my own amendment.
No. 4, if carried, will have no practical value if No. 6 is defeated.
It can be changed.
It would if No. 4 is carried. That is that. Then we will come to deal with the county and if the holding together of the county by No. 6 is defeated, then the Minister will have to look, on the Report Stage, at what he is going to do with the county. He might, in dealing then with the county have certain things to say with regard to the extension of South Dublin.
I submit that by far the most convenient thing would be to put amendment No. 4 to the House now. It has been fully discussed and, as Deputy Mulcahy has explained, in the event of amendment No. 6 being defeated, the matter can be ironed out on next stage. The regular and natural thing is to go on with the first amendment on the Order Paper, which is No. 4.
The main point is that to accept No. 5 now as against No. 4 would be to invite the defeat of No. 6.
I suggest the Deputy ought not to run the risk of having No. 4 defeated as well.
Can we not leave that to the Report Stage?
Yes, if the Minister will not mind tolerating that inconvenience for a week.
No.
Question put: "That the words proposed be therein inserted."
The Committee divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 53.
Tá
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Everett, James.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Thrift, William Edward.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Corish and Doyle; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.
Question declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In Part I to delete all references to the constituencies of "South East Dublin" and "South West Dublin" and substitute the following:—
"
|
SOUTH DUBLIN. |
The Fitzwilliam, Merchants Quay, Mansion House, New Kilmainham, Royal Exchange, South City, South Dock, Trinity, Ushers Quay and Wood Quay Wards, and the portion of the County Borough of Dublin bounded by a line drawn as follows:— |
Seven |
|
Commencing at the point in the River Liffey where the Northern boundary of the South Dock Ward meets the Eastern boundary of the South Dock Ward and proceeding thence in a Southerly Westerly and Southerly direction to Grand Canal Street Upper and thence in a South-Easterly direction along the middle of Grand Canal Street Upper to Shelbourne Road and thence in a South-Easterly direction along the middle of Shelbourne Road to Lansdowne Road and thence in an Easterly direction along the middle of Lansdowne Road to Newbridge Avenue and thence in a North-Easterly direction along the middle of Newbridge Avenue to Sandymount Road and thence in a South-Easterly direction along the middle of Sandymount Road to Seafort Avenue and thence in a North-Easterly direction along the middle of Seafort Avenue to the Coast and thence in a North-Westerly, North-Easterly and (to include the Pigeon House Fort and Poolbeg Lighthouse) Easterly and (round the Poolbeg Lighthouse) Westerly and Northerly direction to the point in the River Liffey where the Eastern boundary of the North Dock Ward meets the Southern boundary of the North Dock Ward and thence along the said Southern boundary of the North Dock Ward to the starting point. |
"
Is the Minister accepting amendment No. 5?
Yes, I will accept it.
I made a point, when discussing amendments Nos. 4 and 5, that if amendment No. 5 was accepted it would annihilate the hope of passing amendment No. 6. I do not know if Deputy Norton realises that, or if he is withdrawing amendment No. 5 now.
I realise that both amendments Nos. 5 and 6 cannot pass. My amendment is to preserve South Dublin as one with seven seats. The Minister is accepting that amendment. It is not possible, after accepting an amendment of that kind, to pass or accept amendment No. 6.
Who is accepting amendment No. 5?
The Minister is accepting the amendment moved by me.
But the House is the authority.
Is the Deputy opposing it?
In contradistinction to amendment No. 6 it has to be considered.
The position I am concerned with is the preservation of a single constituency representing County Dublin, so that, as well as having a single constituency in South Dublin, we will have a single constituency in County Dublin.
Bring in an amendment on the Report Stage to meet it. You cannot move it now.
May I have a ruling, Sir? Suppose we acquiesce in the acceptance of amendment No. 5, will we be debarred from discussing amendment No. 6?
On what ground will it arise that if amendment No. 5 is accepted a discussion on amendment No. 6 will be debarred?
Then the discussion on amendment No. 6 can proceed?
We have already dealt with it by accepting amendment No. 5. That would be included in amendment No. 6, if that amendment were accepted.
The House has not accepted it.
The position could not stand. There is one area that would be included in the County that has already by vote been included in the City.
I would argue, on the point of order, that that is a small detail. The area, in so far as it is involved in that, can be amended on Report. There is no reason why circumstances such as that should prevent amendment No. 6 being discussed, when it is taken into account that what is involved in amendment No. 6 is a discussion on the principle of keeping the whole, or practically the whole, of what was the County Dublin constituency as one constituency and not dividing it up into two. I submit that no detail such as the Minister speaks about should bring the discussion of an important matter like that within the restricted discussion allowed on Report. The fact that certain subsequent amendments of a minor kind might have to be made in amendment No. 6 on Report should not prejudice its acceptance by the House in Committee in its present state, if the general principle enshrined in it is acceptable to the House.
I cannot see how it could be called a matter of detail. There is a question of several thousand persons involved. The House has already decided that these persons are to be included in one constituency, and I cannot see how we can come to a decision reversing a decision already come to, as would be the case if amendment No. 6 were carried. I cannot see that the Chair can rule that that would be in order—that there would be a possibility of reversing a vote already given, because that is what it would mean if we accepted amendment No. 6. It is true that it is only a small portion of the total constituency of County Dublin, but in numbers it represents several thousand people.
There is nothing, as far as I understand, to prevent the Minister reversing a decision on Report.
There has been no decision taken.
Even if a decision were taken.
There has not been one taken.
The Minister has accepted amendment No. 5.
I heard the Minister accepting it, but not the House.
I wish to protest against that, because we were connecting up this other matter as between amendment No. 5 and amendment No. 6.
As to whether the House has or has not accepted amendment No. 5, the mere acceptance by the Minister, I suggest to you, Sir, is not an acceptance by the House. There must be some discussion at least allowed on this matter. The Minister cannot closure discussion by merely accepting an amendment proposed by a private member. I want to know, in particular, on this matter, which the Minister has now stated is a very important matter, what are the reasons inducing the Minister to take Ringsend out of County Dublin and put it into South Dublin. He says it is a very important matter. It is so important that it almost brings in its train——
That is going beyond the point of order.
If you rule that the Minister has accepted this amendment and thereby the House is precluded from discussing the amendment, I cannot get from the Minister the reason why he has put this provision in the Bill. The House and my constituency do not know, and we will never know the reason. It is just put into the Bill by the casual acceptance of it by the Minister from Deputy Norton without giving any reason.
The Chair, I take it, has not ruled that the acceptance of the amendment by the Minister in charge debars further discussion. If you indicate at any stage in the debate the acceptance of an amendment, that does not preclude us from discussing it. Another question also arises. If the House adopts amendment No. 5, will the Chair then rule that amendment No. 6 cannot be discussed? There can be no question whatever, I take it, that we are entitled to a discussion on amendment No. 5 the moment it comes before the House. On the net question, if we accept amendment No. 5, shall we be debarred by the Rules of Order from discussing amendment No. 6?
Is that not giving a decision in advance? I do not know what the House will do with regard to No. 5.
Will you allow us, for the purposes of discussion, to take No. 5 and No. 6 together, and to say on No. 5 everything that might have been said on No. 6?
If the House decides on No. 5, there is clearly matter in it by reason of which, if the House were to discuss No. 6, it would be discussing a decision taken on No. 5. That is accepted.
In part.
A discussion on part of the decision would mean a discussion of the decision.
But the other part could be discussed.
I do not know what the Minister would say to taking No. 5 and No. 6 together, letting the discussion range over them and taking a decision on No. 5.
I am quite agreeable.
If you take a decision on No. 5, you preclude No. 6; but if you take a decision on No. 6, it need not necessarily rule No. 5.
Of course, it does.
I suppose that the rejection of No. 5 would not debar No. 6.
The House has carried amendment No. 4 and rejected amendment No. 3, and if it proceeds to carry amendment No. 5 it will have created a position in which there will be no South City constituency at all.
It will not. It will merely have left what the Minister is so accustomed to fill, a vacuum.
Quite, which Nature abhors.
But which the Minister does not.
I think the only ruling is to discuss the two amendments together.
It is going to be rather hard to know what you are deciding, when you come to decide.
I suggest the best way out is to take No. 5 and No. 6 together and to have the vote on No. 5.
Or No. 6.
No. 5 would have to be taken first; and if No. 5 is taken, there will be a decision.
There will be a decision, and if you take No. 6 afterwards you will be interfering with the decision on No. 5.
Might I, on behalf of my own constituency, say that while I regard Ringsend as very important, it is only a very small portion of the constituency of County Dublin, and I do not want the question of the integrity of the constituency of County Dublin to be decided on a small portion of Ringsend, because that is what would happen if a decision is to be taken on No. 5 and not on No. 6.
I am sure that Deputy Costello will agree that if there is a decision taken on No. 5, you clearly cannot traverse a certain portion of that decision.
My point is that it is only a very small portion of the constituency.
But there will be a decision on the point. That is obvious.
Only a very small portion of the point, I respectfully suggest.
I should like to make this proposal, that we be given the permission of the House to amend amendment No. 6 to read, so far as the description goes: "...the administrative County of Dublin and borough electoral division No. 5 of the County Borough of Dublin, other than that part included in the constituency known as South Dublin," and that the number of members be changed from nine to eight. Then, we could discuss, without prejudice, the passing of amendment No. 5 and we could have a discussion on No. 6 in a satisfactory way. It is simply a matter of getting the leave of the House to amend the description for County Dublin in accordance with the decision which would have been taken in respect of South Dublin.
That amendment to amendment No. 6 would arise only in the event of No. 5 being carried.
I do not see how that can be. The Deputies studied the Bill and they knew what they wanted when putting in their amendments. They had it all clearly before them and evidently they went into it with considerable care, judging by the amendments they have put in. This is evidently what they wanted then and I do not see why they should be allowed to amend it now.
We did not know then what amendment Deputy Norton was putting in.
We shall have to discuss both singly then?
The only ruling that I can see is that No. 5 and No. 6 shall be discussed together.
Then, Sir, I again appeal to you to review the order you are laying down. I submit to you that there is nothing wrong, from the point of view of order, in discussing amendment No. 6, even after amendment No. 5 has been passed, because what is enshrined in it is a broad principle of holding the whole of the present County Dublin together. A small portion of it will, in fact, have been cut off if No. 5 is passed but that is a very minor point and a matter which, on Report, might be put right, either by reviewing and amending what was done under No. 5 or reviewing and amending what was done under No. 6. The fact that the two decisions were taken by the House would, in fact, only mean that South Dublin would remain as one constituency and County Dublin as another. It remains then, as between the two decisions taken, to define the boundary between the two constituencies. There is nothing else at issue as between these two amendments but where exactly the boundary line is to go.
Clearly, if you take a decision on No. 5 and then proceed to take a decision on No. 6, and if the decision is in favour of No. 6, you will have two different decisions taken by the House. I could not possibly consider a proposition to have two different decisions taken by the House within a short period of time.
The Minister says that the Opposition in framing their amendments had obviously displayed care. That is quite true but in offering our amendments on Committee Stage, we could not foresee the terms of the amendments that might be submitted by Deputy Norton. The difficulty has arisen out of the coincidence of Deputy Norton's amendment and ours and not out of our amendment itself. Therefore, I submit to the Minister that his opposition to the granting of your permission to amend our amendment should be withdrawn. Had we had Deputy Norton's amendment before us, we would have proposed our amendment in the form outlined by Deputy Mulcahy. It is the presence of Deputy Norton's amendment that makes that amended form necessary and I suggest that the Minister should withdraw his objection.
Deputy Norton's amendment has been before the House for some weeks and there was plenty of time for members of the Opposition to put in a further amendment, if they felt like it.
The Minister's acceptance of it is only a late idea. That is what makes the difference.
I would not have accepted it if the House had not voted against me.
Except you were beaten.
Can we get agreement to a discussion of No. 5 and No. 6 together, and to the taking of a decision on No. 5? That is the most generous way that I can see of discussing the matter at the moment.
Might I suggest a more generous way—taking a decision on No. 6, after discussing No. 5 and No. 6 together?
That obviously is impossible. A decision was taken on a certain matter—No. 5. That decision is noted, and clearly we cannot challenge that decision on No. 6, which if it were carried, would, perhaps, alter the decision taken on No. 5.
I agree that if a decision were taken on No. 5, and if it were in any way contrary to what might be taken on No. 6, No. 6 falls. That, I gather, is the ruling. I suggest, however, that it has been put to you, and put with a certain amount of force and argument, that No. 6 does surround a bigger principle than No. 5. It has at any rate been borne in on you by the argument of allowing the discussion to take place on No. 6 and No. 5 together. I suggest that the ruling ordinarily is that the amendment which is wider in scope is taken first, and the one more limited follows, and No. 6 is distinctly wider in its scope than No. 5.
A decision was taken which, as we say, has left a vaccum with regard to South Dublin constituency. I do not know if Deputy Norton is, as I might say, indissolubly married to his amendment, but if he is not—I am not trying to force his hand—and we decide on No. 6, for instance, that Dublin County as we have known it so far remains as Dublin County, then it will really be necessary for the Minister to bring in an amendment on Report Stage, and fill in the gap that has been left by the recent decision made in the Dáil, which might quite easily meet Deputy Norton. Unless Deputy Norton wants the amendment exactly in the form he has proposed it, I think if we decide on No. 6 to keep Dublin County as Dublin County, Deputy Norton would very largely be met. I do not know whether it matters very much to him whether Ringsend stays where it is in Dublin County, or whether he has some special point in having it included in South Dublin
Deputy Fitzgerald's suggestion, of course, is made for the purpose of enabling him to get a discussion on his own amendment, and to throw away the substance you have got in the acceptance of No. 5 for the shadow that you cannot even get on No. 6.
How do you know?
Did we not see the vote on the last amendment?
Let us consider that on the other vote here.
I suggest to Deputy Mulcahy that he can discuss the whole question of County Dublin on the Report Stage.
If we are allowed to go into Committee on that.
That is a matter for the Minister. So far as I am concerned I am willing to give the Deputy all the facilities he wants to discuss the question. Would it be possible, Sir, if Deputy Mulcahy does not move amendment 6, to permit him to discuss whatever is happening to County Dublin on Part I of the Schedule?
I should like to say that what would satisfy me in this matter is to accept amendment No. 5, if the Minister would agree that on Report Stage the matter of the present County Dublin constituency, and amendments in regard to it, will be dealt with in Committee on Report. By the ruling that has been given on this particular matter, the discussion on County Dublin would otherwise be forced completely out of Committee Stage, and I think that would be a very wrong thing. As I say, I would be prepared to accept No. 5 now if the Minister would agree to allow the County Dublin position to be discussed in Committee on Report.
I am as flexible as possible on whatever may be called a ruling. I have not introduced any rigidity. I should like to hear Deputy Mulcahy on what he suggests on amendment No. 6 as an ad hoc amendment now. We could then put No. 6 as an amended amendment.
I should like to support that idea. I do not think this House has ever allowed itself by a technicality to be shut off from both discussing and deciding by vote any general principle, and I should be very sorry if we made such a precedent now. There is a big principle involved in No. 6. Quite apart from any details, that principle is whether the County should be cut up into two constituencies or retained as one. I suggest that the Minister should withdraw his opposition. Assuming that No. 5 is carried, and Deputy Mulcahy moves his amendment in a form which refers to the County as modified by the acceptance of No. 5, we could discuss the principle of whether there is to be one constituency for the County or two. I certainly think that would save any grievance.
I should like if Deputy Mulcahy would repeat his amendment.
You want me to read my amendment?
The amendment would read:—
In Part I to delete all reference to the constituency of "South Dublin" and in Part II to the constituency of "Dublin" and substitute therefor the following in Part II of the Schedule:—
"
|
DUBLIN COUNTY. |
The Administrative County of Dublin and Borough Electoral Division Number Five of the County Borough of Dublin, other than the portion included in South Dublin. |
Eight |
"
Then we can take a decision on that amendment?
Yes, after No. 5.
Am I to understand that No. 5 is being accepted?
I would accept it on that basis.
If No. 5 is accepted I will certainly withdraw any opposition to having the amended amendment discussed on No. 6. I understood that No. 5 was to be accepted.
As the person primarily interested, and the person in whose name the amendment is put down, I should like to say that I do not wish to agree to any suggestion that will preclude a discussion on No. 5 on the one point I am interested in, namely, why Ringsend is being taken from the County and put into South City.
The Minister could cut matters much shorter if he would consent to get up and tell us that. He has several times been invited to do so.
I thought we were discussing a point of order during this last half hour.
Are we clear that you will allow a discussion——
I do not think anything is clear.
Let us put up a straight question. Will you allow a discussion on amendment No. 5, a decision on amendment No. 5; then a discussion on amendment No. 6, as verbally amended by Deputy Mulcahy, and a decision on amendment No. 6, as verbally amended by Deputy Mulcahy? If that settlement could be arrived at we could get down to Ringsend without more ado.
Have I any right to object to an amended amendment?
The Minister, of course, has the right to object, but the Chair is entitled to accept an ad hoc amendment of this kind. I think the principle is sufficiently big. As Deputy Thrift said, no ruling creating a precedent has been given that would rule out discussion and decision on an amendment of such interest and importance as this. I think, therefore, that the Chair is quite entitled to accept Deputy Mulcahy's amendment, and allow a discussion and decision on No. 5 and on No. 6.
Might I again ask to be told by the Minister or anybody on the Government Benches the reason why Ringsend is being taken from County Dublin and put into the new constituency of South Dublin? I myself can see no reason for it. I want to know why the Minister is taking this step in regard to a matter which he has himself admitted earlier this afternoon to be a very important one. If it is such an important matter, surely there are important reasons for taking this step. We have not heard those reasons, or any of them, so far. I want to know if the Minister will tell us any of the reasons, or if anybody on his behalf will tell us any of the reasons, why Ringsend is being taken from County Dublin and put into South City.
If Deputy Costello were familiar with Ringsend, as, apparently, he is not, he would know that the locality, in its general nature, and the people of the locality in their occupations, are more closely associated with the people of the City of Dublin than with the people of the County.
The Minister, as usual, when he has no argument to advance, falls back upon suggestions that Deputies who make statements in this House do not know what they are talking about. That sort of argument leads nowhere, and merely emphasises the Minister's own lack of argument. I know Ringsend as well as the Minister does, and, I would say, very coniderably better. I happen to represent it in this House, and I want to know any reason other than my own ignorance of Ringsend—if my own ignorance of Ringsend were admitted—why Ringsend is being taken from County Dublin and put into the City.
Because there is much closer association between Ringsend and the City of Dublin than between Ringsend and the County of Dublin.
Why?
Because of the nature of the locality, the occupations of the people, and the general business in the locality.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 46.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon. Helena.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- O'Brian, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Thrift, William Edward.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Little and Corish; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In Part I to delete all reference to the constituency of "South Dublin" and in Part II to the constituency of "Dublin" and substitute therefore the following in Part II of the Schedule:—
|
DUBLIN COUNTY. |
The Administrative County of Dublin and Borough Electoral Division Number Five of the County Borough of Dublin, other than the portion included in South Dublin. |
Eight |
Since Ringsend has been divorced from County Dublin, and by the act of the Minister married to Fitzwilliam Square, the heart is rather knocked out of me in moving this amendment. I find it a little difficult to understand the relations between Ringsend and Fitzwilliam Square, but the House has taken up that position; and in fact it has taken away the basis of the principle for which I had intended to speak, to-day—the integrity of the old constituency of County Dublin. That constituency has a population of something over 120,000 altogether. The effect of the proposal put forward by the Government is really to deprive the people of that constituency of a seat to which they are entitled on a population basis.
The general principle, as I understand it, is that there should be a member in the Dáil for every 20,000 voters. Under the arrangement proposed here and recently carried, there will be only eight members in the old constituency of County Dublin. Ringsend will be thrown into South Dublin and the population will be deprived of one member to which they are entitled on the basis of their numbers. That is the result of the proposal already carried. My proposal was that there should be nine members for this big constituency. There can be only eight now, even if this amendment is accepted. But the underlying principle is that even taking out the area of Ringsend the old County Dublin constituency should have been left as it stands in its representation. I can see no reason for the proposal contained in the Bill. For the Ministerial proposal to have a new constituency constituted of Pembroke and Rathmines there would be something to be said, if the proposal did not take a portion both of the Pembroke and Rathmines area, and put them into a new area, forming a new constituency consisting of Rathmines and a bit of Pembroke. There was some community of interest in the Pembroke area even between the workers. That is destroyed by the proposal now carried. I fail to see any basis for a constituency consisting of the area Pembroke and Rathmines, except it be for the purpose of creating a three-member constituency.
One of the outstanding features of this Bill, as has been pointed out, is the number of three-member constituencies created, no doubt in the hope that with proportional representation something will be saved out of the wreck. I can see no other reason for having a constituency consisting of a bit of Pembroke and Rathmines except that the Ministry hope to save one seat out of the wreckage. They know that in a big constituency like County Dublin they would be in danger of being worsted on the principle of proportional representation. They propose now to split up this constituency so that no independent representative will have any chance of getting elected. The constituency at present extends from the border of Wicklow to the County of Meath. It embraces very important rural areas and very important and considerably extended urban areas. It has always been found difficult, if not impossible, even under a system of proportional representation to get adequate representation for the farmers of North and South County Dublin. I see no advantage to the rural population in the Minister's proposal of having a new constituency commencing somewhere round about Merrion Gates and ending somewhere in Tallaght.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce on the last amendment spoke of community of interest but it would seem to me that if a person wanted to walk this new constituency he would have to start from Merrion Gates, go round by Killiney, and Dundrum, and skirt the city until he found himself in the North County. It is not possible to give the rural population proper and adequate representation, even, under proportional representation, but whatever chance they have it is where there is a big constituency, and not where there is a constituency consisting of Killiney, Dun Laoghaire, Garristown and the Naul. The principle underlying my proposal is that this constituency of County Dublin, even with the portion knocked off, is a constituency that could be easily worked. It is convenient from the point of view of its areas, running round the city. It is easily approachable. If ever there was a constituency in which the principle of proportional representation should be given full and adequate effect, it is that constituency. The variety of interests included can, I think, only get adequate representation by there being a very large voting power in it. We have workers, members of the Fianna Fáil Party, our own supporters and Independents in County Dublin. Under the proposal of the Minister—and there is no use burking the point—there will be no prospect of an Independent member being returned for the County Dublin. That will not cause me any particular alarm; but even if we are paying only lip service to the principles of proportional representation, the particular class of persons who vote independent and thus believe that by cohesion amongst their fellows they will be able to return one Deputy, ought to be considered. Under the proposal in the Bill, not merely are they not considered but the effect on them is going to be simply annihilation. The reason probably why this proposal is put forward is in order to keep Independent members out of the House. That will be the effect of changing the Co. Dublin constituency. There can be no room under the Ministry's proposal for any Independent representation in this House. That may not cause me any particular alarm but it is against the principle for which we have contended. While the constituency with Ringsend taken off, loses for me a considerable amount of the charm it had, still it should be left as an integral whole. The community of interest is so strong that it should be given free play by allowing as wide a field as possible.
The Minister, in making his apology for some aspects of this Bill, said that he thought the smaller constituencies gave greater advantage to the smaller parties. He did not pursue that. He did not attempt to elaborate it. I do not think that he meant it to be taken seriously. In explaining the difficulties of this Bill, he said that there existed a sort of county loyalty, a desire not to break up counties, on the one hand, while sometimes there was the need of having more or less proportional representation of Deputies per number of constituents. This constituency of Dublin County, from which Ringsend is now being lopped off, has existed for about twelve years. People have got used to it. I do not think that the Minister would attempt to argue that proportional representation operates in small constituencies. Here you have everything you want. You have a county which is also a very small county. Anybody living in Dublin can get to any part of this county in less than an hour. By having a big constituency, you give full play to proportional representation. You have county loyalty operating. It is a very big constituency, partly rural, partly urban and partly suburban. It is the constituency in which you have the most varied representation. At present, there is one Labour member. If this constituency be divided, it is pretty certain that that Labour member will go out. I am not going to pretend that I am much concerned about his staying in but, if we are to have this system of proportional representation. I am interested to see that it should work. If we are to have all the disadvantages of it, we should have whatever little advantage there is in it. This is a constituency in which the Independents have always been represented. There are more varying sections of the community in this constituency than in any other. You have what is called the ex-Unionist vote in the townships. You have the farming population on the north side and south side of the City—particularly, the north side. You have labour represented there. Labour is only represented there by virtue of the bigness of the constituency. I cannot see any argument for dividing this constituency. It is small and compact and it is easy for a representative to get to any part of it within an hour. Whatever may be said about three-member constituencies, it is perfectly clear to anybody who considers the matter that these three-member constituencies eliminate the proportional representation element. If ever there was a county in which a case could be made for having proportional representation operative it is this county. You have at present representing it Fianna Fáil Deputies, Fine Gael Deputies, Independent Deputies and Labour Deputies. So far as the big Parties are concerned, they try to have at least one of their members representative of the agricultural interest. If you divide this constituency up, you make it impossible for the farmers in the constituency to be represented. You, also, as Deputy Costello said, eliminate the Independent representation. The Labour representation will also be eliminated.
I admit that this dividing up is clearly in the interest of ourselves and of the Government Party. Personally, I think that, in a general way, it is the Parties that are likely to form the Government that really matter. But here is a constituency which is peculiar, inasmuch as you have in it all these different sections of the community who have a right to be represented. The same situation does not exist in any other constituency here of which I know. I do not know whether the Government has any objection to accepting this amendment. I do not see why they should. All through this Bill, they have aimed at smaller constituencies and I am ready to admit that, from a Party point of view, that is in our interest. But if there is going to be smaller constituencies, the present system should be abolished, because, with these changes, you are going—pre-eminently in this constituency—to eliminate representation of minorities so far as one can judge from what has happened in the past. You are going to do that and you achieve nothing by it. This constituency is not like Galway, where there was an enormous distance between one part of the county and the other. It is a remarkably compact constituency and I should like to know if the Government has any objection to accepting this amendment.
Deputy Costello addressed himself to the amendment he intended to move rather than to the amendment he actually did move. As I understand it, we are now discussing a proposal to combine in one constituency the two areas described in the Bill as South Dublin and Dublin County, that one constituency to have a representation of eight members. Deputies allow themselves to be hypnotised by the fact that the old constituency was called County Dublin. In fact, a large part of it was not in the County Dublin but in the City of Dublin. The proposal in the Bill is to take that portion which is in the City of Dublin and make it a separate constituency, leaving as the constituency of County Dublin what is, in fact, the County of Dublin. The new constituency of the County of Dublin, with five members, will be the administrative County of Dublin. It will have added to it only a very small part of the area recently added to the City. That has been left in the County Dublin constituency for no other reason than that its transfer to the City would involve a considerable alteration in the representation of each area. The main scheme is to leave the County of Dublin one constituency and to form another constituency of portion of the City of Dublin which was formerly attached to the County Dublin constituency. The case for that seems obvious, apart from general considerations in favour of small constituencies. It is obviously desirable that the County of Dublin should have separate representation. Deputy Fitzgerald made a most extraordinary case. He argued that the present constituency secures representation for minority interests and he mentioned particularly labour and farming. Who is the farmers' representative for County Dublin? Can the Deputy name him?
Deputy Costello, for instance.
He is the type of farmers' representative that Deputy Fitzgerald wants to have elected.
He is a very good representative.
The Deputy argues in favour of the existing constituency because he knows quite well that, so long as that is maintained, no other type of farmers' representative can be elected. Who is the Labour representative for County Dublin?
They had a representative up to the time of the last election.
Labour has no representative in the County Dublin. It is because Deputy Fitzgerald knows that quite well that he is arguing for the maintenance of the existing constituency.
Is this change going to give them one?
The change is going to ensure that both farmers and workers will have a much better prospect of securing representation in the County Dublin than they have at present. Of course, it is obvious that they will. Here is a constituency, partly urban and partly rural. How do you decrease the prospect of the rural population getting representation by taking out of it an area which is entirely urban? Of course, you do not. By taking out an urban area and putting it into a separate constituency, you increase the prospect of the rural population securing a representative from amongst their numbers. They have not been able to do it up to the present. It is only farmers like Deputy Costello who have been able to get elected up to the present. A genuine farmer, who works his land, could not get elected, because he was up against this fact: that in order to get elected he had to secure urban votes, and the prospect of his getting them was very slight indeed. It seems to me that the proposal in the Bill is not merely justifiable in itself, but represents a considerable improvement on the existing position. Henceforth, there will be two constituencies: one largely a rural constituency—although I will admit that there are urbanised portions in it— but it represents the administrative County of Dublin in which the rural population will have a much better chance of securing representation than they have at present; and the other, an entirely urban area, not in the County Dublin but in the City of Dublin, which henceforth will be a separate borough constituency. The Electoral Abuses Act provides for various matters relating to election expenses. There is a different scale in borough areas to that which obtains in county areas. Pembroke is obviously a borough area and the portion of the Act relating to boroughs will apply to it and not the portion of the Act relating to county areas.
The Minister's argument seems to me to be very peculiar. He knows the way the law is that there is one representative for a number over 20,000 or less than 30,000 of the population. The population is very mixed in this constituency. He says that if you take the whole borough —a big constituency with a population, say, of 100,000—the rural population in it are unable to get representation, but that by removing a certain amount of the town population and some of the rural population they are likely to get representation.
There is no portion of it being removed that is not in the City of Dublin.
Take Clonskeagh. There are rural people in that part of South Dublin constituency.
I do not know that you would call Clonskeagh a rural area.
I am just speaking of the place as I know it. There is one Deputy per 20,000 or less than 30,000 of the population. Take the whole thing together and say there is a population of 100,000 or 118,000. The Minister's argument is, that if every agriculturally interested person in that constituency votes, he is not going to get one Deputy elected: that is to say, one to represent the proportion of 20,000 of the population. But he went on to say that if you remove a certain amount, then you are going to get a farmer elected. I simply cannot see that.
That is not quite correct. My statement was quite the contrary to what the Deputy has just said. I said that there is no farmer at present in the representation of the County Dublin, and that you increase the farmers' chance of getting a farmer elected by taking out of that constituency an entirely urban vote.
I do not see that you do. Take the position at present in this Dáil. There is no Labour member for that constituency. There have been Labour members for the County Dublin. The position varies a bit from election to election, because Labour is only on the border line of that constituency, as it was after eight Deputies had been elected for it. The Minister's system then is going to be not on the border line but to eliminate the thing altogether. He says that at this moment there is no man who, in his daily life is occupied in agriculture, is a Deputy for that particular constituency. That is true. But that position also varies from time to time. Since this Dáil was established there was one Deputy, if I remember rightly, who, on one occasion, belonged to the Farmers' Party. Speaking from memory, he was also elected on other occasions. There have been men elected for that constituency who, because of their occupation, may be said to be representatives of the farming industry there.
As I have said, the population in County Dublin is very mixed. You have over large areas of it what you might call urban people living almost next door to farmers. The Minister says that by taking out the urban population you are going to give a better opportunity for an agricultural representative to be elected. Now that is clearly untrue. At present there are eight Deputies elected for that constituency. There were eight quotas. The farmers' representative had only to get a proportion of these eight quotas to get elected. Now you are only going to give him the opportunity of getting in the one case three, and in the other case, five. It seems to me quite clear that what is proposed in the Bill is not going conceivably and inevitably to add to the number of agricultural votes that ordinarily would be cast in either of these constituencies for the election of a farmer. The Minister's argument is absolutely devoid of substance. There are going to be no agricultural votes eliminated by accepting this amendment. At the moment there are some agriculturally interested people in the one constituency and, perhaps, some in the other. It may well be that neither of these constituencies will have enough to elect a representative of that interest, but putting the two together it is possible that you may have enough to elect a representative of it. The Minister's argument on that point is absolutely unsustainable, because it is clear that instead of taking any away you will, by accepting this amendment, be adding to the number of agricultural votes in this constituency.
By refusing it, all you can possibly do is, either to leave it as it was or to take from these agricultural votes. There is no substance whatever in the Minister's arguments. He says that at the moment no person who gets a living out of agriculture has a representative of that constituency here, and that no representative of Labour in that constituency is here. That is quite true. But that is the result of the last election. At previous elections we had representatives of the farmers and of Labour. It is possible, and it has been demonstrated historically, to have those interested represented. With a change I maintain that it is either going to be impossible to have them represented—I think that is clear—or, if not impossible, it is less possible than heretofore. I think the Minister's arguments have no substance whatever.
The only thing I can say to the Deputy is that the area it is proposed to include in the proposed constituency is entirely urbanised and is under the administration of the City of Dublin.
That does not prove it. In the administrative area of the City of Dublin there were, even before Greater Dublin was created, agricultural people living within the area of the city. That area is an administrative thing. It is arbitrarily a legal thing. You do not have a boundary put just around the streets. It always includes parts of the country or does not include the whole town parts. The Minister confuses two things, the fact that urban and rural areas are arbitrarily and legally in the administration area of the City of Dublin.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 47
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Thrift, William Edward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
We now come to amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10.
Amendment No. 7?
Amendment No. 7 falls, since the House has decided that the words "South Dublin" stand.
We have already accepted amendment No. 5. The description in the Schedule is "South Dublin," and there is another "South Dublin" here now.
And I suggest that matter could best be rectified on Report. An amendment on Report Stage would be more satisfactory than informal discussion now.
Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10.
Amendment No. 8.—In Part II to delete all references to the constituency of "Meath-Westmeath," page 5, and of "Athlone-Longford," page 6. and of "Roscommon," page 6, and substitute the following:—
"
|
LONGFORD-WESTMEATH. |
The Administrative counties of Longford and Westmeath. |
Four |
|
MEATH |
The Administrative County of Meath |
Three |
|
ROSCOMMON |
The Administrative County of Roscommon |
Four |
"
(Mícheál Ó Braonáin.)
Amendment No. 9.—In Part II to delete all reference to the constituency of "Meath-Westmeath" and substitute therefor the following:—
"
|
MEATH |
The Administrative County of Meath |
Three |
"
(Robert E. Davitt).
Amendment No. 10.—In Part II to delete the references to the constituencies of "Athlone-Longford" and "Meath-Westmeath" and substitute therefor the following.
"
|
LONGFORD-WESTMEATH. |
The Administrative County of Longford and the Administrative County of Westmeath. |
Four |
"
(Charles Fagan; Seán MacEoin.)
In the regretted absence of Deputy Brennan, through illness, I wish to move amendment No. 8, standing in his name. That amendment, together with amendments Nos. 9 and 10, affects the four counties, and the three constituencies of Longford-Westmeath, Meath and Roscommon. On the population basis there was no need to make any change in the County Meath, nor to make any change in the County Roscommon. A change had to be made in the representation of Longford-Westmeath because the population in that constituency is no longer entitled to five members. But the only change that was necessary, and the simplest change that could have been made, would have been to reduce the representation of Longford-Westmeath from five to four Deputies. That would not have been a very drastic reduction. It would still have left Longford-Westmeath with one Deputy for every 24,100 persons. It is true that that would give rather more persons to each Deputy than in other counties. Nevertheless, the Constitution has provided for that possibility. The Constitution provided that the figures should be between 20,000 and 30,000. If a constituency has any figure, for each Deputy, between these two it has no right to complain so long as that arises from the natural course of things out of the general electoral law as it stood.
But what the Government are proposing to do in this Bill with reference to these counties is hardly natural. County Meath is a three-member constituency and three-member constituencies are especially dear to the Government. They have sought to create as many of them as possible, so that even from their own point of view there is no case for interfering with the County Meath on the merits. In Longford-Westmeath there had to be a change but the obvious change was the simple one of reducing the representation from five to four. There remains Roscommon, and I venture to think that on examination in County Roscommon we find the solution of the eccentric course that the Government followed. Roscommon returned four members to this House. On its population it is fully entitled to return four members to this House. Moreover, the County Roscommon in, I think, the last four general elections returned two Fianna Fáil Deputies, one Cumann na nGaedheal Deputy and one Independent. So that constituency is not behaving in the manner that justifies the common accusation against four-member constituencies of always resulting in a dead heat aid having two Deputies belonging to one Party and two belonging to another Party. It so happens that an event since the last general election has resulted in the fact that two Deputies now belong to one Party and two to another Party but the constituency has rather the tradition of favouring Independent members. Now, what are the Government proposing to do to it? They are proposing to cut off the southern section of the county and hand it over to a new constituency called Athlone-Longford. In doing that they are not only inflicting an injury on the County Roscommon, but on the province of Connaught. They are handing over a piece of Connaught to Leinster, just as in the case of Galway they are handing over a piece of Connaught to Munster. Under this Bill the province of Connaught has fared particularly badly. It is being reduced from a representation of 29 to a representation of 24. On the population basis according to the last census, Connaught is entitled to 27 members. It is being defrauded of the membership to which it is entitled as a province by the fact that a section of it is being handed over to Munster and another section is being handed over to Leinster.
Returning to the particular grievance of County Roscommon, the County Council there has twice considered the subject of this Bill as affecting the county and it has passed two resolutions strongly protesting against what is being done. On the first occasion the resolution was unanimous. On the second occasion there was only one dissentient. I think Deputy Brennan was in the Chair on the first occasion. On the second occasion Deputy Brennan was absent, ill, so that the question of his personal influence can be eliminated. The County Council of Roscommon is by no means a body that can be regarded as partisan in the sense of being favourable to the cause of the Opposition and feeling about the dismemberment of the county is the same among all sections of political opinion, with the exception of the one councillor on the second occasion. That councillor is a lady and, I think, the fact, that there was that single exception is merely evidence of the tendency of the female sex to be more partisan than anybody else.
No other county in the Free State is being treated quite as badly as Roscommon is under this Bill. You have a situation where Roscommon is perfectly entitled to retain the representation that it has at present. In spite of that a piece of it is being taken away and is being given to another constituency. In taking that piece away the representation of Roscommon is reduced to three and in reducing it to three you are actually putting the Roscommon elector in a worse position than an elector in any other county. It is going to take more people in County Roscommon to elect a Deputy than it will do in any other county in Ireland and that is something that has not arisen just naturally by the mere operation of the Constitution. If it arose in that way one could not object to it. It has arisen because of the deliberate act of the Government in doing something quite unnecessary and unnatural.
Under this amendment I am proposing that Roscommon and Meath be left as they are, that the change made should be limited to the simple and natural one of reducing the representation of Longford-Westmeath from five to four. I hope very much that the Government will see their way to accept this amendment. The new constituency which they are proposing to create of Athlone-Longford is a very eccentric one. Longford County is made to penetrate into Westmeath and then to turn around and penetrate into Roscommon. As I said on the Second Reading debate, the resulting constituency is the sort of constituency that originally gave rise to the expression "gerrymandering," and it was, in fact, referred to by a Deputy in this House as Gerry-Bolandering.
That Deputy had an unmistakable sense of humour when he said that.
I will say nothing more on this at the moment, because I hope the Minister will relent and allow Roscommon to remain as it is. If he puts forward any arguments that are capable of discussion, I shall discuss them.
Deputies interested in amendments Nos. 9 and 10 may, if they desire, speak on amendment No. 8, since the decision on amendment No. 8 will govern the other two. On No. 8 I shall put the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted, stand"; and if that is affirmed, Meath-Westmeath, Athlone-Longford and Roscommon stand, and it will not be possible to have a separate constituency of Meath. It will also have been decided that there will be a constituency of Athlone-Longford, including Longford, parts of Roscommon and Westmeath; Longford-Westmeath cannot, therefore, be joined as proposed in No. 10.
In supporting this amendment, which aims at leaving Meath a three-seat constituency as at present, I wish to state that from my personal point of view it does not matter very much to me whether the representation is changed from a three to a five-seat constituency. I think the three constituencies must be taken together, and there seems to be an undoubted injustice to Roscommon under the Government plan. Deputy MacDermot has set out the mutilation that the Government propose and he has emphasised that it will not effect any change for the better. I cannot see why it is necessary for the Government to adopt such a complicated change when a much simpler one would achieve the same reduction of seats. If No. 8 is accepted it will leave Meath with its normal natural boundaries; it will leave Roscommon in a similar position, and it will leave Longford and Westmeath in a position that will not necessitate mutilation. Instead of a five-seat and two three-seat constituencies, we shall get two four-seat constituencies and one three-seat constituency.
The population of Meath is 62,969. We suggest the retention there of a three-seat constituency, which will mean one seat for every 20,990 of the people, conforming, therefore, to the Constitution. The population of Roscommon is 83,556. We suggest four seats there, which will mean a seat for every 20,889 of the people, which will also conform to the Constitution. The population of Longford-Westmeath is 96,665. If there are four seats, that means one seat for 24,166 people, or a little more. There are more people to be represented by one seat in that case than in the case of Roscommon or Meath, but if we are to compare that with the Government's conception we see that, according to their idea, they do not leave any of the counties with a normal boundary. They are all mutilated. Meath is mutilated, and Roscommon is mutilated and part of it given to the Longford-Athlone constituency, while part of Westmeath is added to the Longford-Athlone constituency. Under the Government plan, in that constituency, on the basis of population, three seats mean one seat for each 21,000—practically the same as the present situation with regard to Meath where there is one seat for 21,000 people.
The population of the new Roscommon constituency is reduced to 71,348. The three seats suggested by the Government for that constituency result in one seat for every 23,782 people. In the Government plan also, there is a difference in the number of people that are called upon to fill one seat. In the case of Roscommon there are a greater number of people under the Government plan than in the case of Athlone-Longford or Meath-Westmeath; and the new Meath-Westmeath constituency, under the Government plan, will have a population of 105,890. It will be the biggest of all. Five members are suggested for that constituency, which means one seat for 21,178 people. Figures, at any time, are a very boring thing to read, but if one compares the two suggestions there seems to be absolutely no reason why the Government plan should be adopted, from a numerical point of view, as against the amendment moved by Deputy MacDermot; and, in addition, by accepting the amendment moved by Deputy MacDermot, there will be no mutilation of counties at all. Therefore, why mutilate counties when you are gaining nothing at all?
From the point of view of Meath, we we are going to be changed into a five seat constituency. I have heard the Minister suggest here that he is against the idea of large constituencies. As a matter of fact he said that to-day. Now, it is far harder for a Deputy to keep in touch with a constituency which has a large area than with a constituency which, although having a big population, is comprised within a small area. The suggested new constituency for Meath-Westmeath, however, will stretch from the Irish Sea to very near the Shannon and, in spite of the handsome and rounded appearance of Meath at present—at least it has not the ugly and constricted hour-glass appearance of Leitrim or the appearance of Cavan which has a long tail up to Fermanagh, whereas there is a fairly equal distance from a central point in Meath, such as Navan, to the borders of the county— we are now going to have the constituency stretching from the Irish Sea almost to the Shannon. I do not know what will happen to Deputy Kelly when he has to set out from, say, Duleek down to Moate. It will be very expensive certainly, I suggest, both for Deputy Kelly and myself. As I say, we will probably have to pool our resources and travel together.
It will mean high finance for both of you.
Yes, and the same kind of thing will happen in the case of Deputies in similarly mutilated constituencies. Speaking seriously, however, the new constituency has a very ugly appearance, and, as I have said, it stretches half across Ireland—it is, roughly, about 80 miles, as the crow flies, from the mouth of the Boyne to, say, Moate, which is the extreme southwest corner of the proposed new constituency. Of course the point might be made that a five-seat constituency is more ideal, from the point of view of proportional representation, than a three-seat constituency. Listening to the different arguments on this Bill, one finds that on one occasion the Minister will use one argument to suit him, and on another occasion he goes in the opposite direction. I suppose that could be said, to a large extent, about all speakers on this Bill. I propose that the administrative County of Meath should be left with a three-seat constituency. Of course, we have heard that such constituencies are undesirable under proportional representation, and it has been stated and held, and it is the belief of a majority of our Party, that that is so. It may appear anomalous, accordingly, for me to be supporting a three-seat constituency, but I am doing that because it is the lesser of two evils. Under the Government plan there will be mutilation of counties, whereas there will be no mutilation of counties under this scheme. Under the Government scheme, Roscommon is being very badly treated, and is being mutilated as well, and Westmeath is being mutilated and joined up with Meath. As regards the question of local administration, I do not want to say anything about it because Deputy Kelly is here, and he is a member of the Council, and can give us his views on that. I do not see what point has been made or can be made for this suggested change. I hold that you can get the same reduction of seats by adopting the same plan as is embodied in this amendment. By adopting it, you do not offend local county patriotism, and you achieve exactly the same result. If you go through the numbers of populations, you can see that there is nothing to be gained by the Government plan. Accordingly, I should like to hear what excuse the Minister has to offer for the serious mutilation he proposes to effect, as contained in this Bill.
What is proposed in the Bill with regard to the constituency under discussion has arisen because of the decrease in population in some counties. There had to be a rearrangement somewhere, and, as I said earlier on other amendments, portions of county boundaries had to be violated in some cases in order to arrange for suitable populations for other areas. In some cases, where there was a surplus, a portion had to be taken in order to try to regulate, in accordance with the provisions laid down by the Constitution, the numbers required for other areas. It is regrettable that Roscommon has suffered, but it has not suffered more than some other counties. Take the case of County Carlow. I am sure I will hear a great deal about it as the debate goes on. I have heard a lot about it already and, as I say, probably will hear more during this debate, but that county has suffered to a much greater extent. I have mentioned all along that the smaller constituency of three members gives a better result than the large constituency. I would much rather have a three-member constituency than a four-member one, because we know the difficulties in the constituency of four members. An even number, whether it be four or six or eight, creates greater difficulties than would an odd-number constituency.
What difficulty does an even number create?
First of all, the difficulty possibly of getting a majority at any time.
What does that matter?
It has a very considerable interest to the country. The country might be kept in a state of turmoil for a very long time if whatever Government was elected could not have a majority. If you had a majority of even-number constituencies that result might follow with very serious consequences for the country. Therefore, it is desirable, whatever the number be, that the odd-number constituencies should be in the majority. It does not necessarily follow, I admit, that if you have even-number constituencies even numbers will be elected by the electorate, but you would help in that direction by having even-number constituencies, and it is better not to run that risk. Therefore, I would much rather have three three-member constituencies than two four-member constituencies.
It is not correct to say that we have inflicted injury on the province of Connaught. The population of Connaught had diminished between 1910 and 1926 and several counties were bound to lose members. As Deputy MacDermot properly stated, we did take an area off County Galway and put it on to County Clare and we have likewise taken a certain area from Roscommon and added it on to Longford. In doing that with regard to Roscommon we have gone back to a certain extent to what was usual, so far as local government was concerned, in days gone by, when Athlone, as a union, went to a very considerable extent, almost to the same extent as we have gone, into the County Roscommon, and the people of that area have had the habit for a great number of years, and continue to have the habit, of using Athlone as their market town. In any inquiries I have made I have been told that there is no resentment in the minds of the people in that area at what we have done. I know it is true the Roscommon County Council passed a resolution against what they called the mutilation of the county. I have, however, made inquiries from people whom I believe can speak for the area and they tell me that the people they have consulted have told them that there is not any considerable resentment. In some areas they said they have gone further and stated that they were quite happy at the thought that they have been restored to the old habit of going into Athlone to vote as well as going in there to market.
The population of the province of Connaught at present is 552,907 and, if you take an average of 22,000 of a population per member, that would give a membership of 25 to the province. Therefore, I think it can be shown that any reduction in the numbers is due to a reduction in the population, and not to any effort on the Government's part to deprive the province of Connaught, any more than any other province, of the number of Deputies that, by population, it is properly entitled to. It is true, as Deputy MacDermot said, that in the proposed arrangement with regard to Roscommon, it does require 23,786 of a population to elect a Deputy. The average number is 22,783, but there is not very much difference between that and some other counties. In Kilkenny, for instance, it is 23,663; in South Tipperary, 23,637; and in North-East Limerick, 23,498. There is not very much difference between what Roscommon requires and what is required by at least three other counties. One or two others go fairly near it. In South-East Cork, for instance, it is 23,585. So that it can be called fairly average, although, strictly speaking, it is true that it is the highest average required.
I cannot see that any injury has been done to Meath, Westmeath, Roscommon or Longford by the proposal made. If we go back to historical precedents, as Deputy MacDermot was anxious to go back when discussing the Bill on Second Reading, we find that Meath and Westmeath were one at one time and were called the Royal Province of Meath. Both Meath and Westmeath are very largely composed of rural areas. They have the same type of people and the same type of industries—they are very largely agricultural areas. I think it is quite proper to associate two counties of that kind. As long as we have to associate counties and areas in trying to get a proper proportion, those two counties can very well go together. The same thing would apply to Athlone and the district of Longford that is associated with it. I cannot see that anything that can raise serious complaint has been done to any of the counties concerned, and I certainly think that in the smaller constituencies we are likely to get better representation than in the larger constituencies. I do not want to labour that point, as I have spoken several times on it already. As I said, the areas of Meath and Westmeath are similar in type. The same can be said of Athlone and Longford. Roscommon is not being deprived of any member that it is entitled to. On the contrary, if we take each of these counties separately, on the present figures, there would be a very big disparity between the populations of Meath with 62,000, Westmeath with 56,000, and Roscommon with 83,000. If we did what the amendment suggests a very big disparity would arise and we would be obliging some counties to pay much more dearly than others for the members to be elected. We would be departing to a very considerable extent from the principle laid down in the Constitution which we have endeavoured to follow. Not alone must we keep between the limits of 20,000 and 30,000 per member, but, as far as can be possibly done, we must have an average number per Deputy. I do not know whether the word "identical" is used in the Constitution, but it must be as close as possible. The word "identical" is used, I think, in the Constitution.
The remarks of the Minister make it very difficult to believe that the arrangement of these counties proposed in the Bill has been arrived at on account of any other considerations except electoral considerations. That those electoral considerations are there, there is no doubt at all, because it has been the subject of acute anguish to Fianna Fáil organisers in County Roscommon for years past that they have not been able to do better than to secure two out of the four members for the county. I believe that the persons who have informed the Minister that there is no resentment in County Roscommon are ardent Fianna Fáil partisans, who wish to see this thing done because they resent so much seeing two members returned for the county who are opposed to them.
The Minister says that no injury has been done to the province of Connaught. That statement of his seems to me to have absolutely no meaning. Connaught used to have 29 members. It has declined in population and the most it could now be entitled to would be 27 members. Under this Bill, it is to get only 24 members. If the Government had not interfered with County Galway, as they have done, by giving a bit to Clare, and if they had not interfered with County Roscommon, as they have done, by giving a bit to Athlone-Longford, Connaught would have 26 members. Therefore, to put the case at its lowest, the Government have reduced the representation of Connaught quite unnecessarily from 26 to 24 members. So much for Connaught.
As regards these counties affected by this particular amendment, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, admitted that it was the sort of Bill where Party organisers might exercise an undesirable influence, and he said that the Government was so determined to avoid that kind of thing that they had fixed on certain basic principles and from these basic principles they were not going to be induced to depart in deciding on the new alignment of constituencies. These principles were, firstly, reduction of the number of Deputies; secondly, the preservation of county boundaries as far as possible; and, thirdly, the abolition of unduly large constituencies. As regards the reduction of the number of Deputies, there is no difference between the Government proposal and ours as to the number of Deputies to represent the area affected. Therefore, that particular point does not come in. As regards the preservation of county boundaries, the second fundamental principle in the Bill, our amendment honours that principle, while the Government proposal departs from it, departs from it flagrantly and departs from it as affecting, not one county, but two or three. The third principle is the abolition of unduly large constituencies. Under our proposal, where is the unduly large constituency? Neither Roscommon would be an unduly large constituency nor Longford-Westmeath, nor Meath, but it is now proposed to make Meath and Westmeath one constituency and there is considerably more case for saying that that is unwieldy and difficult to manage than any of the areas proposed in our amendment. Consequently, the Government are clearly convicted in this matter of having departed from what they have alleged to be their own fundamental principles.
Why have they done it? I say they have done it for electoral reasons. I am not going to suggest that the Minister for Local Government himself has done it for electoral reasons. I will assume everything in his favour, but I do say that the people who have urged this arrangement on him must have been influenced by electoral reasons and that all those who are familiar with conditions in County Roscommon are convinced that they were influenced by electoral reasons and that that is why this arrangement has been introduced.
As regards the number of inhabitants that would be required to return a member for Longford-Westmeath being high, if our amendment were accepted, I admit that, but it is not very much higher than the number required in Roscommon, if the Government's arrangement is accepted and there is this great difference, that the one grievance, if it can be called a grievance, would have grown out of the county's own situation and development; it would have arisen, naturally, whereas, under the Bill, the grievance is going to arise from the direct act of the Government and one county is being made to suffer because of another county's declining population. I press on the Minister, once again, that there is no respectable reason, no defensible ground, for the arrangement of constituencies proposed in this Bill in relation to these counties and I ask him to get back to the fundamental principles of his own Bill, as they were so forcibly expounded here by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and to accept the amendment standing in Deputy Brennan's name.
The Minister, in his reply, made no case whatever, I thought, in defence of the Government's suggestions, except the point that he, personally, was against four-seat constituencies and that, therefore, since our proposal creates two four-seat constituencies, he was prepared, in order to defeat that idea, to go ahead with all this cutting up of counties. If we examine the Bill, which he has presented to the Dáil, we will see that there are nine four-seat constituencies suggested, and in the discussion which took place with regard to the South Dublin constituency we had it shown that the Government were deliberately getting rid of the seven-seat constituency, which is probably the ideal constituency for proportional representation, and substituting for it a four-seat and a three-seat constituency. I suggest that that is a case in which the Minister was deliberately creating a four-seat constituency which we could easily have avoided.
He says he likes a three-seat constituency. We have one already in Meath and why not leave it that way? If he does leave it as it is, although our suggestion creates two four-seat constituencies, it does not lead definitely to this mutilation of counties and the setting up of a huge constituency such as the new Westmeath and Meath constituency will be, with 105,000 inhabitants, and it is not so much a matter of the inhabitants but of the widespread area and the awkward nature of the constituency. I followed the Minister closely and I could not see that he was making any case at all, except in so far as he said that he did not like four-seat constituencies, and that, in this particular case, he did not want to introduce that arrangement, although, taking the Bill as a whole, he has introduced nine four-seat constituencies.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Thrift, William Edward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In Part II to delete all references to the constituencies of "Sligo" and "Leitrim" and substitute therefor the following:—
|
LEITRIM— SLIGO. |
The Administrative County of Leitrim and the Administrative County of Sligo. |
Six |
If the Minister for Industry and Commerce were to be taken literally in his statement that the one consideration that weighed with the Government in the preparation of this Bill was the preservation of the county boundaries, Sligo is an outstanding example of where that consideration has not been observed. Apart altogether from the desire of the Minister to observe, as he alleges, the county boundaries, the boundaries of Sligo are formed by a chain of mountains which run from one end of the county to the other. Notwithstanding that fact, the Minister proposes in this Bill to transfer portions of the county across that chain of mountains into the neighbouring County Leitrim. I noticed, on looking up the figures relating to the population of Sligo, that according to the census of 1926, Sligo is entitled to three representatives. In fact, Sligo is entitled to slightly more than three representatives. I should like to know from the Minister why in these circumstances he has thought fit and proper to transfer 5,000 electors from County Sligo across the Arigna Mountains into County Leitrim? I know that the Minister in the course of the discussion tried to make clear and plain to the House that in his preparation of the Bill he was not animated by any political motives, but it is an extraordinary coincidence that the areas which he proposes to transfer across the chain of mountains into County Leitrim are areas where his Party certainly did not receive very much support.
I admit that this rearrangement of the county will possibly help his Party. Certainly it will help one Deputy in his Party, but I doubt if it will help another Deputy in his Party. So far as I can understand the latter Deputy is as strongly opposed to this rearrangement of the constituency as I am myself. If the Minister will look at the map for a few minutes and study the proposed rearrangement of the county I think he will appreciate that it is, on the face of it, a very absurd rearrangement. He starts at one end of the county, cuts off a slice of it and transfers it across the mountains into County Leitrim. Then he stops, proceeds a little further and the chopping process begins again. Along the whole chain of mountains, until he reaches the end of the county, he transfers quite big areas into the neighbouring county. I could understand that proposal if there was any affiliation or any sort of common sentiment between the areas which it is proposed to transfer from County Sligo and the neighbouring county of Leitrim. As a matter of fact, there is no affiliation of sentiment, business or anything else, between the people in these districts and the people of County Leitrim. If the Minister, when making this arrangement, were animated by a desire to align together people with some sort of common interest, he should have transferred these areas into County Roscommon, because it is in towns like Ballyfarnon and Boyle that the people of Kilmactranny, Geevagh and the adjoining districts do their business, and not in County Leitrim.
My proposal is that the alliance of Sligo and Leitrim as one constituency should continue and that the Minister should drop the mutilation of the county which appears in this Bill. The Minister mentioned in his reply to Deputy MacDermot regarding the rearrangement of County Westmeath, Longford and Roscommon that he was animated by motives of economy, but I cannot, for the life of me, see how this rearrangement in Sligo is going to effect any economy. In fact, I am satisfied from my knowledge of the county that this rearrangement will mean increased expenditure in the county. It will mean that when the elections come along you will have two separate staffs instead of the single staff which performed the work heretofore. My proposal, as embodied in this amendment, is that Sligo-Leitrim should be left as it is, one constituency, with one seat less than heretofore. In other words, instead of the seven seats which Sligo-Leitrim has at present in future that we shall have six. I think that is a sensible arrangement. That is a much better arrangement, a much more satisfactory arrangement and a much more economical arrangement from the administrative point of view, than the arrangement proposed in the Bill.
Another absurd thing about the Bill is that it is proposed to transfer an island situated about eight miles out in the Atlantic, into County Leitrim. There are several islands to be transferred but one is a very important island. I was wondering whether the Minister when he was arranging the County Sligo took that fact into consideration at all. In the course of the Second Reading when I was dealing with the peculiar situation of Sligo-Leitrim. I was under the impression that I rather impressed the Minister with the fact that it was a constituency that deserved special consideration. At least, I gleaned that impression from the Minister's attitude and I am hopeful that, in view of the opportunity he has had since to study the conditions of that constituency more fully, he will agree that the amendment is a reasonable one. I hope he will see his way to accept the amendment and allow Sligo-Leitrim to remain as it is, a single constituency with six members instead of seven.
I desire to support the amendment. I think it is very unfair on the part of the Minister to take this slice off Sligo and put it into County Leitrim. It means practically disfranchising 5,000 electors. If the people of the different electoral divisions which it is proposed to transfer—Ballintogher East, Ballinakill, Ballynashee, Cliffony North, Cliffony South, Drumcolumb, Killadoon, Kilmactranny, Rossinver East and Shancough—want to make representations to one of their representatives in the Dáil in future, they will have to go miles into County Leitrim to meet their representatives there. I think it is very unfair, therefore, to cut this slice off Sligo and put it into Leitrim. The Minister should adopt the suggestion which Deputy Roddy has put before the House, that is, to give three seats to Sligo and three to Leitrim and allow the constituency to stand as it is at present. We have two members representing these areas on Sligo County Council and they are also represented on the Board of Health. You will, therefore, have representatives from these areas operating in County Sligo. I would strongly urge on the Minister to agree to the amendment now before the House with regard to this constituency.
I think the arrangement in the Bill proposed for Leitrim-Sligo is obviously within the set of principles that we initiated, and have tried to keep to in rearranging the constituency. I argued at the time of Second Reading, and again on the various amendments, in favour of smaller constituencies. It happens that these two counties of Leitrim and Sligo were associated for a considerable time. In my thinking—I travelled through the constituency a few times during general elections—it was a very unwieldy constituency—one of the most unwieldy in the country. I cannot say how far it has been the custom to associate the two counties together, but I cannot see any reason for allowing that to continue. It is true that a small area of Sligo is taken over to provide Leitrim county, which has only 55,900 of a population, with the necessary numbers to enable it to have a population of the required size for three members. I am not nearly as well acquainted, as either of the Deputies who have spoken with that area, but I assure Deputies this much: I, personally, do not know the area; I had it examined by persons who had no political bias in the matter. We decided it was necessary to take off some area. The Deputy is quite right in saying there are people in my own Party, as there are in his Party, who object to a slice being taken, for political reasons and for reasons of convenience. But it was suggested by us for no political motives. I have not the slightest idea, until I heard to-night, what the political opinions of the people in that area are. It is an area contiguous to the County of Leitrim.
When taking out an area we have to get an area that will suit for electoral purposes. You cannot easily divide electoral areas. We have to remember what the custom of the people is in going to vote in certain areas. Taking all these matters into account, I accepted the recommendation made, that if the making of a cut of any kind was necessary to provide Leitrim with the necessary number of members, the best that could be done was done in the area that was taken. I believe two three-member constituencies will give better results, from the point of view of proportional representation and from the point of view of the country in general, than continuing the practice that exists in Leitrim-Sligo at present and in the past. I do not think that is to be recommended. I think experience will show that the results from smaller constituencies will be better for the country as a whole.
The Minister has said that under this proposal he adheres strictly to the principles that were laid down to guide him. I assume he referred to the principle very explicitly acknowledged by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (1) the reduction of members; (2) the preservation of the county boundaries, and (3) the abolition of unduly large constituencies. The amendment here would make the reduction in the number of Deputies quite as effective as the Minister's proposal. If the Minister's proposal is accepted it not only separates Leitrim from Sligo, but it mutilates the County of Sligo. The mutilation of the history of counties is highly undesirable. The County Sligo has boundaries with which I am fairly familiar, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that they have no connection whatever with Leitrim. It would be true to say they have more alignment with the County Roscommon. I think some of the people in Sligo would have considerable trade relations with the town of Boyle, but whatever may be said for an alignment towards Roscommon I do not think there is any bond at all between this particular part of the County Sligo and the County Leitrim. So that in regard to the second principle—the preservation of county boundaries—this proposal of the Minister is as bad as it could well be. Personally, over and above the convenience of the people living in these areas, I think there is the important historical argument against the reckless mutilation of counties with considerable history behind them. That history has given rise to considerable county pride which in itself is a good thing.
The next objection to this principle is that it is going to create two constituencies that will each return three Deputies to the Dáil. Deputy Fitzgerald pointed out earlier in the day that with the system of proportional representation we have in this country, the three-member constituency negatives the whole effect of proportional representation. A five-member constituency is better. But a seven-member constituency gives even more satisfactory reflection of the voters' feelings in any constituency. I think one of the Minister's colleagues said that the ideal condition would be a five-member constituency. It was the Minister for Industry and Commerce who said that and, of course, the Minister's loyalty to his colleague will prevent him opening out upon that statement. I think, so far as the Minister took that view, it is right that we should preserve the principle of proportional representation. But I urge upon the Minister that there is no necessity, and that no strong, potent argument can be used, for the mutilation of a county, and that he ought to allow the preservation of a county boundary to weigh with him. Suppose we leave Leitrim-Sligo together what, in practice, will happen? The populations of these two counties, though not identical, are pretty nearly the same. You will find you will probably have three Leitrim Deputies and three Sligo Deputies. In a certain election it might turn out that you had four Sligo and two Leitrim Deputies, but generally you will find the division very similar to the division created by this Bill. You will have avoided the destruction of the historical boundary of the County Sligo. You will not have increased the number of Deputies returned by these two counties, and you will have met the wishes of the people who, after all, know the conditions that obtain in this area better than anyone in the Custom House knows them, or, as the Minister himself said, better than he knows them. In the face of these accumulative reasons for accepting Deputy Roddy's amendment, I suggest that the Minister should reconsider this question and allow Sligo-Leitrim to remain as it has been heretofore, one constituency, but returning one member less than it has returned in the past.
The Minister said that Sligo has been associated with Leitrim for a number of years. I agree with that statement. Sligo has been associated with Leitrim, as a single constituency, since 1922. My amendment proposes that that association should continue. The Minister has not advanced a single argument for declining to accept my amendment. It is all very well for the Minister to talk about proportional representation. The effect of proportional representation on three, five and six member constituencies was argued at considerable length on the Second Reading of this Bill. The Minister knows as well as I do that, to get the full effect of proportional representation, you must have at least a five-member constituency. I propose in my amendment to go one better and make this a six-member constituency.
I want to impress on the Minister the nature of the mutilation to which he is subjecting the County Sligo. I asked the Minister, in the course of my Second Reading speech on this Bill, to study the map for the purpose of satisfying himself that the picture I painted of the mutilation that is taking place in Sligo was not in the least degree exaggerated. The transfer of the areas which he proposes to make to Leitrim is entirely unnatural. In the case of one or two areas, it may be natural enough but, in the case of the majority of areas which the Minister proposes to transfer to the County Leitrim, the arrangement is entirely unnatural. The people living in these areas have nothing in common with the people of Leitrim. All their affiliations and associations, so far as they are outside the county, are with the people in the neighbouring county of Roscommon. I listened to a great part of the debate on the Committee Stage of this Bill and I cannot understand why the Minister rearranged County Roscommon in the way he did. If he was anxious to transfer portions of Sligo to a neighbouring county, he should have taken into consideration the sentiments of the people in these particular areas, their affiliations and the relationships which exist between them and the people in the neighbouring counties. If he had done so, I am certain he would not be proposing, as he is in this Bill, to transfer the people of, let us say, Geevagh and Kilmactranny to the adjoining areas of County Leitrim. The arrangement is, I suggest, entirely unnatural and, as I pointed out when moving the amendment, will lead to a considerable amount of additional expense. This arrangement will mean that the expense of carrying out an election in that constituency will be doubled. Two staffs will be required to work the election and two sets of counting officers will be required to count the votes after the election. That will mean double expense to the Government. In rearranging constituencies the Minister should take into consideration the question of economy as well as other questions.
Seemingly, this Bill was prepared in haste. No proper consideration was given to the rearrangement proposed in the Bill and I doubt very much if the Minister himself ever had an opportunity of going over the map and relating the arrangement proposed in the Bill to the map of the Twenty-Six Counties. If he had done so, I am certain that he would not have given his imprimatur to the extraordinary rearrangement proposed in respect of certain counties. Apart from what the Minister for Industry and Commerce said on the Second Reading—that it was one of the main desires of the Executive Council to preserve the county boundaries—it is unnatural and inconceivable for the Minister to sanction the mutilation of a county like Sligo in the manner proposed seeing, as I said on numerous occasions already, that that county is surrounded by a chain of mountains. I ask the Minister again to consider this question of the transfer of areas from County Sligo to County Leitrim. I ask him for the sake of his own administration, as well as for the sake of economy, to allow Sligo-Leitrim to remain as one constituency with six seats instead of seven. I suggest in all seriousness to the Minister that he should accept my amendment now or, if he is not prepared to do so now, that he should defer further consideration of the matter to the Report Stage.
Question put: That the words proposed to be deleted, stand.
The Committee divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Carty, Frank.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn, James.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- McDermot, Frank.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Thrift, William Edward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 12:—
In Part II, page 7, to delete all references to the constituencies of "East Donegal" and "West Donegal" and substitute the following:—
"
|
DONEGAL |
The Administrative County of Donegal |
Seven |
"
(William Norton, Mícheál Og MacPháidin, Daniel McMenamin, James M. Dillon.)
Deputy Norton.
This amendment stands in our joint names. It is Deputy Norton's desire that I should move this amendment, which is directed to prevent the partition of the County Donegal.
I have called on Deputy Norton. Am I to understand that he has given way to Deputy Dillon?
I understood that Deputy Norton gave way. I turned round to know if he wished to move the amendment.
The Deputy is moving the amendment now and he can go on.
The amendment in question deals with my constituency. It is one directed to prevent the partition of County Donegal. Those of us who represent northern constituencies are only too familiar with the problem of partition in the national sense of the word. When we find it threatened in respect of a county which we represent we are naturally concerned to prevent it. The proposal here is to change Donegal constituency, which is now represented by eight members, to two constituencies represented by three and by four members respectively. That immediately gives rise to the objection to a three-member constituency, that the effect of proportional representation, which was so eloquently dealt with by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, would not be felt. Admittedly the county is a large one, and as a one-constituency county involves the covering of considerable distances. I am satisfied that the vast majority of the people there would prefer to have the county maintained as one electoral unit instead of being divided up as is proposed. The principal objection I see to the proposal is that you will have this three-member constituency. It is not necessary to waste time repeating the arguments advanced against that scheme. In this particular case, that is the prime argument against the proposal of the Government. The amendment is directed to remedy that defect and, at the same time, to secure that whatever economy might have been effected by the Government scheme will be secured by the alternative proposal.
I think the chief recommendation for the proposition in the Bill, to have two constituencies, is that it divides a very considerable county; and, secondly, it gives us two small constituencies. These are the two considerations that recommended themselves to me. Deputy Dillon says that we have had the same priciple argued at great length on several other amendments, and that it is, therefore, not necessary to go into details now. I do not know what the views of the House in general may be, except to accept what Deputy Dillon said for his Party, that he is anxious to have the division taken away. I do not know what the opinions of Deputies in my own Party are. I know that there are some Deputies in the Party who wish the divisions to remain and that others in the county wish them to be taken away. For that reason I announced at an earlier stage of the debate that if there was a division of opinion and if it was fairly general throughout the House, amongst all Parties, I would leave it to all Parties to deal with it.
What does Deputy Brady say?
From the point of view of a Deputy representing Donegal, I think Deputies there will welcome the change that is proposed. The area of the county is something like 400 square miles with a population of over 150,000. It is impossible for a Deputy to keep in touch with all parts of the constituency. While it might serve the interests of a Deputy that the area should be large, when all is said and done, I think the suggestion of the Minister provides a fair division, a division which will make Deputies' work in the Dáil much easier than it now is. At the same time, it will keep them more in contact with their constituency. I live in the southern end and I find it impossible to keep in contact with the rest of the constituency. I am in the county every week-end and when the Dáil is in recess. I dare say the other Deputies have the same feeling. If the area was more compact it would be better, and, accordingly, I am prepared to vote for the division of the county into two.
I regret that a young man like Deputy Brady is prevented from going around Donegal. One would expect that so young a man would have no difficulty in doing so, more particularly in these days of rapid transport. If the Minister looks at a map of County Donegal he will see that a three-member constituency is going to embrace the entire congested area. It is unnecessary to point out that the heavy part of the work of representing the people there will devolve on three members, and that the four-member constituency, which includes East and North Donegal, from Churchill into the borders of Tyrone and Derry and into Inishowen, was never included in the congested areas, except a very limited portion of the peninsula of Inishowen and Fanad. None of that is included in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht. When I learned that the county was going to be divided up, the obvious thing was to look at the division, and to consider the amount of work that there would be for the four-member constituency, as against the three-member constituency, in order to represent the people. The order should be reversed. It is unnecessary to point out that where you have a huge congested area, as you have in the three-member constituency, the heavy work will fall on three men. Perhaps for that reason Deputy Brady prefers to undertake the excessive burden. That is all very well in theory, but it is different in practice. In a huge area, where there is congestion, it would be better, from the point of view of the wellbeing of that area, that the entire constituency should remain one, and if the advice of all the Deputies could be secured when any grave issue arose involving the welfare of the area. For that reason I will support the amendment.
I assume that in the consideration of this important amendment we will have the assistance of Deputy H. Doherty, who is familiar with conditions in the Gaeltacht. I am happy to see that he has arrived, and that he will give us the benefit of his counsel.
Is Deputy Dillon allowed to call on me to speak? All I have to say is that I quite agree with the arrangement proposed by the Government, as being a sensible and proper one, for the division of the county. I hold that the argument of Deputy McMenamin only strengthens the necessity for such a division, and I will vote for the Government's proposal.
Having drawn bashful Deputies from Donegal, it is interesting to hear that they are in favour of the partition of the county.
We poor innocents still believe that partition is as objectionable in the County Donegal as it is in the nation as a whole. But over and above that the effect of this partition is going to be to split the Donegal Gaeltacht. That in itself is objectionable because I think even Deputy Brady will himself agree with me in this, that there is absolutely nothing in common between the interests of the vast bulk of the people living in East Donegal and the people who live in the Gaeltacht. So the result of the proposal, which Deputy Brady recommends to the House, will be that a very small part of the Gaeltacht is going to be lumped in with East Donegal and the vast bulk of the Gaeltacht will go to West Donegal——
Mr. Brady
Practically the entire Gaeltacht is in the West.
Yes and that part will be well looked after by those three hardworking Deputies, whoever they may be, who will be elected for West Donegal. There will be small bits of the Gaeltacht left in East Donegal to be represented by Deputies who will have absolutely nothing in common with the Gaeltacht at all. They will be representative of the type of farmer and business man living in the bulk in East Donegal. These men know comparatively little about the peculiar problems that affect the Gaeltacht and the result will be that you will have, perhaps, the most defenceless section of the community in that part of the county, not represented in the House. At present where you have a man representing more or less West Donegal under the existing arrangement, it is well recognised that any resident of the Gaeltacht, no matter what part of the Gaeltacht he comes from, will turn to him naturally in preference to somebody who represents East Donegal, or South Donegal. When I say South Donegal I mean Bundoran, or Ballyshannon. The person living even north of Milford would turn, more naturally, to the Deputy representing Gweedore than he would to the Deputy representing Raphoe, though Raphoe would be nearer to him. Geographically the exact appearance of the map escapes my mind at the moment, but I think Milford is going to East Donegal. Now take the case of Milford, where you have a little regular fragment of the Gaeltacht and that will be completely isolated. We might safely describe the Fanad peninsula as the Gaeltacht. The result of this arrangement will be that that peninsula will be completely isolated from that part of Donegal to which it culturally belongs. I wonder did Deputy Brady and Deputy Doherty consider that aspect of the situation before they rushed in to place their support behind this proposal? However they can mend their hand. The Minister is going to take the muzzle off and he is going to take the dog-collar and the chain off for this division. They can run wild this time. It is good to take a little exercise every now and then. They can take one chase across the country now. I suggest in this case when you have an opportunity of preventing the isolation of a small, defenceless section of the Gaeltacht, when you have got a chance of going on record as against the principle of Partition, that naturally you ought to throw off the dog-collar, the chain and the muzzle. If you do not do it you may not get the chance again for years and years. Now you have got the chance. Take it.
It is amazing to hear Deputy Dillon talking about partition in Donegal. I am sure if he spoke to Deputy McMenamin he would tell him it is not the first occasion that we had a West Donegal constituency. I think if he turns to Deputy McMenamin he might find that Deputy McMenamin would tell him all about the sting in West Donegal.
I do not know what is troubling Deputy Brady's kidney.
Mr. Brady
I suggest that the arguments used by Deputy Dillon with regard to the isolation of the Gaeltacht could be used in favour of turning the entire Gaeltacht into one constituency. That is the logical conclusion with regard to what he says about Donegal. I do not see why they should not pick one, two or three representatives to represent that portion of the Gaeltacht. The case made against the division of Donegal into two constituencies seems, to my mind, as having nothing practical in it. But the Minister's proposal seems to me to be a proposal that should recommend itself to the House.
Question put—"That the words proposed to be deleted, stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 57
57; Níl, 57.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flinn, Hugo. V.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Thrift, William Edward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Moylan and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Corish.
Question proposed—"That the words proposed be therein inserted."
The Chair exercises a casting vote in the case of a tie, and there is a precedent as to how the casting vote is to be given. In order to give the House a further opportunity of considering the matter, the Chair gives the casting vote against the motion before the House, so that the House will have an opportunity again of considering the position. The motion was: "That the words proposed to be deleted, stand." I am voting against that motion.
On a point of order. Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle say under what Standing Order a Leas-Cheann Comhairle can exercise a casting vote?
Perhaps the Deputy would refresh my memory by quoting the Standing Order which precludes the Leas-Cheann Comhairle from giving a casting vote?
I am entitled to ask the Standing Order. Of course, I am accepting the decision of the Chair.
No Deputy is entitled to ask the Chair to quote a Standing Order for his decision.
I accept that.
The amendment on the Paper, therefore, now has to be put to the House so that the House may discuss it and decide on it. The motion, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand," having been defeated, the amendment has to be put to the House now. Therefore, if there is no further discussion desired on it, I am putting the amendment. The question now is: "That the words proposed be therein inserted."
I should like to say that I do not think the amendment suggested is the best arrangement. I certainly think that a division of the county is desirable, both from the geographical point of view and from the point of view of proportional representation. I think that it will be agreed that the county covers a very wide area and is very scattered. Geographically, it has considerable difficulties that other counties, even as great in extent territorially, have not got, and I certainly think that the principle of the division of the county ought to be adhered to.
I submit, Sir, that the House already has expressed clearly its view that this county should not be divided. The Minister gave what was practically an undertaking that he was prepared to let it go to a free vote and to accept the recommendation of the House on such a vote. On his side not a single vote was cast, outside the members of his own Party, against the division of the county. All the members of this Party, all the members of the Labour Party and every Independent member in the House recorded their votes against him. I feel sure, accordingly, that on reflection the Minister will recognise the justice of accepting this amendment without putting it to a further vote. Otherwise, certainly, I have misunderstood the spirit of the undertaking which the Minister gave, that this would be left to a free vote. If, after having given that undertaking and after a free vote having been secured, the Party Whips are to be put on now to gather up a majority in order to force through the rejection of the reconsolidation of the county, I cannot but think that it is a departure from the spirit of the Minister's undertaking. We provided in our proposal that there should be no increase in the number of Deputies returned by this county, and the only thing we wanted to secure is that the partition of the county proposed in the Bill should be undone. I urge most strongly on the Minister that having got this free expression of the House's opinion, he should accept it and recognise that the county should be left intact, and the number of Deputies as agreed upon between us.
As the Deputy knows, opinion was evenly divided on the matter. As I said before, in discussing this and other amendments, I hold strongly that a division of the county would be better. I am strongly of that opinion and, for my part, I should like to get a very clear decision from the House as to the House's view on this matter. It is not true to say that the Whips were put on.
No, I did not say that. I say that you are about to put the Whips on now.
The Whips were not put on in that last division.
That is quite agreed.
My own opinion is that, were it not for the fact that our own members for Donegal spoke as strongly as they did, the vote might have been different. I did not know what their views on the matter were, but I should like to get a clear decision of the House on the question of whether Donegal should be divided or not.
I submit, Sir, that we got a clear decision already. The Minister now admits that the members of his Party were influenced to vote on Party lines by the representations of Deputies Brady and Doherty. As I pointed out already, every member of the House who was not a member of the Fianna Fáil Party voted the other way. I cannot see that that indicates anything except that on a free vote of the House the sentiment of the House was against it, and, as the Minister says, but for the intervention of Deputies Brady and Doherty, some others of the Fianna Fáil Party might have joined the Opposition in recording their votes. So, we got the worst vote we could get on the first division. In view of that, I hope that as a result of the vote we have had, the Minister will accept our amendment. I cannot make him do it. The Minister may say that the Whips will not be on, but, in effect, the Whips will be on because he joins issue a second time. I have no means of making the Minister honour, as I think, the spirit of his undertaking. If he wants to force a division, I wish him luck of it, but I submit that we are entitled to have our amendment accepted now as it is on the Order Paper. All I can say is that, if the Minister wants his division we will try and vote him down.
I must say that I do not understand the Minister's attitude. The inference from what he had said previously is that he admits there was nothing serious or vital involved in the matter, and I suggest, from his attitude now, that he took that line merely because he felt certain that the division would result otherwise than it did. Now, having said first that the issue involved was not vital and having been, in effect, beaten on it, he gets up and says that it is all-important that this county should be divided. I suggest that what he is doing is mending his hand. He now sees his opportunity of doing so and, whereas before he said that there was really no vital difference between the one method and the other, he now says that it is absolutely necessary that the members of his Party should stand solidly against the amendment. He is just trying to mend his hand.
While I am not personally interested in this particular matter, I should like to bring the House back to the realities of the situation. What happened was that there was a tie in the House and the Chair announced that there was a precedent for the Chair exercising a casting vote in the case of a tie and that in order to give the House a further opportunity of considering the matter the Chair would give the casting vote so that the House would have another opportunity of considering the position. The specific purpose of the procedure which has been adopted was to enable the House, which had not decided, to decide.
Divide, divide—before we get vexed.
The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Coburn, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dillon, James M.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Thrift, William Edward.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flinn, Hugo. V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Corish and Doyle; Níl: Deputies Moylan and Smith.
Amendment declared lost.
Craigavon wins.
Mr. P. Hogan
I move amendment No. 13:—
In Part II, page 7, to delete all reference to the constituencies of "East Galway" and of "West Galway," and in the second column to delete all words after the word "Clare" in the reference to the constituency of Clare and substitute therefor the following:—
"
|
GALWAY |
The Administrative County of Galway |
Eight |
"
Galway constituency formerly elected nine members. The Bill proposes seven and the amendment proposes eight. The number of votes per member, if the amendment is accepted, will be 21,787, and the Constitution provides for something over 20,000, so that from that point of view, the amendment is quite in order. If the Minister will examine the figures, I think he will find that 21,000 would be about the average per member down through the counties. I have a list of the counties here in alphabetical order, beginning with Dublin and ending with Wicklow, and I will just run down the numbers, leaving out the odd figures. They are 22,000, 20,000, 20,000, 20,000, 23,000, 21,000, 20,000, 23,000, 20,000, 23,000, 22,000, 21,787, which is Galway—practically 22,000.
In other words, if our amendment is accepted, and if Galway is permitted to elect eight Deputies, the number of votes per Deputy will be at least the average number of votes, namely, practically 22,000. On the other hand, if the numbers stated in the Bill are allowed to remain, the number of votes per Deputy will be extremely small indeed and very much below the average. I think we are entitled to an explanation of that. There is no doubt that 22,000 votes per Deputy is a little above the average, if you take all the constituencies, but why should it be brought very much below 21,000? I should like the Minister to deal with that point when he is replying.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to another point. There is a part of Galway going in with Clare, that is, with Munster. I am living in the centre of the county, and it is a very big county, and that part of Galway that goes into Clare is within 17 miles of me, although I am living in the direct centre of the county, which is 100 miles long, and the particular portion of the county which is chosen to go into Clare is within 17 or 18 miles of the very centre of the county. It is not a peninsula or anything like that: it is not adjoining the sea and it is not cut off in any way from the rest of the county. It is extremely hard to understand why that particular part of the county should be cut off and thrown in with Clare, that is to say, it is extremely hard to understand it if you face this problem on its merits, but really if you look at the figures I think it is perfectly clear, so far as Clare is concerned, anyway, that this problem has not been faced on its merits.
I pointed out to the Minister that if the amendment we propose is accepted and if Galway elects eight members, it will take practically 22,000 votes to elect one Deputy, whereas if the Bill becomes an Act, as it is, it will not take anything like that number. I pointed out that on reading down the list, it seems that, roughly, 21,000 votes, taking all the counties, elect one member and we are asking that one member should be elected by 22,000 or practically 22,000. If you turn to Clare, what do you find? You find that there are 23,766, or very nearly 24,000, votes to each member. That is a very extraordinary state of affairs.
An exhaustive poll.
Mr. Hogan
Any Deputy who goes up for election in Clare has to have practically 24,000 votes to elect him, whereas an unfortunate Deputy like Deputy Jordan or myself, in Galway has only 21,000 votes or thereabouts to depend on. These are figures which I do not think you can deny and there must be some reason for that sort of discrimination. It is perfectly clear why Galway is being carved in the interests of the Clare constituency and I do not think I need state why the Clare constituency is being made safe for democracy. It is quite obvious to everybody. Here is a considerable number of votes taken out of Galway and given into Clare, the particular constituency which the President represents, and I suggest that that is the reason for this extraordinary carving. There is no geographical reason; there is no reason whatever connected with the numbers. The reason is the reason I suggest and no other reason. The net result of it is that Galway, which formerly elected nine members, is now to elect only seven and the old Clare constituency formerly elected five members and the new Clare constituency is now to elect five members. I do not think I need develop that point any more, with regard to the relations between Clare and Galway, but having regard to that particular comparison of numbers, I think an explanation is required from the Minister who is in charge of the Bill.
I should like to say a word in support of Deputy Hogan's amendment. The case of Galway is not nearly so bad as the case of Roscommon, but still it is bad. No respectable explanation has so far been given for the proposal to take a piece of Galway and throw it into Clare. I am sorry that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was not here when we were discussing Roscommon, Longford and Westmeath, because I had no difficulty in showing that the division proposed in that case by the Government offended against the principles which had been laid down by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in his speech on the Second Reading. Let us consider these principles in connection with this amendment. The Minister for Industry and Commerce told us this was a very dangerous kind of Bill; that it was a Bill which would set up temptations for the Party in office if they were so misled as to listen to the pleadings of Party organisers and that there would be temptations for them to draw out the new constituencies on Party lines; but, while some Governments might easily yield to temptations of this kind, this Government, of course, had not done so and had protected themselves against such temptations by arriving at very clear principles. From these principles they had not departed and from these principles they would not depart. The principles in question were three. One was a reduction of the number of Deputies. Now, in point of fact, the number of Deputies in this Bill has been maintained practically as high as the Constitution permitted the Government to maintain it.
No.
A difference perhaps of two. It would require very great ingenuity to retain a larger number of Deputies than has, in fact, been maintained, and it would have required no ingenuity at all substantially to reduce the number.
If all county boundaries were ignored you could have 149 members.
If all county boundaries were ignored? That is an inconceivable hypothesis. The Government has got into trouble by what it has done in ignoring county boundaries but it could hardly venture to set the whole country against it by ignoring all county boundaries.
The Deputy has said that according to the Constitution we have included in this Bill as many members as we could have, with the possible exception of two. Article XXVI of the Constitution does not mention county boundaries. It mentions only the population. Taking it on a strict population basis we could go up 13 members.
The point the Minister has made has absolutely no substance in it.
It is a fact, and with all respect, the Deputy misrepresents the position if he says that this Bill proposes to give as many members as the Constitution allows. It does not do that. It does not go within 13 of doing it.
With all respect, it is not the Deputy but the Minister who misrepresents the position, because what is possible on paper is one thing and what is practicable is another. Allow me to amend what I said and, if necessary, to make it formally correct, by saying now that the Government have maintained practically as many members as it would have been practicable for them to maintain, in view of the terms of the Constitution, and in view of the political inconvenience of abolishing county boundaries all over the country. Then we have the second principle. As a matter of fact, I was forgetting for the moment that the second principle was preservation of county boundaries, so that if we attach any importance to the genuineness of the second principle the Minister's point as regards the first principle disappears altogether. The second principle was preservation of the county boundaries. How does that apply in this case? What zeal has been shown in preserving the county boundary of Galway? The third principle was the abolition of unduly large constituencies. That is the only one that could possibly be pleaded here in dealing with Galway, but it is one that has been ignored by the Government elsewhere and, therefore, I do not believe they attach any real importance to it themselves. As far as I can make out, the view of the Government is that the proper size of a constituency is determined solely by electoral considerations in connection with that particular constituency. They created a most unwieldy and widespread constituency in Meath-Westmeath, quite unnecessarily, because they thought it suited them to do so in connection with the Roscommon readjustment. As in the case of Roscommon, we wait with interest to hear what defence the Government will produce for the gift of a bit of Galway which they propose to make to Clare. The province of Connaught has been atrociously treated in this Bill. It had to have its representation somewhat reduced because of loss of population, but it need not have been reduced below 27 and, at any rate, it would only have been reduced to 26 if the Government had not gone out of their way to take a piece of Connaught and give it to Leinster, and gone out of their way to take another piece of Connaught and give it to Munster. So I have no hesitation in joining with Deputy Hogan in protesting on behalf of both Roscommon and Galway.
I think I must lodge a formal protest against Deputies opposite purporting to quote speeches by me without reference to the text. Deputy MacDermot alleged that I stated that the Government was in sore temptation under pressure from its Party organisers in the preparation of this Bill.
I did not allege that. I alleged that he had stated that Parties in general might be, or could be, subject to such temptations.
My recollection of the speech I delivered on the Second Reading of this Bill is that I went to considerable pains to prove that it was not possible in this country to jerrymander constituencies. I pointed to the fact that the State had only been a short while in existence; that during that short while there had been considerable fluctuations of public opinion; that it was not possible, under the electoral system here, to ascertain with any accuracy how votes were cast in any particular district, and that, in any event, proportional representation would defeat any attempt at jerrymandering. I pointed to the fact that the proper time for the introduction of this Bill was as early as possible after the results of the 1926 census were published. I expressed my opinion that the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy Mulcahy, in fact, considered the introduction of this Bill soon after the 1926 census was published. I expressed the opinion that he had had many consultations with his Party organisers, and had discussed with them the possibility of a jerrymandering Bill which would be in the interests of his Party, but that he had discovered—as others have discovered after him — that, because of the reasons I have stated, jerrymandering was not possible. He took the course of not introducing the Bill. We took the course of defining certain principles and drawing up a Bill in accordance with those principles without regard to Party considerations.
Deputy Hogan quoted certain figures. He was, of course, wrong in those figures. It was only to be expected that Deputy Hogan would not stick too closely to the facts, because he was making his case, and a few thousands here and there would not make any difference, provided the case was established. The population of Galway, according to the census of 1926, was 169,366. On the basis of eight members—it has at present nine members, but it could not possibly have nine members in future in accordance with the Constitution— there would be a population per Deputy of 21,171, which is substantially below the average for all the constituencies provided for in this Bill. The average for the constituencies provided for in the Bill is a population of 21,853. The two constituencies into which it is proposed to divide Galway will have a population in East Galway of 87,348, electing four members and having in respect of each of these four members almost exactly the average for all constituencies, and in West Galway 69,799, electing three members and having a population per member substantially in excess of the average.
Mr. Hogan
What is the average?
The average is 21,853. What is the case for dividing Galway, we have been asked, and also, what is the case for including in County Clare a certain contiguous portion of County Galway? Both reasons are fairly obvious. Galway, as Deputy Hogan has remarked is 100 miles long. It is a very large county. It was, in fact, the largest constituency in the country. When I speak of large constituencies, I am referring not so much to the geographical area of the constituencies as to the population. From the point of view of administration and representation the important consideration is the population of the constituency which each Deputy represents. Galway was one of the largest constituencies in the country—not quite so large in population as Dublin County, although under the system of election which prevailed it elected nine members. The proposal is to divide that constituency in accordance with the very excellent principles to which I have referred and which Deputy MacDermot has just quoted. It was decided to divide it into two constituencies. We were then up against the question of Clare. Clare has a population of 95,000. As pointed out, if it were to be maintained as a separate county without addition we would have the position that it could only elect four Deputies, but it would have, in relation to these four Deputies, a population per member very much in excess of the average.
Mr. Hogan
What would it be?
It would be 24,000 per Deputy.
Mr. Hogan
For four?
Yes. Having regard to the situation in Galway and the situation in Clare, on the one hand Galway with eight Deputies would give an average per Deputy substantially lower than the average for the country as a whole, while Clare would have an average per Deputy substantially above the average for the country. It was decided finally to attach to Clare a certain portion of Galway which has very definite associations with Clare, thus creating a position in which you had in Galway and in Clare an average for each Deputy approximating closely to the average for the whole of the country.
Mr. Hogan
What will it be?
In the case of Clare the average will be 21,468 for five Deputies. The population of Clare plus the population of the added area from Galway will be 107,343. That works out at an average of 21,468. It seems, therefore, that although it was with considerable reluctance the county boundary was departed from, it was nevertheless the best system, having regard to the considerations to which I have referred— the desirability of securing uniform representation, the desirability of having constituencies which were not too large and the desirability of having an odd number of Deputies wherever that is possible. To maintain Galway with eight Deputies and Clare with four would give two constituencies of the undesirable kind whereas under this arrangement there will be only one such constituency. At the next election that situation may not arise. As Deputies are aware the Ceann Comhairle is automatically elected in one of these constituencies. The Ceann Comhairle is at present a representative of County Galway and there will presumably be an election for one less than the prescribed number. It was a difficult situation to arrange the various constituencies, particularly in the West of Ireland, in a manner which seemed to meet as many of the principles we had laid down as possible. It was not found practicable to maintain all these principles in every case but we tried to strike a balance and arrive at an arrangement which would conform as closely as possible to the general ideal. It is for that reason that this arrangement in respect to Galway and Clare was arrived at and I think it will be found that it will work out excellently in practice.
In supporting this amendment, I do not at all agree with what the Minister for Industry and Commerce has said. He has stated that Galway is a very large constituency, but even after this carving up of the county he has reduced the mileage very little. If you take the West Galway constituency, you will find that we start away at the island of Boffin and come exactly within four miles of the old Clare border. The constituency runs right on from Clifden to Galway and from Galway practically into Kinvara. Where the new border commences is just four miles north of the county border, so that you have the western constituency running from Boffin almost right into Kinvara, a distance of about 76 miles. The Minister says that the Clare people and the Galway people have much in common. If you like, take even the actual road connection with Clare. You have a range of mountains, practically about 50 miles in length, running from Portumna right on to Gort, and in that range of mountains you have no roads. You have really only passes, and nobody knows that better than the Fianna Fáil Deputies. You have only one connection with the County Clare and that is the main road between Gort and Ennis. The Galway people have no associations with the Clare people. Their market town in that district has been Gort while the market town of the Clare people has been Ennis.
If we take even the conditions under the G.A.A.—it might be no harm to mention them—we find that for years there has been only one county hurling team in Connaught, the Galway hurling team. It was proposed on a few occasions that either the Galway team should go in with the Munster team or that the Clare team should come in with Galway in order to give Galway more play. It was the one county hurling team in Connaught and it had to represent the province against teams which had the advantage of playing several other counties previously. Although that has been talked of for years, nothing has been done. Neither the Munster Council nor the Connaught Council made any move to put Galway in with Munster or to take Clare in with Galway. That shows that there is no affiliation whatever between the two peoples. On the other hand, Clare is a dairying county, while Galway is a tillage county. We have then the Minister for Local Government saying that he does not like even-numbered constituencies, although he proposes that East Galway should have four seats. All we are asking is that he should give Galway eight seats. I think he also mentioned that he does not like to break up the county electoral areas, but I find that in Galway, Loughrea county electoral area, of which Gort forms a portion, has been cut right across. A population of about 12,000 has been taken from that electoral area and put into Clare. We have a resolution from the Galway County Council, the members of which certainly have very mixed opinions, showing that the County Council is totally opposed to the mutilation of the Galway constituency. I ask the Minister again to give this matter consideration. We have to travel from Boffin to Kinvara, a distance of 76 miles. By giving us special constituencies, with four Deputies in the east and three in the west, it means that Galway will have a representative for every 22,500 people. Clare, by taking over portion of South Galway will have a representative for every 21,175 people. I think that is a big difference amounting to about 700 electors more for each representative in Galway than in Clare. I think our amendment is a very reasonable one. Although the Minister is against even-member constituencies, Galway is one that should receive special consideration. It is bounded on the south by a range of mountains 50 miles in length with only ordinary mountain passes through them. There is not one main road connecting Galway with Clare and for that reason alone I think it is a good argument for leaving Galway as it is.
Anyone acquainted with Galway must have wondered why it has been so long allowed to remain as one constituency. It is a big, huge constituency, 100 miles in length. From Inishbofin in to Kilmacshane electoral division is 100 miles. Kilmacshane is about ten miles nearer to Carnsore Point and about 30 miles nearer to Howth than Inishbofin. No one could work a constituency like that as one electoral division. I am in entire agreement with the subdivision of the county. Of course if we were to do it our own way we might have a different line of demarcation. As to the part that is to be given to Clare, I do not quite agree with that particular area. Deputy Hogan said that at the next general election County Clare will have something like 24,000 to each representative, while Galway will only have 21,000 electors to each representative. The county that will have only 21,000 to each representative may be much reduced, but it would be as easy to get elected by 21,000 or 22,000 electors as by 25,000. As the quota would be much smaller, Deputy Brodrick rather contradicted the calculation about 25,000. He said that the Galway Deputies would have more constituents to look after.
Mr. Brodrick
Divide it up and you will see that that is so.
Yes, but we cannot have it both ways. If their men are to have 25,000 electors at the next election, and we can only get 21,000, I think it is right and proper that this constituency of Galway should be sub-divided. I think it will make matters easier for all parties concerned. It will make it as easy for the Labour Party to return a candidate if the constituency is sub-divided as if it remained one. At the last election their candidate only got a small number of votes. I think if they have two candidates, one in each of the divisions, each candidate would be more interested in his own election, and would have a better opportunity of organising than if he had to be travelling from Clifden to Ballinasloe and from Loughrea to Ballygar and only hitting the constituency in spots. It was that kind of thing, I think, that militated very considerably against Labour in the Galway constituency. I am in favour of the division of the county, and the Minister may, perhaps on Report Stage, reconsider his decision as to the portion that is to be ceded to Clare. I would like our county to be left intact and I am strongly in favour of having the constituency sub-divided.
While the speech of Deputy Brodrick is fresh in the minds of Deputies, I am glad to have an opportunity of replying. I had no intention of speaking on this amendment because if every representative of Galway were to get up and speak it would be rather monotonous. One purpose I had in rising was to remind Deputy Brodrick of his mention of the G.A.A. in connection with the amendment. I am a bit of a sportsman and I think I know a little about the G.A.A. One of the outstanding things the Deputy said was that there was no affiliation between Clare and Galway and that they had nothing in common. He mentioned the G.A.A. and what Galway attempted for the preservation of the national pastime. I would remind deputy Brodrick and the House generally that Clare and Galway have very much more in common in connection with the G.A.A. than he thinks. Because I am glad to say that Clare gave birth to Michael Cusack and when he wanted men to assist him in organising the G.A.A. and putting it upon a proper basis he came to Galway. In Loughrea he interviewed Bishop Duggan and got his blessing for the project, and Bishop Duggan sent him from Galway to Tipperary to Dr. Croke, and as a result of which we have the association of the G.A.A. that Clare and Galway with other county representatives founded which gives common ground not only to Clare and Galway but to the 32 Counties of Ireland. Having made that point clear I trust that the Minister will be satisfied with the division of Galway into two constituencies and leave the border as it was.
Having experience of what the Galway constituency is, I must say I am opposed to this amendment on the ground that it proposes to leave Galway in one constituency. Such an arrangement I think would be against reason. As Deputy Beegan mentioned, Galway is over 105 miles from east to west, and 90 miles from north to south. While I oppose that part of the amendment that is against the division of the constituency, I am strongly in favour of the part of the amendment which proposes to leave Galway boundary intact. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned accordingly.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 until 6 p.m. on Thursday, 3rd May.