The House may desire to know that an hour and a half has been granted for this motion.
Dublin County Borough (Local Electoral Areas) Order, 1945—Motion to Annul.
I move:—
That the Dublin County Borough (Local Electoral Areas) Order, 1945, made by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health on the 4th April, 1945, be and is hereby annulled.
This motion arises out of the undertaking given by the Minister on the passing of the Local Government Bill that Orders under that Bill would be laid on the Table of the House for at least seven Parliamentary days. That has been done and we have since got the Minister's scheme in relation to the City of Dublin. I want to say quite frankly that the general opinion of the members of the city council who are competent to judge the divisions of the area is that not alone is it a be wildering and unsatisfactory scheme, but the divisions are of such a character as almost to arouse the suspicion that considerations other than natural boundaries have entered into their determination.
The history of this matter of increased representation goes back to 1936 when the city council at the time considered the results of the assimilation of the local government and Parliamentary franchises. Certain representations were made to the Local Government Department arising out of the increase in the number of electors which, in 1943, was practically 100 per cent. Following the decision in that year, we found certain anomalies in the five areas into which the city was divided under the 1930 Act. Certain anomalies arose in that some areas would be under-represented in comparison with others, on the basis of the votes cast. The general purposes committee of the corporation considered the position and decided to make representations to the Government in August last year. The representation was:
"We recommend the council to make representations that in any future revision of Dáil constituencies the Dáil and municipal boundaries should be assimilated, and that, if possible, the Dáil constituencies and the borough electoral areas should be coterminus."
A separate recommendation was made on the possibility of increased representation. That was sent to the Department of Local Government in January of this year. It was only within the last couple of weeks that the Minister, in the Dáil, asked for sanction for these particular areas under the provisions of the Local Government (Dublin) Bill of 1945. When that Bill was before the House I, and other Dublin Deputies attached to the corporation, agreed that the Minister was, in fact, giving effect to the desire of the corporation so far as increased representation was concerned. We asked at the time that, in any recasting of the areas which took place, cognisance should be taken of existing differences so far as the municipal and Parliamentary boundaries are concerned. Particular reference was made to areas like Crumlin, one section of which comes in for Parliamentary purposes and another section for municipal purposes. The desire was to have such areas assimilated. Particular stress was laid on Crumlin and other outside areas. The recommendation which I have read laid particular stress on that and urged that as far as possible those areas should be made coterminus for Parliamentary and municipal purposes. I gathered from the Minister at the time that the overriding consideration in any recasting would be the assimilation of the Parliamentary municipal boundaries.
I must confess that, in the scheme before us now, no attempt has been made to rectify the position which the corporation in January last asked should be rectified, and earlier in 1936. In conversation with various members of the corporation I can find no basis whatever for some of the distinctions that are being made in the city at the present time. My own area, on the north side—No. 3—may be taken as an illustration. That area, in its altered form, is now a perfect copy of the map of Italy, even to the inclusion of the famous toe. There is a cutting across streets, roads and areas that should, in the normal way, have features in common. One would expect that the Minister, or those to whom he delegated this very important task, should have taken note of the requirements of the inhabitants of these particular areas, and that, as far as possible, natural division should be made which would contain features common to the area and the people as a whole. That has not been done.
I am anxious to avail of this opportunity to say—because of the delay there has been in bringing about this change, the preparation of the register, and notwithstanding the official communication which was issued by the Government Bureau—that there are grounds for stating, I understand, that the register will not be available at the time that the candidates for the local elections in Dublin would desire to have it. They may have it in the period round about the 1st June, but thereafter another operation has to take place. There is the question of the arrangement of the polling districts and of the polling booths. Therefore, even after the 1st June, the officials of the corporation, or whoever will be responsible, will need a certain period of time to carry out these details, so that we will be right on the eve of the election, I understand, before candidates for the Dublin municipal area will have an opportunity of completing their arrangements. That is entirely unsatisfactory.
I am sorry to have to say that what appeared to be quite all right in the early stages, namely, that the Minister was in effect about to implement what the corporation desired, is not so. In the actual result, we have got something which is completely unsatisfactory. Because of the necessarily short period that will be available, confusion will inevitably arise on the day of the election. You will have electors who, since 1930, have been familiar with particular candidates in different areas—old people going in to vote for their old nominees—and they will find that, as electors, they are not in that area at all. You will, therefore, have confusion on polling day. When one considers that a situation of that sort will be superimposed on a possible Presidential poll on the same occasion, it will give the House an idea of what the unfortunate officials will have to face on the day of election.
I am going to ask the Minister that, while he is making provision for ten additional members—we welcome that on the basis of population—that even at this stage he might withdraw the Order for the purposes of this election. I suggest to him that he should allow the additional candidates to be spread over the existing five areas—that is two extra members for each area. That, I suggest to him, is the procedure which he should adopt for this particular election. These five areas are pretty well defined. The only flaw found in them so far was that they did not fit into a perfect assimilation with the Parliamentary areas. Our main request, in addition to getting increased representation, was that these areas would be straightened out, once and for all. The position that we have now produced is utterly impossible, and is in strong conflict with our own ideas so far as the Parliamentary constituencies are concerned.
There is an aspect of the new areas that I would like particularly to refer to. I have in mind area No. 9 which seems to have been specially devised for the purpose of giving representation to the business element of the city. It runs in line down O'Connell Street, takes in sections of Grafton Street and goes right on to Leeson Street, with strips of the city on either side. When I remember that in 1930 the Minister and his Party railed at the provision made by the Fine Gael Government for what was known as the commercial register in the corporation, I confess I am rather amused at the introduction of this particular area known as No. 9. I do not hesitate to say that I would welcome representation for businessmen. That is not to suggest that there are no business men in the corporation at the present time. There are, but if you want to have them represented in their capacity as businessmen I would welcome them in that way in the corporation but I do protest against any class distinction so far as qualification or nomination is concerned in respect of this particular area. The businessmen in that particular area make their living out of the residents of the outer areas who have the option of taking their part in civic life, and whose duty it is to do so by voting, in either the inner area or the outer area, as the case may be, wherever they may select their vote. But to parcel out a section of the city is something that we in the corporation, in 1945, do not agree with. I repeat my plea that the Minister loses nothing by the adoption of my suggestion. Since he will not allow the assimilation of the Parliamentary and local electoral areas, at this stage, he should at least allow the existing areas to stand and to secure the extra ten members in the way I have suggested, namely, by having an additional two for each area.
I second the motion to annual the Minister's Order concerning the local election. Deputy O'Sullivan, the Lord Mayor, has covered the ground which I intended to traverse and I do not wish to detain the House by going over it in detail. The Dublin Corporation did not seek the redistribution of the city areas but they did seek the revision and assimilation of the polling districts of the city, to bring them into conformity with the Dáil constituencies. The corporation, at one of their meetings, adopted the recommendation of the General Purposes Committee regarding the assimilation of the Dáil and municipal boundaries of Dublin. I will read the recommendations because, although Deputy O'Sullivan, the Lord Mayor, has referred to them, I think it is well that we should have them on record:—
"That the recommendation of the committee regarding the assimilation of the Dáil and municipal boundaries in Dublin be and is hereby endorsed; and that a copy of this report be forwarded to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health for the purpose of directing his attention to this matter and to the suggested revision of the basis of election of members of the city council."
That was in August, 1944. The General Purposes Committee in their report, No. 17 of 1944, recommended:—
"That the city council, by formal resolution, should make representations to the Government, in the strongest possible terms, that in the next revision of the Dáil constituencies, the Dáil and municipal boundaries should be assimilated, and if possible the Dáil constituencies and the borough electoral areas should be made co-terminous."
They concluded by saying that it was the opinion of the committee:—
"that these anomalies should be rectified at the earliest possible date, particularly in view of the fact that a municipal election is due to be held next year, and accordingly, we recommend the council to take immediate and suitable action in the matter."
Action was taken in the matter, but the Minister neither approved nor disapproved, except to the extent that his disapproval is shown by the Bill he has submitted to the House for the redistribution of the seats. As already stated, there has been no objection raised to the increase in membership of the corporation, but the members of the corporation feel that they have been very unfairly and unreasonably treated in this connection, because the whole machinery is dislocated. The normal triennial election would take place, and all Parties would be making the necessary arrangements for the conduct of the elections, next June. The registers have always been made up in wards. They are now going to be altered, and will be made up in areas that will conform to the areas on the map, which is, as Deputy O'Sullivan, the Lord Mayor, said, very bewildering to anyone who has anything to do with the election. I presume that some official of the Department of Local Government got instructions to divide the city so as to give an average of 50,000 voters in each area and that he got his blue pencil and encircled the area on the map, believing that, so far as he was concerned, he was doing his duty. I think it is very unfair. It is treating the members of the corporation as a whole badly. When this matter was discussed at a recent corporation meeting the members of all Parties joined in the protest. I can appreciate that the members of the Government Party in the corporation do not wish to discuss the matter here or embarrass the Minister. It is easy to understand that, but I can assure the Minister that it is not in any Party spirit that Deputy O'Sullivan, the Lord Mayor, and I have tabled the motion, but it is because we feel that it is grossly unfair, on the eve of an election, to break up all the ordinary machinery for the conduct of an election by altering the areas as is proposed in the new scheme of redistribution.
The discussion at the corporation meeting recently was followed by a statement on behalf of the Department of Local Government which, I submit, did not deny the existence of the difficulties which were outlined. In normal times, one would expect that the register would be available so as to facilitate candidates in carrying out the work of addressing envelopes and providing the electorate with their numbers and all the other work associated with elections. In normal times it is a difficult job and there is considerable expense involved. We are on the eve of an election and there is not a sign of the register yet. I think it is grossly unfair. It will not encourage citizens to take their part in civic administration. Many members of the Dublin Corporation have spent their lifetime in it, voluntarily. They have nothing to gain and only wish to take their part as citizens in the discharge of their public duties. It is very discourteous that they should be treated as they have been by the introduction of this Bill at such short notice. It is not, as I have said, making an effort to encourage citizens to take part in the affairs of the city council, as I think the Minister would like to encourage them. It is going the wrong way about it. The feeling in the city is that this is merely got up for Party purposes and that it is to end there. People are being discouraged from devoting their time voluntarily to this class of social work. I am sorry that that position is being taken up.
As an instance of the confusion which will arise owing to voters who have for many years been voting in certain polling stations having to vote in other stations under the new arrangement and having to go a long journey to vote, which will not give them much interest in the elections, I would point out that there is one case in which a whole street of houses is in one area with one exception, that house being in another area. That is a nice kind of distribution. No. 3 area and No. 9 area have been already referred to. All I can say is that it was a mistake that some people who knew something about the areas were not consulted before the blue pencil was drawn around those streets which are to form the new areas. I would appeal to the Minister to have regard to the shortness of time for making arrangements for the election. This election ought to be permitted to proceed in the normal way under the old arrangement, or else an extension of time should be given in order to give an opportunity to those interested in municipal affairs, both official and otherwise, to get the machinery going so that the election can be conducted in a proper way. I hope the Minister will see his way to annul this Order.
I have fought, I suppose, as many elections as any Deputy here—one local and, I suppose, countless numbers of Parliamentary elections almost—and therefore I am not without sympathy for the position of any person who is likely to be a candidate or for any person who has been a member of a local authority who is to be a candidate, when he embarks upon an election contest. But the responsibility which was imposed upon me was not to safeguard or, indeed, to concern myself with the interests of members of the Dublin Corporation or with those who aspire to be members of the Dublin Corporation, but to concern myself with the problem of giving, so far as it was reasonably practicable to do it, to the citizens of Dublin fair and equitable representation on their own corporation.
We know that the existing position was anomalous, so anomalous that the city council itself adopted resolutions asking me to modify and to change the existing system. They pointed out that, under that system, there existed gross inequalities in the apportionment of their representation in the Dublin Corporation; that in 1943, 43,000 electors elected seven members in No. 1 area, whereas in No. 2 area, 66,000 electors were only given the same number of members. There was one member to each 6,200 electors in No. 1 area and only one member to 9,400 electors in No. 2 area. It required, in fact, 50 per cent. more votes to secure representation in the Dublin Corporation in the No. 2 area than it did in No. 1 area. No. 3 area, with only 62,000 electors, was given one member more than No. 2 area, because No. 3 area had eight members against the seven allotted to No. 2. In No. 4 area, which I think presented the greatest anomaly almost, you had 49,000 electors with only six members. In No. 5 area you had 70,000 electors with seven members; 10,000 electors in that particular area for each of the seven members. Upon what principle of fair and adequate representation of the people could that position be justified? The Dublin Corporation themselves, to their credit, recognised this fundamental injustice and they asked me to remedy it.
When the Local Government (Dublin) Bill was going through the House I indicated that, as we were increasing the representation of the people in their own city council, it would be necessary for me to provide for the allocation of the additional members. I thought that if I did that I should do it in accordance with well-defined principles and the principles were stated in what was then a Bill when we were discussing it in this House and what is now a statute which is binding upon me. The Local Government (Dublin) Act of 1945 provides that
"in assigning, by an Order under this section (that is Section 3 of the Act) the numbers of members to be elected for the electoral areas specified in that Order the Minister shall have regard to the populations and the rateable valuations of such areas".
Accordingly, if I were to act in accordance with that Act, and I do not see how I could act otherwise, I could not possibly, whatever else I might do, having regard to the fact that the responsibility was put on me of making a new division of the city, allow the existing electoral areas, with all the anomalies to which I have referred, to remain. If I could not do that, I certainly could not go further and make the position even more anomalous by allocating to the existing five electoral areas two additional members each, giving to three areas nine members, to one area eight members, and to another area ten members, on the basis of their existing populations. As I have said, that would be to accentuate the injustice and the inequality which the city council itself has recognised to exist and which they asked me to remedy. That is the fundamental position, but even if there were no question of fundamental fairness in a matter of this sort there would still remain very practical difficulties from the point of view of the citizen which would prevent me from assenting to the proposal which has been made here.
Proportional representation is not an easy system to work. It makes more than normal demands, perhaps not so much on the intelligence as on the education and certain natural faculties, the need for concentration and for remembering things like that, on the ordinary voter. If I were to accept the proposition—and this would be a fresh acceptance on my part and it would be, in fact, the first time I was ever asked to assent to it—that it is reasonable to have as many as ten representatives allotted to any one constituency, it would make the voter's task more difficult. I know that that position, which I regard as a very regrettable one, may exist in this country, but it is not of my making and it is not at the present moment in my power to change it.
The occasion presented itself to me when I would have to determine for myself what, from every point of view, was a convenient basis for proportional representation as applied to municipal affairs. When that opportunity presented itself to me, naturally I had to consider, as I did, whether the simple thing would not be to take, as Deputy M. O'Sullivan has suggested, ten additional members and distribute them, two to each constituency, making the representation, as I have already mentioned, in three of the electoral areas, nine members; in one area, eight members; and in the other, ten members. Now, I ask anybody to consider the type of ballot paper which the electors in Dublin City would have presented to them.
We know that there are at least three political Parties likely to be represented on that ballot paper, either directly or indirectly. It is no secret that the political organisation to which I belong will put forward official nominees; I suppose the same will hold true of the Labour Party; and I have no doubt whatever that Deputy Doyle will not forsake the banner which he has carried so long and so honourably in the Dublin Corporation and will be there as a Fine Gael candidate as well. In addition to that, we all know that the local elections induce a number of Independent aspirants to seek municipal honours and we may rate them as, perhaps, ten or 12. Think of the task of the local government elector in No. 3 area, with ten representatives to elect for that area, presented with a ballot paper on which there may be 20, 25 or 30 names. Is it reasonable to expect that that election will be conducted in an orderly way and conducted expeditiously? Consider that, apart from the fact that we might have a Presidential poll taken on the same day. Would it be a rational, a commonsense or a practical proposition, to put in the hands of an elector a ballot paper with 25 or 30 names on it, in addition to a ballot paper for the Presidential election?
I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but in point of fact that is what the local government electors have been doing for years. The number of candidates has extended from 20 to 30, even where there were eight seats in No. 3 area.
So the Deputy's proposition comes down to this, that I must increase that already overladen paper by from 33? to 25 per cent.— that, if there were 30 names on the ballot paper in No. 4 area, which returns at present six members, and I make that area return eight members, then I have to add to that 25 or 30 an additional ten candidates. The same thing would hold true for all the other areas. It is an undoubted fact that the more vacancies there are, the greater the inducement there is to put forward candidates, on the part of a political Party, and the greater the inducement to Independents to come forward as well. So we get this as a general matter of practical politics, that if you increase the representation allotted to any area you also increase the inducement to people to come forward and the voter is likely, as a consequence, to have a greater number of candidates to select from on his ballot paper.
I do not wish to deprive any citizen of a proper opportunity to select a candidate, but I certainly think he is likely to make a better selection, if he has a ballot paper of normal size with a reasonable list of candidates to select from, than if he has to wade down a ballot paper that has 20, 25 or 30 names on it, as I have indicated. Therefore, if there were not even the fundamental principle that the people should be given a fair and equal representation in Parliament, if there were not even that fundamental objection to this proposal, I would still reject it on the grounds of mere expediency. It would make the existing situation in Dublin —which is bad, as Deputy O'Sullivan admitted—even worse.
Therefore, what did I do, when I had to consider the situation? I looked, first of all, very carefully into the history which lies behind the existing divisions and I looked at the map upon which those existing divisions are shown. Deputy Doyle talked about one house in one street being in one area and the remainder of the houses in the same street being in another area. I think the Deputy must have had in mind the old division, as that was quite a common thing. Not merely that, but you had a piece of a house in one area and a piece of a house in another area.
And a house split in two.
In the old areas.
In the new areas.
There is no house split in two, so far as I am aware, in the new areas. We were very careful —it was one of the difficulties we had to contend with in defining and laying down the boundaries—to follow wellrecognised and easily recognisable natural features. How did the old areas, which are now being superseded, come into existence? They date back, I think, to the Act of 1845 when, for one reason or another, a commission of the old corrupt corporation, as it was then, was set up to map out the wards. Now nobody will tell me that there is any rational principle behind the old Dublin City wards. It is quite clear, the moment you begin to look at these things, that there must have been certain territorial considerations, certain personal considerations operating when the City Fathers of 1845 sat together and decided to parcel up the territory of the new city, the enlarged city, between them, and everything that has happened since then has been based on that division until the position was reached at which, as between one area and another, there was no well-defined boundary existing at all, because houses had been built across old town-land boundaries and new roads had been cut through landmarks which had been in existence in 1845.
Accordingly, when I came to consider the question of defining the areas, the first thing I said to myself was this: "I am bound to have regard to the population in each area." And I said to myself, looking at the city with its 450,000 odd inhabitants and with 45 members to be elected: "What is the most reasonable arithmetical norm that I ought to work to—what is the most reasonable unit of population that I ought to work to?" Bearing in mind the number of members to be elected to the Dublin Corporation, and bearing in mind that our population is, in round figures, about 450,000, surely the most natural thing to do was to try —I was not able to succeed—so to arrange those electoral areas that every 10,000 people will be represented by one member in the Dublin Corporation. It was on the basis of that unit of 10,000 of the population per member that I started to operate.
Then I had to ask myself what was the minimum size of the constituency that would allow the principle of proportional representation to operate fairly freely. If I were dealing with a Dáil election, where the factor that has to be taken into consideration is that we must try to provide a stable Government for the country for a period, I might say that three was perhaps the best unit. But we are not dealing with a body where it is necessary to provide a stable administration over any period. We are dealing with a body the purpose of which is to give fairly representative views to the citizens and, therefore, I said to myself: "If I can get convenient electoral areas with a population of about 50,000 or so returning five members, I will, I think, have done a good job and the representation allotted to each of these electoral areas will be large enough to allow the principle of proportional representation to operate freely and effectively."
On the other hand, the representation allotted to the areas will not be so great as to make the ballot paper inconvenient. And let me remind the House again that the purpose of this Bill is not to serve or safeguard the interests of the people who are sitting in the Dublin Corporation, but it is to serve and safeguard the interests of the people whom men and women are sent to the Dublin Corporation to represent. That ought to be kept in mind. Therefore I said to myself: "If I can give the citizens a convenient unit, an easily identifiable unit, I think I will have done a good job." I submit that is what I have done, without any of those ulterior considerations which the Lord Mayor suggested some people believe I had in mind.
I took the 45 members of the Dublin Corporation and divided that number by five and I said: "I am going to provide nine electoral areas, returning five members each, and, so far as I can ensure it, these electoral areas will have more or less the same population." Having the opportunity to redress or remove the anomaly to which the city corporation had drawn my attention, I was not going to perpetuate it and, therefore, I said I would give to each of these nine areas five members representing a population of about 50,000 people. That is what I tried to do.
As I have already indicated, the next thing was that I made up my mind that, so far as I was concerned, the confusion which I know to have existed as to what were the exact boundaries of the old electoral divisions would not again arise, and I took natural features, the greatest of them being the Liffey, which runs, as any Deputy can see who looks at the map in the Lobby, right through the whole city. I took the canal and the existing city boundary and tried to work inwards from the existing city boundary to the Liffey on both sides, and to the canal where it formed a convenient line of delimitation. And because I had to find some lines—you cannot describe them as radial—running approximately from north to south, I took the main thoroughfares. I took thoroughfares like Drumcondra Road, the East Wall, Gardiner Street and Parnell Street and a dozen others that I might name, places with which I am most familiar, such as Ranelagh Road, Palmerston Road and Dartry Road. These are thoroughfares that are not likely to be obliterated in our time or in the next generation. They are landmarks which will stand, and a person standing for a Dublin electoral area now will have no difficulty in recognising where his constituency ends and his colleague's constituency begins.
These are the principles upon which I worked and I think that I have made a very sound division of the city. Some attempt has been made to suggest that in dealing with No. 9 area I have had regard to class distinction. If I were criticising openly and publicly, as I have criticised to myself privately, the No. 9 area, it would be on this ground, that though it has a population of 60,000, nevertheless it has been given a representation of only five in the Dublin Corporation, but that happens to arise from the fact that it was not possible, bearing in mind the need to get readily identifiable natural boundaries, boundaries which are likely to be permanent, to find any other division than that which I have chosen, and there is this further consideration, that in the course of time the population of No. 9 area is likely to fall, and to approximate much more closely to that of the other electoral areas.
Wherever you find an anomaly, a certain discrepancy between one area and another, as you may, because I could not control the course of the Liffey and I did not make the canal or build the East Wall or any other roads I chose as boundaries, wherever you find, say, an apparent discrepancy as between the populations of electoral area No. 5 and electoral area No. 6, you have to remember that by the mere execution of the Dublin Corporation's building programme, in the course of which you take people out of area No. 6 and settle them, as you are doing, in area No. 5, the balance, within a very few years, will be redressed and the apparent discrepancy which exists at the moment will not exist for very long.
These are the lines upon which I have worked. I think I have done a very good job. I have not left out of my mind any one consideration which, I am certain, would have been present to the minds of Deputy O'Sullivan or Deputy Doyle, if they had the responsibility, and I have, I think, provided units which are not only fair from the point of view of the people but convenient from the point of view of the people's representatives.
Some suggestion has been made here that the work which has been done has caused a great deal of dislocation in the preparation of the register, that it is likely to occasion a certain amount of delay and to defer for longer than was normally the case the date on which the persons who are going to be candidates would get advance copies of the register. I can assure Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Doyle that there is no foundation for that statement. On the contrary, the preparation of the register is much further advanced than it has been at any time over the past number of years. I am told that the whole register, rearranged on the basis of the new electoral areas, will be with the printers at the end of this week. Over half of the register is in proof and about one-fifth of it has been returned for final printing, and proofs are being pressed without delay. The delivery of printed copies of the register may be expected by an early date. The register on the basis of the new electoral areas will be available for anyone who wants it much earlier than normally.
The other point made was with regard to the revision of polling districts. These changes have not made such a lot of difference in the relationship which should exist between the electoral areas and polling places under the existing polling scheme. I think there are only about 31 places where any adjustment may have to be made. I am pressing to get the new polling schemes prepared, but if it should appear that, notwithstanding all the efforts now being made, there may be any difficulties about a new scheme, I have power by Order to make existing polling districts the polling districts for the new election, and, if any polling district is divided by an area, each part can be made a separate polling district. That will get over any difficulty which may arise in relation to the polling districts, but the fact of the matter is that the number of adjustments which have to be made are so few by comparison with the adjustments which had to be made for 1942, 1943 and 1944, that I do not think any difficulty need be anticipated at this stage. If any difficulty should arise, I have full power, I think, to resolve it.
Is the Minister aware of the amount of labour, and so on, which is occasioned in connection with these adjustments in advising electors of the changes in their polling areas? If there were time to do all that, I would agree with the Minister, but our main difficulty is the shortness of the time, and, notwithstanding all the Minister says about the register, having regard to the drastic changes being made, it is a big job and cannot be done in the time to the satisfaction of everybody.
If the Deputy is speaking on behalf of those who may be candidates at these elections, I do not want him to regard me as being unsympathetic. I am not, but I do not think that any of the difficulties mentioned are likely to arise. So far as the vast bulk of the electors are concerned, they will vote in exactly the same places as those in which they voted before. If it is found that the polling scheme will interfere unduly with the accustomed habits of the electors in that regard, I have power to ensure that they will vote at their old polling places, even though they may vote there for the purpose of the election in the new electoral areas, and there is nothing I can do to lessen even the slight inconvenience that may be occasioned that will not be done.
There is another point in regard to which Deputy O'Sullivan seemed to be under a misapprehension. He spoke rather pathetically about the aged citizen who finds that his honoured and revered representative is no longer going to stand for a particular area. The electoral divisions, as I emphasised earlier in the evening, do not impose any disqualification on any intending candidate. If his existing area has been divided, all he will have to do is to satisfy himself as to the fraction of his former area in which he has the greatest amount of support. There are few members of the corporation in the happy position of Deputy O'Sullivan or Deputy Doyle of drawing their support from a widespread constituency. Most members of the corporation get their suffrages within fairly limited and well-defined areas. A candidate can say: "That is where I get my main support and that is the electoral area I am going to stand for." He can stand for that area and his aged supporter can still go to the poll and vote for her favourite citizen in exactly the same way as she voted prior to the introduction of the new scheme.
These disadvantages and inconveniences are, I suggest, almost entirely fanciful. They have arisen from the fact that, like most changes, they disturb the existing tenor of our ways. We want to go on in the old accustomed groove. Even the members of the Dublin Corporation satisfied themselves several years ago that they could no longer continue with the existing areas, and when they asked me to make a change, I made the change. The moment a change is made everybody sits up with a jolt and begins to think that the change could only be made to his disadvantage. On the contrary, this change is going to improve matters, to bring members of the Dublin Corporation into closer touch with their constituents. It will mean that there are now nine areas in which men who aspire to public life can become candidates. They are much more convenient areas than those which existed heretofore. They are of convenient size, they are smaller, and more compact, and are well defined. People can stand now as candidates in them and can build up, if they want to, a certain local influence which may lead from municipal to national affairs. For that reason, I think the whole arrangement is a good one. That is why I have made it, and I ask the House, if Deputy Martin O'Sullivan puts his resolution to a division, to reject it.
Mr. Corish
I do not propose to enter deeply into the discussion on this, because I am not familiar with the position in Dublin. I have noticed the Minister's anxiety for the poor electors who have to elect nine members in a particular ward in Dublin. I want to call his attention to the position in towns like Wexford, Kilkenny, Clonmel, Sligo and Drogheda.
They do not come within this motion.
Mr. Corish
I would like to say this.
The Minister has concluded.
Mr. Corish
The Chair has no idea of what I am going to say. It is not for the Minister to conclude on a motion moved by Deputy O'Sullivan.
I beg your pardon.
Mr. Corish
In these towns there are 12 members to be elected in the one area. On the last occasion, in Wexford, 36 candidates offered themselves. In these towns they also have elections for the county council on the same day. On the last occasion in the area which takes in Wexford there were seven members to be elected to the county council. As well as I remember, the number of candidates who offered themselves was 22, so that with the borough candidates you had a total of 58 candidates. This time we are going to have a Presidential election as well. If the Minister is going to be consistent, I think he should extend some of his anxiety to the electors in these towns.
Give me time.
Mr. Corish
I say that because the position as regards the electors will not nearly be as bad in Dublin as in the towns I have mentioned. The task of the electors in these towns is going to be a colossal one, where they will have on one ballot paper the names of 36 candidates, to elect 12 members, and on another the names of 22 candidates, to elect seven members, and on top of all that a Presidential election. The position in Dublin cannot nearly be as bad as that. I should say that it is comparatively simple when you compare it with the task that confronts the electors in Wexford, Kilkenny, Clonmel, Sligo and Drogheda. To a lesser extent the same position will apply in Enniscorthy and New Ross where nine members have to be elected, with also, on the same day, a county council election and a Presidential election. In view of that situation there is bound to be confusion. In my opinion the task of the Dublin electors is a very easy one compared to that which will face the electors in those provincial towns.
At the outset I want, if possible, to disabuse the Minister of the idea that personal considerations of any sort influenced either Deputy Doyle or myself in bringing this forward. Our personal position so far as the corporation is concerned, or any consideration affecting the city members of the corporation, had nothing whatever to say to it. The motion emanated from a discussion in the city council where it was decided to make the most effective protest that we could possibly make in connection with the new areas set forth. Deputy Corish has dealt admirably with some of the points which I had intended to refer to. The Minister says he cannot accede to my request for a postponement of the Order to allow two members to be added to each of the five existing areas. Take the position in my own area where there are eight city members at the present time. The fact that there might be two more members added would not influence, to any considerable degree, the number of candidates who might come forward in that area. Since 1930, in that area, we have had an excellent team of candidates so far as numbers are concerned, and the electors apparently have never had any difficulty in marking their ballot papers to elect at least eight candidates. The Minister omitted to make any reference to the point which centres round the motion, namely, that an appeal was made to him from the corporation for a reconsideration of the position. We pointed out that we were actuated by the idea that any recasting that took place, should take into consideration the assimilation of the areas as between Parliamentary and local. I quoted instances where that might usefully be done.
What the Minister has now done under this Order is to make the position impossible. His proposal leaves the position worse than it was, because there is no link between the Parliamentary constituencies to be and the municipal areas that we have. In the case of the No. 9 area, even the Liffey was not taken into consideration as a natural boundary. That new No. 9 area runs right from O'Connell Street to Westmoreland Street, Grafton Street and so on. It cuts right across two Parliamentary areas. The same thing may be said of other areas. Therefore, the main request of the corporation has not been given effect to so far as the Bill is concerned. In fact, the position as compared with January, 1944, when we sent forward the proposal, is very much worse than it was under the orders now promulgated by the Minister. Because of that, and because of the fact that the Minister is not prepared to accept the very reasonable suggestions that we have thrown out for the purposes of the coming election—that the existing areas should stand with the addition of ten members—I shall have to ask the House to divide on the motion.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 59.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Bennett, George C.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, William F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
Níl
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Sean.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Colley, Harry.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Daly, Francis J.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Furlong, Walter.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Healy, John B.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Connor, John S.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
- Walsh, Laurence.
- Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Corish; Níl: Deputies O Ciosáin and O Briain.
Motion declared negatived.