I understand that there is some question of procedure in regard to the moving of amendment No. 1, and it has been suggested that the amendment be not dealt with until we have first dealt with the Schedule.
Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1959—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Section 2 is postponed.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 3, line 4, to insert "subsection (1) of" before "Section 3."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendment No. 3, in the name of Deputy Ryan, has been ruled out of order as not being relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.
Section 9 agreed to.
SCHEDULE
I move amendment No. 4:
In pages 4 and 5, to delete the entries relating to the constituencies of Dublin South (East), Dublin South (West) and Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown and substitute for those entries respectively the following entries:
"
|
Dublin South (East) |
The Rathmines East, Rathfarnham and Rathfarnham South wards, the Rathmines West ward, excluding the portion lying to the south-west of a line drawn from the ward boundary, along Rathgar Avenue to the ward boundary, the portion of the Pembroke West ward lying to the south of a line drawn as follows: commencing at the point of intersection of Baggot Street and the ward boundary along Baggot Street, Pembroke Road and Lansdowne Road to its intersection with the ward boundary, the portion of Pembroke East ward to the south of a line drawn as follows: commencing at the point of intersection of Lansdowne Road with the ward boundary along Herbert Road, Tritonville Road, Claremont Road to its intersection with Sandymount Road, thence around Sandymount Green, thence along Gilford Road and thence eastwards to the ward boundary, the portion of the borough of Dún Laoghaire which is comprised in the district electoral division of Blackrock No. 1 and the portion of the administrative county of Dublin, comprised in the townlands of Drummartin, Dundrum, Mountanville, Mountmerrion or Callary, Mountmerrion South, Roebuck and Trimleston or Owenstown in the district electoral division of Dundrum, the district electoral division of Milltown and the townlands of Kilmacud West and Stillorgan North in the district electoral division of Stillorgan. |
Four |
|
Dublin South (West) |
The Ballyfermot, Crumlin, Crumlin West, Kimmage and Terenure wards, the portion of Kilmainham ward lying to the west of a line drawn as follows: commencing at the most northerly point of the ward boundary on Tyrconnell Road, thence along Tyrconnell Road, Grattan Crescent, Inchicore Road to its intersection with the road lying to the west of St. Jude's Church and leading to the Memorial Park and thence northwards to the ward boundary along the said road an its imaginary projection and the portion of the Rathmines West ward which is not included in the borough constituency of Dublin South (East). |
Five |
|
Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown |
The borough of Dún Laoghaire, excluding the portion which is comprised in the borough constituency of Dublin South (East), the district electoral divisions of Ballybrack, Glencullen, Rathfarnham, Rathmichael, Whitechurch, the portion of the district electoral division of Dundrum which is not included in the borough constituency of Dublin South (East) and the portion of the district electoral division of Stillorgan which is not included in the borough constituency of Dublin South (East). |
Three |
"
In connection with this amendment, the House will recall that during his speech on the Second Reading the Taoiseach suggested that the placing in the constituencies of the two seats it was still possible to allocate might be considered. As a result of that, discussions took place between the representatives of Fine Gael, the Taoiseach and myself and also between the representatives of the Labour Party, the Taoiseach and myself in regard to the allocation of the two seats that remain. I think it is fair to say it was generally agreed that if there was to be a further allocation of seats to any part of the country, at least one of those two remaining seats should be allocated to Dublin city or county. As a result of that general agreement, the proposals now contained in this amendment were gone into and the constituencies south of the Liffey revised as here indicated.
The effect of this change in the overall picture, on figures at any rate, is satisfactory from the point of view that the general averages in Dublin are not now showing the same wide disparity between the lowest average ratio per member in one constituency and the highest in another. Whereas there was an average of something over 21,000 as the lowest ratio per member in a constituency in Dublin as against the highest then obtaining in County Dublin of over 24,000, on this amendment before the House we shall now have better averages, namely, 22,000 to 23,000. As a result of these changes the figures range from 22,366 to 23,128. That gives a better and more uniform average ratio per member in constituencies south of the Liffey.
Before the introduction of this amendment, the averages south of the river were in the main higher than they were north of the river. It was for that reason we decided that, were we putting another seat into Dublin, that seat should go south of the river. South of the river it has gone. It is proposed that an additional seat be added to Dublin South (East). In order to arrive at the figures necessary for the fourth seat, an area was taken from Dublin South (West); the districts of Rathfarnham and Rathfarnham South, on the one hand, were added to South (East), and another area was taken in from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, around Dundrum, containing approximately 5,500 voters. The result of this was that, while Dublin South (East) could stand on its figures, as we had them, this reduction brought about a situation in which Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown could not stand the subtraction from it. We went then to County Dublin and brought the boundary back to where it was and thereby compensated Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown for the part given to Dublin South (East), and the resultant overall position is as I have outlined.
We have brought the figures into more uniform proportions and overcome the telling objection to the division of Dundrum village. The village is no longer divided. All of Dundrum area is now together in Dublin South (East). If the House approves this amendment, Dublin South (East) will in future have four seats. It will have the additional seat agreed upon, in the main, by the representatives of the Labour and Fine Gael Parties, in discussion with the Taoiseach and myself.
The Minister has indicated the results of the discussions. There is nothing I wish to add to that except to ask him if he could give us the population figures for the revised constituencies. As I understood, he says the ratio is now 22,366 per member and 23,128 respectively. I am not sure if that applies to South (West) or South (East), or whether it includes South (East), Dublin County, Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown. He mentioned that it was proposed to transfer 5,500 voters approximately from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and to compensate the latter by reverting to the old boundary. Perhaps he would now indicate the population figures per member and also the actual estimated number of electors on the register.
There is one matter to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention. In the schedule in the old register it is stated: "The portion of the Borough of Dún Laoghaire which is comprised in the District Electoral Division of Blackrock No. 1". I understand it is proposed to transfer the portion of the Borough of Dún Laoghaire which is on the Booterstown register. In a previous electoral list Blackrock No. 1 register includes part of the district of Blackrock. Perhaps the Minister, in consultation with his advisers, would consider that point between now and the Report Stage in order to ensure that there will be no confusion about the proposed area.
I do not know whether this is the appropriate stage at which to mention this matter but, as a result of this Bill, some electoral areas will be altered Will the Minister ensure in that connection that returning officers will take steps to ensure, in turn, that people will vote at the most convenient centre? Most of the fringe area is compiled on the basis of townlands. That was a satisfactory method when the area was predominantly rural. As a result of extensive building over the last ten or 15 years, people often find now that they have to travel farther than should be necessary were more convenient polling stations located adjacent to the new housing areas. The inconvenience is, I think, caused entirely by the method of compiling the register on a townland basis.
This is a matter that might be considered between now and the Report Stage, with a view to bringing in some amendment; alternatively, the Minister could issue instructions to returning officers to ensure that no unnecessary inconvenience will be caused to voters as a result of these changes, more especially as these changes will alter, in some cases, the actual register itself.
The only other point I wish to mention is that some minor boundary change may be necessary as a result of the Minister's amendment in the electoral divisions of Rathfarnham and Whitechurch. I mention it now because of the possibility of an amendment to meet the situation on the Report Stage.
It may possibly solve the difficulty if I give the figures for the proposed constituencies south of the river. They are as follows: Dublin South (East) 22,958.
These are population figures of course.
The ratio per member is: South (West) 23,128; South (Central) 22,383; Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown 23,024; Dublin County 22,366.
The boundary changes involve the addition to South (East) of the Rathfarnham and Rathfarnham South Wards from South (West), as well as the townlands of Churchtown Upper, Dundrum, Drummartin, Mount Merrion South, Kilmacud (West) and Stillorgan (North). Those are from the Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown constituency which gains the district electoral divisions of Rathfarnham and Whitechurch from the county constituency as proposed in the Bill. This latter change means that the boundary of the Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown and Dublin county constituencies at this point reverts to what it was or now is. It just merely goes back to the boundary as we have known it for the past 12 years. The boundary between Dublin county and Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown reverts in this amendment to what it has been and to what has operated in the past 12 years.
Would the Minister say what is the effect of the reduction in population in these three constituencies set out in the amendment? As a result of a division of the areas and the putting of four seats in Dublin South (East), what is the new population figure for that?
It has just been given.
Those are the new figures.
From the point of view of an Opposition Deputy, I feel it right to say, particularly to the Taoiseach, that I feel the Government have certainly gone a distance within the framework of the Bill, as drafted, to meet the points of view put forward here. I do not want to be in any way churlish in making that acknowledgment because I believe it is due to the Taoiseach. But from the point of view of a Dublin Deputy, I still feel that full justice has not been done to Dublin city and county as a district. It seems to me that there were certain increases in Dublin which entitled them under the constitutional provisions to additional representation. My feeling is that the Government are not doing full justice to them. As one of the Deputies concerned, I appreciate the fact that our point of view has been met within the framework of the Bill, as drafted, and I appreciate the manner in which it has been met by both sides of the House.
Perhaps the Minister might have some further information available now but, if necessary, I can get it by means of Parliamentary Question. I should like to find out from him, if I can, first, the total number of voters and secondly the population involved in the transfer from Dublin South (West) to South (East), that is, the portion of the Rathmines West Ward, the Rathfarnham, and Rathfarnham South Wards which are now going from Dublin South (West) to Dublin South (East).
May I intervene to comment on Deputy O'Higgins's remarks? When the Bill was under discussion on Second Reading, the view appeared to be general in the House that the two additional seats which, under the Constitution can be provided, should be incorporated somewhere in the Bill. I expressed the opinion, having regard to the constitutional requirements, that it seemed to me that these two seats would have to be in the Dublin area.
I do not think, however, that view was general, and indeed, in the course of discussions which we had with the representatives of the different Parties, I think the view was expressed by Fine Gael that while it was accepted that one of those seats would have to be in Dublin, the other should be elsewhere, and I think the Labour Party view, as I understood it, was that the two seats could be outside Dublin.
My view is that we cannot avoid putting one additional seat in Dublin and indeed there was need for reconsideration of the Bill to readjust the proposals for the south side of the city in any case. The effect of this proposal on the south side of Dublin would be to level out the constituencies there, in respect of the ratio of population to members, and make them comparable with the north city constituencies. In so far as there is one with a lower ratio than the other, it is the county of Dublin.
We have only one more seat to allocate and the proposals put forward were alternatively to put it in Wexford or in Cork. What I undertook to do was to have both amendments drafted and submitted to the House. They are both on the Order Paper in the Minister's name. There are three seats mentioned in the amendments but we can allocate only two. There is the proposal, subject to any minor amendments which may be considered necessary, to put an additional seat in the south side of Dublin, and only one more seat and the question to be decided is whether that will be in Wexford or Cork. The first amendment relates to Wexford and if it is carried, of course, the second amendment will not be moved. If it is defeated, the second amendment relating to Cork will be moved.
I can understand that Deputies may have difficulties in deciding which arrangement is preferable and we have had our discussions on it. It seems to me to be the only practical course. I accept that we have to put these two seats in the Bill. One must be in Dublin, on the south side, and the remaining seat must be in Wexford or Cork. That is what has to be decided.
The amendments before us would have the effect of increasing the membership of the House by two. They are designed to provide additional seats in the constituencies of Dublin South (East) and Wexford or Cork. To my mind, it is rather peculiar, in the first place, that they should seek to have two additional seats—I understand the Constitution does not provide for more— and that the two seats——
If the Deputy will allow me to explain—it was appreciated by the Deputies whom we met that the drafting of amendments would be a matter for the official draftsman and it was considered that it would be more convenient for the House to have these amendments drafted, even though we recognised that only two could be carried.
The point I am making is that when there are three amendments and only two seats, the three amendments should, if possible, be taken together. If the first amendment relating to Dublin is passed, it means that there is only one seat left. If the second amendment, relating to Wexford, is passed, it means that Cork is out. That is obvious to everyone. I have no personal interest in the seat but it is very unfair of the Government to put down an amendment relating to Cork which may not be taken at all. I am asking the Leas-Cheann Comhairle if it is correct procedure to deal with the three amendments before taking a vote on any of them. In that way, the case for the different constituencies can be made before taking a vote on any of them. I want to prevent the determination of the cases of Dublin and Wexford, thus possibly bringing about a situation in which there would be no seat for Cork.
If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle can stretch the Rules of Order so as to permit the three amendments to be discussed together, we would have no objection.
And there would be a separate vote?
Yes, a separate vote.
If the House agrees, the three amendments may be discussed together.
Two of these amendments are in the name of the Minister. The third is in the name of three private Deputies. The Dublin amendment and the Cork amendment are official amendments put down by the Minister. The Wexford amendment is sponsored by three Deputies.
And the Minister.
Right. Here is how I look at these things. I suggest that if any amendment is to go, it should be the Dublin one. It is time for the rural Deputies to get the seat for themselves as Dublin is already very well catered for as compared with the rural areas. In the Estimates recently, particularly the Estimate for the Office of Public Works, the whole schedule of works is cut out. I suggest that during my experience 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of that money was spent in Dublin.
This Dáil is being run on a completely Dublin bias. When you consider the difference between the difficulties of a Deputy running any rural constituency as against the Deputy in Dublin City, with all the facilities of this Dáil at his disposal and requiring nothing but a bus to take him to and from this House, it will be realised that the Dublin Deputy is in a far better position than any rural Deputy who has to travel maybe 160 or 170 miles, in the first instance, to Dublin and, not alone that, but who may have to travel 140 miles from one end of his constituency to the other.
I suggest that, as there are only two seats to spare and three applicants, the area that can more easily bear the loss of a Deputy should suffer the loss of the seat, the area that can be served by the bus. There is an entirely different position between that of a rural Deputy and a Deputy in Dublin who is in the favoured position that a threepenny or fourpenny bus fare will take him to any corner of his constituency. He has a far easier and a far softer job than a Deputy representing a rural constituency.
I, for one, am not prepared to see the rights of Cork cut out by one Deputy even though that may or may not suit the former Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy O'Sullivan. The constituency is too large. A five-seat rural constituency at present is practically an impossible task for any one Deputy to work, particularly if that Deputy is a lone member of a Party. It is wrong on the face of it. Therefore, as you have undoubted facilities in the hands of Dublin Deputies, facilities that do not exist in any other constituency, the extra seat should go to the rural areas. It is only fair and just and I can see no justification for doing otherwise.
One man would have no trouble in doing the whole of a Dublin constituency. Take the position of Deputy Manley, for example. If he is elected at the next election for the constituency that was marked out here last week, he will have to go down to the bounds of Kerry, maybe, on one day, then as far as Charleville on another day, and so on, and it is an impossible and an unfair task to impose on any Deputy.
You will have to pay him well.
I know it. I went through the mill. I had a five-seat constituency for ten years and it removed whatever bit of thatch there was on my head. I was night and day on the road. In honesty and justice, the two seats should be given to Cork and to Wexford. I am appealing to rural Deputies to get on their feet now, to ignore all bias or anything else and to do the job. It is the rural Deputy's job. Let us clear the road and put the Dublin fellows in their places for once.
Mr. Ryan
If Deputy Corry and some of his compatriots had to represent a constituency in Dublin for even one week they would be dead at the end of it. They would be so run off their feet that they would not have the opportunity of making these long-winded speeches.
On the Second Stage there was a considerable amount of inaccurate comment concerning the position of Dublin Deputies as against that of rural Deputies. Obviously some of those who made those comments have never travelled on the City bus services. The bus fare from one end of my constituency to the other amounts to 1s. 2d. As most of the people in it are working people or unemployed persons they cannot afford it.
It would cost £6 for Deputy Manley.
Mr. Ryan
The least important aspect of the Bill is the convenience of Deputies. Deputy Corry seems to think his own personal convenience and the convenience of all Deputies is what this House should consider. I do not believe that. The most important principle which an Electoral Bill should try to establish is to give precisely the same political power to a "Jackeen", a Corkonian and every other Irishman. This Bill as it was originally framed and as it now stands introduces a geographical qualification. Despite the one paltry extra seat given to Dublin, when it would need five more to make it equal to some areas in the country, there would still be 5,000 more people per Deputy in Dublin than in the rest of the country. Deputy Corry has the audacity to say that Dublin does not deserve the extra seat. I can only assume, in charity to him, that he cannot do simple arithmetic, through the medium or otherwise.
I cannot stir within myself the same sentiments of gratitude to the Taoiseach as those voiced by Deputy M.J. O'Higgins for the simple reason that there is only one more seat given to Dublin and it would have needed five to make it equal with some parts of the country.
There is another point which I stressed on the Second Stage and which I again stress, that the Taoiseach said his main object so far as Dublin was concerned was not to change the borders of constituencies. The peculiar thing is that the only constituency in all Dublin city and county which has not had anything taken from it to substitute somewhere else is the constituency which the Taoiseach represents. He has drawn artificial borders in his constituency, a constituency which makes more twists and turns than a conger eel would make in 24 hours. It is the most awkward, artificial constituency ever devised in Dublin city. The reason is, of course, that the Taoiseach's Party has in that constituency four representatives out of five and it is hoped, by higgledy-piggledy gerrymandering, to retain these seats. However, despite the best efforts of the Taoiseach and the Minister to achieve that, they will find it will go otherwise, when the election comes.
Again I ask this House to be concerned not about their own convenience but about the basic principle of democracy that every man should go to the polling booths in the full knowledge that his vote has the same strength as the vote of any other Irishman, whether he comes from Ballydehob or from Ballyfermot. That is the important principle which this Bill has ignored. On the Second Stage, we appealed to the Government to redraft the Bill in toto, not just to distribute the two extra seats which are allowed under the Constitution, but to redivide the whole country as the Constitution lays down ought to be done. It is certainly an ironical situation that it is the Government whose Party introduced the present Constitution who are flouting it and we have to stand up and appeal to them to have respect for the Constitution which they introduced. As I have said, if it is not done in this House, there are still two other places in which it can and will be done, if necessary.
The Government in this Bill have done a grave disservice to the two Cork constituencies, that is, North Cork and South Cork and they have been particularly vicious in their treatment of the constituents in these two electoral areas. It is only a few months since the members of the Government were telling us of the marvellous virtues inherent in small constituencies. We all recollect being told about how nice and tidy constituencies would be if each of them returned only one member, how easy it would be for the constituents to see the member, how pleasant it would be for the member to be able in the small constituency to meet his constituents frequently, how matey everybody would be if the constituencies were reduced in size and the Deputy enabled to keep in close and intimate contact with his constituents.
The Government, having whistled that tune during the referendum debate, decided that in Cork they would do violence to whatever virtues they previously saw in small constituencies and they have merged the South Cork and North Cork constituencies together for the purpose of creating, instead of two constituencies with three members each, one constituency returning five members. This is a complete volte face by the Government. They have completely changed their tune in regard to small constituencies and in Cork, they are proceeding deliberately to create an elongated constituency of five members. That is completely at variance with the reasons they gave a couple of months ago for creating small, single-member constituencies.
No effort is being made at all to justify this merger. There is no need for this merger and this Bill can be altered in such a way as to allow these two constituencies to retain their existing representation of three Deputies each to enable the local people to maintain the service which they got from three Deputies in each constituency. But apparently—I am bound to say I think it is for political reasons—the Government have decided to make one single constituency out of the two three-member constituencies and to give that constituency five seats instead of the six which the two constituencies now have.
The Government are creating in Cork a single constituency with five members. That constituency will be approximately 110 miles in length. Let that be the background against which the honesty of the Government's statements on the referendum is judged. To get a picture of it: it is a constituency equal in length to the distance from here to Cashel, from here to Ballinasloe or from here to south of Wexford town. I do not think that can be justified. It is an outrage on parliamentary democracy to imagine that a Deputy, giving his attendance to whatever private business he has, his attendance here in the Dáil, and travelling up and down twice a week to that constituency, can hope to serve such a constituency in the remaining few days at his disposal in the week.
I do not know on what grounds the Government purport to justify a proposal of this kind. I should like to see some of the gentlemen who drafted it having a constituency of their own and being representatives in an area covering 110 miles in length. I take the view very definitely and frankly that if there is to be any preference or any bias in this matter, there is a strong case for bias in favour of the rural area. It is one thing to get 600 people living on a long road in an urban constituency and another thing to find 600 people scattered over ten villages in a rural area. Nobody will contend that representing 600 people on one road is the same as representing 600 people scattered over ten small villages in all kinds of inaccessible districts, with houses perched as they are on all kinds of roads and hillsides.
If I had to make a choice between giving Dublin South (East) four seats instead of three seats and leaving the Cork constituencies as they are with three Deputies each, I would come down strongly on the side of Cork. I would feel myself morally coerced to do so because I believe the merits lie on that side, and Dublin South (East) will not perish for want of parliamentary representation in having three Deputies in an area which is miscroscopic territorially compared with the constituency of 110 miles in Cork. When Deputy Ryan talks about concentration of population in Dublin, let him do the exercise of representing a constituency 110 miles in length. How would he like to have a constituency which started at Merrion Gates and ended south of Wexford?
Mr. Ryan
The travelling allowance should be all right.
That is what the Cork Deputies are getting and what the Cork people are getting. I put it to the Minister very strongly that in all equity—forgetting the politics of the matter—if Parliamentary democracy is to work in North and South Cork then it is essential that the people of these two constituencies should be served by Deputies who will have some reasonable chance of attending to their requirements. Deputy Corry put the case excellently for the retention of the present representation in North and South Cork. I think the case for it is unanswerable. While one has to make up one's mind about giving an additional seat to Dublin South (East)—whilst depriving two constituencies in Cork of one representative—it should be pointed out that deprivation is purchased at the cost of merging two constituencies to constitute a new constituency which will be impossible adequately to represent. I think all the merits lie on the side of leaving the Cork constituencies as they are.
I understand that the Government have decided not to allow a free vote on this matter. I must say I am surprised at that decision. Surely the members of the Government Party are not so intellectually impoverished that they must be prohibited from deciding according to their own minds, their intellects and consciences, where they think equity lies in this matter. I believe equity lies on the side of the Cork constituencies being left as they are. The Government Party should claim for themselves the right to be protected against having to go to the Division Lobbies to vote for something which they know in their own hearts is doing a disservice to Parliamentary democracy in Cork and doing it under circumstances which are not necessary for the implementation of this Bill.
We are examining this revision of constituencies very soon after one of the most protracted debates in the history of the State in relation to the system of election. It is only natural that, that debate having taken place so recently, the arguments advanced should still be fresh in our memories. Those of us on this side of the House who spoke at that time in favour of the retention of proportional representation advanced certain arguments in favour of the multiple seat constituency with particular reference to five-member constituencies most faithfully representing opinion in such areas.
We are being consistent in welcoming the retention of five-member constituencies in this revision, but I wish to say that when I now criticise, and strongly criticise, the Government's proposals on this stage of the Bill, in relation to the creation of this new constituency of Mid-Cork, I do so quite consistently with the views I expressed, and that I still hold and will continue to hold, in relation to the general advisability of having large-member constituencies. That consistency cannot be shared by the people supporting the Government because they have just been through a campaign in which each of them advanced, day in day out, and in fact night in and night out, the attractions of the small, single-member constituency to which Deputy Norton referred before I rose to speak.
If in this revision of constituencies the Government decided to be fair throughout the rural constituencies— and I shall confine my references to the rural constituencies—and if they had shown equity in regard to all the rural areas, then I would agree to what the Government proposes to do in relation to the creation of the mid-Cork constituency. But how can the Government stand over their arguments, with which I have a certain sympathy, in relation to a bias in favour of rural constituencies, if they decide to create this constituency in Mid-Cork extending over an area in excess of 100 miles in length?
I ask the Connaught Deputies, on their way home today, to stop when they reach Ballinasloe and think for one moment that this proposal is to create a constituency of exactly that size. I ask them to put themselves in the position of a Deputy elected in that area and to realise what would be entailed if that Deputy had to represent all the people throughout that area. This morning the Taoiseach and the Minister faithfully reported to the House the discussions they had with members of other Parties but I am somewhat aggrieved that the Taoiseach departed from the alphabetical placing of the constituencies. He mentioned Dublin—I can understand that all right because there was a certain amount to be said for giving a seat to Dublin— and then he mentioned Wexford and Cork, which were not in the running at all.
I hope and trust that the Deputies sitting behind the Government will be permitted to do as their consciences, wisdom and experience require them in this matter, to vote one way or another on the issue between Wexford and Cork. In the revision there has been only one change of any consequence territorially and that is in the creation of this new mammoth constituency of Mid-Cork. Any other little changes territorially were mere niggling in comparison to that. If it were a five member constituency with an obvious centre, with a natural hub, with a large town in the centre of it, maintaining social, economic and cultural contacts throughout that area, then something could be said for its creation.
However, if we take the Southern part of the proposed Mid-Cork area, the old constituency of South Cork, that in itself was a very difficult constituency to administer because many arterial roads cut through Cork city which was a small island within its confines. That was, even as a three member constituency, more difficult to represent than the normal three member constituency. Now what is being done is that the constituency will extend right up to the Limerick border. Seven arterial roads will now cut through this new constituency going into the city of Cork. Any resident on any of those roads will have no contact in any way with the people resident in the other sectors. That is an important point when you come to decide whether Cork or Wexford should get the extra seat.
What about Dublin?
The position of Dublin has been clearly explained to the Deputy. The whole decision could be reversed in the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds if the Government did not do something for Dublin. All our work here could be negatived if we did not do something to meet the position.
That is the situation. We are practically presented by the Government with a fait accompli in relation to the Dublin seat and it now appears as if impartial attention has not been given to the remaining problem which is whether mid-Cork or Wexford should gain. It is notable that Deputies opposite who favoured Wexford were allowed to put down an amendment but there is no amendment from Cork Deputies.
It was not my constituency.
At any rate, it is to be hoped that Deputy Corry's good nature in relation to anything Corkonian will be reflected in a way he will vote. Undoubtedly it will be very difficult for him, in face of the speech he has just made, to do anything but support us who also agree that the seat should be restored to Cork county, and that the two old constituencies of North and South Cork should be left as they are. If there was anything like an amalgamation of other three-member constituencies, then we would be quite agreeable. We welcome the fact that the Government are implementing proportional representation to the extent to which they are doing so in this Bill, but we ask them to look again at the creation of this mammoth constituency which is out of step with what the Government are doing in maintaining three-member constituencies with less than 17,000 of a population per Deputy. This new constituency is outrageous in extent, and in relation to the various walks of life, social and otherwise, of the people in it.
I appeal to Deputies who may not know this area—how can you provide in the Mid-Cork constituency members who will be in close touch with all its problems, members who will be interested in the fishing in Kinsale, in the small farmers of Rockchapel, in the graziers of Charleville, and the suburban industrial residents of Cork city? We appreciate the honour that is reflected on the Deputies representing Cork by asking five Corkonians to look after the interests of such a varied and such an immense population. If we accept the Government's contention that there must be fair consideration for Deputies representing large chunks of country, in comparison with Deputies representing concentrated populations, may I ask the Minister one question? How does he reconcile the maintenance of the city constituency of Cork with 111,000 of a population in a small concentrated area, with the creation of an island 110 miles in length, with a population of 109,570? If the Government want the House to accept their attitude in relation to all the rural areas, then I would ask them to apply that attitude to Mid-Cork.
As is pretty well appreciated, I am leaving aside all personal considerations in the views I have advanced. I am making the case in justice to those who will be elected to represent that constituency, in justice to those who are now elected to represent both of the old constituencies, and I ask the House to remember that even though we sympathise, and would fully support the claims of Wexford to retain their five members, at least there is no territorial change in that constituency. They suffer a reduction in representation, like Roscommon and some others, but I do claim that Cork certainly has the better case because there we have a violent territorial change in the creation of the largest constituency in Ireland, both in population and area, a constituency which has nothing to offer by way of a cohesive group of people with a natural centre at which they can come together. That is the reason why the Dáil should give the additional seat to Cork county, and leave the constituencies there as they have been for the past 12 years.
There have been quite a few points raised by various Deputies and possibly, before those points are obscured by further points raised by other speakers who may follow, I might deal with them in so far as I can. I think it was Deputy M.J. O'Higgins who raised the question of figures and of the numbers proposed to be taken from Dublin South (West) and other areas and added to the constituency of Dublin South (East). In so far as the actual changes in population figures are concerned, the would-be totals are as follows: Dublin South (East) would gain under the amendment a total of 13,261 of a population from Dublin South (West), and in addition, 6,675 from Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown.
That is, as the Bill was drafted, not in the present situation—as between the Bill as originally drafted and the amendment?
Yes. If there are any further figures the Deputy requires——
No. I just inquired for the electorate but I can get it later.
That is, the actual voters register?
Yes.
In a reply to a Parliamentary Question in Volume 177, column 319 to column 322 of the Official Report, there will be found the various figures that may, in fact, give the Deputy any and all information that he may require.
I have that. It gives the total in the wards.
If there is any further breakdown the Deputy requires, we can try to work it out. That brings me to another matter I omitted to mention, which was raised by Deputy Cosgrave quite early on in the debate, in regard to any changes that are proposed from our present situation—that is up to the moment—that we should try to ensure that the voters are given the greatest possible consideration in siting the polling stations for their convenience. As Deputies will appreciate, strictly speaking, that is a matter for the local authorities concerned, but we shall bring it to the notice of these local authorities, particularly in relation to any constituencies where boundaries have been changed. I think the Deputy mentioned in particular the area around Booterstown or Williamstown.
The fringe areas.
We shall bring that to the notice of the local authorities concerned, if and when the House agrees to the proposed changes. A point was also raised by a Fine Gael Deputy, that it is the convenience of the constituents that should be considered, and he made a very determined case as to why Dublin should have got very many more seats. It is because of the very fact that we are so placed that Dublin has not got that extra number of seats available to it. It was because of our consideration, given in so far as was practicable, of the convenience of our constituents and the service of those constituents throughout the country.
We then move to the question of Cork. I think the last few speakers dealt almost exclusively with the Cork situation, with odd references to their particular views on the proposal to give away another seat to Dublin city. Let me say straight away in so far as my own personal feeling and my outlook are concerned, if I were free to do this, I think I would certainly place a greater value on the difficulties of the people of rural districts, and particularly the people of the western seaboard, than on the circumstances of the urban dwellers and the more concentrated units of population and, if I were entirely unfettered by any conventions, legislative considerations, or anything else, I would most certainly go a long way to meet the most extreme views expressed here by those Deputies who feel that rural Ireland and the more remote parts of rural Ireland should, in fact, have greater representation than is now given to them, and to which they are entitled under the constitutional limits imposed upon us.
The fact remains that it is within the existing limits that we must try to work, and, in working out this present plan, I think the House will agree that, without taking any particular isolated case or any particular isolated constituency, a case can be made for something additional. That criticism can be made of any constituency. That is all too easy, but it by looking at the overall plan of the constituencies related to the overall regulations under which we must evolve these constituency boundaries that the picture really should be regarded rather than by taking isolated cases and making either criticisms or further claims for them.
I do not in any way envy the Deputies who can get up in the Opposition and make these extreme and exaggerated cases in regard to particular constituencies or areas. If I were over there, I should do likewise, but I put it to the House that it is so very easy to do this where we are dealing with different parts of the proposed 144 seats. It is too easy to make a very exaggerated but possibly a very telling case in regard to any 20 or 30 of the constituencies concerned. One can even break down a constituency and make a good case for part of it, showing how it is not being fairly treated as compared with an extreme on the other side in some direction or other.
In reply to Deputies Norton and O'Sullivan, in so far as they have expressed their views very strongly on the proposals in relation to Cork, I say this. First of all, they suggest that the constituency of Mid-Cork now proposed—it is really an amalgamation of the old South and North Cork constituencies—is the worst of everything that could possibly be thought up. They said that various reasons and considerations brought about that result and not the least of their arguments is the charge that it is a purely political move.
That is natural enough as a charge when you do not agree with a proposal such as this and when you come to discuss it here, but it is only fair to realise that under the Constitution we are entitled to have constituencies of not less than three seats. Therefore, we can start off with three, four, five or six seat constituencies or whatever we like, but in the main we have got completely away from any idea—I do not think there ever was any such idea: certainly not in recent years—of nine-seat constituencies. We have five and seven and four and three-seat constituencies. The seven-seat constituency has disappeared entirely in recent years.
We are left then to deal with constituencies in terms of three or four or five seats. When we come to the breaking-up of rural Cork, we find that in reducing Cork by one seat, we have a total of 11 seats. Do with those 11 seats what you will and you can have only the following alternatives—two fours and a three or two threes and a five. Possibly you can juggle those around and put last what I have put first and put first what I have put last; it does not really make much difference.
We decided to make it two threes and a five and the reason it is two threes and a five as we suggest, rather than the two threes and a five as suggested of old, is that it makes the least possible amount of change in the constituency boundaries. Allowing that we have knocked out the middle partition between South and North Cork, taking it otherwise, by and large, around the city boundary, down along the western division, we have made the least change possible and despite the enlargement of the constituency into Mid-Cork and the disappearance of North and South Cork as two separate entities, we have not confused the issue so that people will not know to which constituency they now belong.
If, in the main, we may say they belonged to South or North Cork in the past, in which constituencies they will have voted in the past, then it is a 99.9 chance out of 100 that those people will now have their votes, if this measure is agreed to by the House, in the new Mid-Cork constituency. That was considered in addition to the other consideration that in considering a five-seat constituency in rural Cork, the first picture that would present itself was of the old constituency which included, we might say, South and West Cork in the past. It might be considered that we should go back to something that was known in the past and search out the boundaries which were then known and which existed some time ago. But I put it to the Cork Deputies considering the geographical lay-out of West Cork and its territorial appearance and construction, the amalgamation of the North and the South is a better and more convenient arrangement than the amalgamation of the West and the South.
Further, the mileage was not very far removed from my mind or the mind of the Government or of my officials when we were trying to get this plan arranged. If we take the distance from Kinsale to Rathluirc which one would consider to be, perhaps, not the full, extreme length of the constituency, we find that the mileage is far short of that quoted by Deputy Norton here. Instead of being 110 miles the distance from Rathluirc to Kinsale is 57 miles. I am not suggesting that he said that was the mileage between those two points but between some two points or other, he got 110 miles; I am not disputing that.
Would the Minister say what is the distance between Rockchapel and Crosshaven?
Perhaps the Deputy would allow me to develop my argument. I am not saying that the mileage quoted here is not a mileage that can be followed but what I am saying is that in considering this matter, we were not unconscious of or blind to the mileage question. In fact, we took two points which I feel that those outside of Cork, at any rate, if looking at the map would regard as two points they would immediately notice in considering this constituency—Kinsale and Rathluirc or Charleville. The distance there is somewhere in the region of 57 miles. Assuming it is 110 miles as may be worked out in some way from one point to another, there would be five Deputies in that constituency if the proposals in the Bill are agreed to. Assuming it is 110 miles—the very extreme limit of miles that can be assumed—there will be five Deputies to 110 miles in a county, mid-Cork, the terrain of which is not unduly severe or unduly broken.
Compare that with a constituency where there may be many more journeys up to 88 miles and how many seats are there? I am talking now about my own constituency. There are four seats in East Donegal. We have journeys ranging up to 88 miles from point to point within that constituency and there are only four seats. I am one of four Deputies who represent a constituency the terrain and general layout of which is such as not to be compared with those met in travelling through mid-Cork county. My mileage from my home in Donegal to the Malin Peninsula is 88 miles, single journey. What is even more difficult to understand is that looking from the Head of the Fanad Peninsula where I live across to the head of Malin Peninsula is but a short distance. In fact, it is only 12 miles but it means 88 miles of a tiring, long, hard road journey over mountains. There are four of us there. If some Deputies, including Deputy O'Donnell from West Donegal, had their way, there would only be three of us representing that constituency. Any possible piece of the East Donegal constituency that could possibly be moved into the west would not in the slightest degree reduce the long mileages. We would still have to travel.
Is all this not a case for not giving Dublin another seat?
As I pointed out to the Deputy, in talking about a plan, an overall picture of the entire distribution of 142 or 144 seats, I prefaced my remarks by saying that it is all too easy for any Deputy to pick out the extremes in any direction. An extreme having been picked out, I am now comparing that extreme with another extreme of a similar character at the other end of the country, of which I have personal knowledge. I talk about that because I know it better and I know the difficulties.
Would the Minister agree that we should avoid them as far as possible?
So far as is possible. In considering a five seat constituency in Cork, I put it to any fair-minded person here that the amalgamation of North and South Cork is a far more convenient amalgamation than the amalgamation of West Cork and South Cork. The constituency of mid-Cork has now been mentioned and the extreme mileages. I regret those mileages but they are not as difficult as or any greater than those in existing constituencies in respect of which cases have been made by members of the Opposition that they should be still further reduced in mileage in order to meet their views.
Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned that the Taoiseach, in talking here this morning, departed from the alphabetical order of things in reference to these three constituencies of Dublin South (East), Cork and Wexford.
Two.
Very well then—two. The Taoiseach mentioned Dublin, then Wexford and sort of played down Cork. The fact of the matter is—I know this only by seeking about for another reason earlier—the amendments placed on the Order Paper refer to Dublin, Wexford and Cork. I can tell the Deputy and the House that that is purely accidental, coincidental or whatever you like to call it.
We accept that.
It was that and the paper in relation to the amendments which was in front of the Taoiseach which accounts for the way the matter was put to the House. I had nothing to do with the way they were placed on the Order Paper. I did not know, until I checked on it, what order they were in. My advisers tell me that the amendments followed the order of the Bill. That is how it may have come about. No sinister or ulterior motive or reason should be attributed to what the Taoiseach said in his remarks about these three matters before he left the House this morning.
The question was asked by Deputy O'Sullivan how one could justify Cork city with 111,000 people and five Deputies—I am quoting his own figures—in relation to 109,000 people, as he said, in the rural constituency of Mid-Cork represented by five Deputies. Again, I shall just ask the Deputy a question which is as difficult for him to answer as this one would be for me. Does he want the Cork city representation reduced? Is that the implication of asking me to justify five seats for Mid-Cork with those figures of 109,000 people as against five seats for concentrated Cork city with 111,000 people?
I contended that there was no loss of population comparable with the losses in other areas. There is no case at all for a reduction of a seat in Cork county.
Let us look at it another way. The Deputy has made that point. It has been suggested that if there are constituencies below the ratio of 17,000 per member, that is an outrageous situation or that the proposal for a five-seat constituency in Cork is outrageous.
With 22,000.
That is the point the Deputy made. The Deputy does not have to leave Cork to see an undisturbed constituency. West Cork, which borders on the low ratio he has mentioned, is undisturbed. The reason it was left undisturbed is, as I said earlier, that consistently in that type of country, you have a difficult terrain, long headlands and a mountainous type of territory right up to the western seaboard, including West Cork and North Donegal. We have left them undisturbed because we feel it is not practicable to change them, by reason of the good arguments put forward not only from this side of the House, but by many Deputies on the other side.
West Cork is being extended now. I know it is slight.
It is very slight.
The others are not extended.
It is a question of practicability. If the Deputy looks at it, he will see that we have extended it in such a way as to leave it somewhat more convenient for certain people in that area than it now is. As I say, you can take any changes and make a hundred arguments against them. Even in the matter of Mid-Cork and in our treatment of part of Cork county which is West Cork, we have given to West Cork the extreme treatment in the one direction of leaving it practically undisturbed because it is our consistent argument that from West Cork to North Donegal, the indented coast, the mountains and the difficulties of travel are such that their representation should not be reduced, if at all possible.
The follow-on is that, having done that in that whole strip, consequential changes in some other parts of the country of less difficult terrain of the order we are now proposing to the House are necessary. These things are consequential on each other rather than on decisions taken isolated from the entire picture. The whole plan has had to be developed under regulations, constitutional requirements, outside of which we cannot go.
In having the proposals here to-day for the allocation, by amendment, of three further seats, by adding two of these three amendments and passing them here, we are again up against the question of the constitutional requirement which precludes us from going beyond 144 seats. Those regulations and those constitutional requirements, superimposed on the difficulties we have encountered in trying to get these constituencies straightened out and, at the same time, to make as little change as possible, to add as little confusion as possible to the electorate at the next general election as a result of changed boundaries, have been difficult to work with, but in bringing to the House the proposals we now have by way of amendment, we feel that we have met some of the early criticisms raised in the House.
In that way, we have not been hard and fast in our outlook and approach to this matter. If we allocate these two further seats now, we cannot allocate any more because the Constitution precludes us from doing so, but we are, in fact, with that little leeway that was left to us, bowing to the wishes in a general way of the Opposition as expressed on Second Reading. It is in that context that I should like the House to give further consideration to our various amendments and to the discussion of the proposals.
It is a pity that Deputy Corry contributed to this discussion in the manner in which he did. He has done a grave disservice to the consideration of this Bill. In the minds of many Deputies who might have approached the consideration of the Cork question differently, had Deputy Corry not spoken, he has done a great disservice to the cause of the spokesmen of Cork and, in particular, Deputy Desmond, who made a powerful case here on Second Reading as to why Cork should be allowed to remain as it is. If there were anything that would influence me against accepting the views and the judgment which were so powerfully and so reasonably expressed by Deputy Desmond, it is Deputy Corry's contribution here to-day.
Thanks for the lecture.
There is one thing that every one of us should avoid whether we represent a rural or an urban constituency, that is, deliberately to approach a Bill of this sort with a narrow, sectional, local outlook. This is a matter which every one of us, whether personally affected or not, should be big enough to regard from the point of view, as Deputy Ryan said, of the people whom we are supposed to represent and not from our own point of view. The Minister, the Taoiseach and other Deputies who spoke from the point of view of the people we are supposed to represent in this House were correct. If there is any consideration to be given to geographical features, to topographical features, to difficulties of access by constituents to Deputies, all that should be approached, not from the point of view of the Deputy but from the point of view of his constituents. I have endeavoured in considering this Bill as a city Deputy to be sufficiently broadminded to make allowance for the arguments—even though I do not believe we are entitled by the Constitution to have regard to them—which were advanced, as I said and repeat, very reasonably and very mildly by the Taoiseach on the Second Reading.
If our hands were not tied by the constitutional provisions—and I say this deliberately, although I am a city Deputy—I would certainly feel that every Deputy should have very particular regard to the difficulties encountered in large rural constituencies from the point of view of the constituent who is trying to reach his Deputy and who is trying to have provided for him the service which a Deputy should provide. I would regard that as a reasonable argument. I would even regard that, were it not for the constitutional provisions, as a matter which might outweigh the question of maintaining the ratio between seats and population in one constituency as against another, where, in one constituency, an urban constituency, you have possibly a large population but a small belt of country and where, in another, a rural constituency, you have a large area to cover, even though the population is less.
The fact of the matter is that there are very definite constitutional requirements which must be fulfilled. It is all right for Deputy Corry to jeer at bog lawyers or anyone else he likes to jeer at, but the fact is that everyone who comes into this House comes in by virtue of the provisions laid down in the Constitution which was accepted by the people on the advice of Deputy Corry and the other members of his Party——
And against you.
——and against the advice of a number of people of my Party. It has been accepted by the people, accepted by my Party and accepted by every other Party in this House. The constitutional requirements are that the ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall so far as it is practicable be the same throughout the country.
I do not think that any Deputy who approaches the consideration of this measure in a calm and fair-minded way, having regard to that constitutional provision, could argue that the Bill as originally introduced, providing as it did, in the constituency of Dublin South (West) that the population per seat would be practically 26,000 and in other, rural, constituencies that the population per seat would be something over 16,000, could say that that ratio which is required by the Constitution was being maintained.
As against that, the Taoiseach argued that the House was entitled, in interpreting the phrase "so far as it is practicable" to take into consideration geographical boundaries, topographical features, and all the rest of it and I felt that he made a reasonable case with those arguments, but that that case fell to the ground vis-á-vis the Constitution, so long as there were still two floating seats which could be utilised for the purpose of balancing up the discrepancies which existed in the Bill as it stood.
While the Government have not gone the whole way in answer to the arguments put to them on the Second Stage, I feel—notwithstanding what Deputy Ryan has said, I do not mind expressing it—that they have made a reasonable effort to meet the point of view put forward and that it would be churlish on my part as a Dublin city Deputy not to accept and appreciate that. I do accept and appreciate it, but I think it would be fatal, and particularly fatal for the battle Deputy Corry is fighting, if he tries to channel this debate into a collision between Dublin city Deputies, on the one hand, and rural Deputies, on the other. I give him this warning, and I give it to him fair and square, I shall not hesitate, if necessary, to urge that recourse should be had to the other constitutional provisions to settle this matter, if Deputy Corry succeeds in the particular line he was on here this morning. It is very poor service to the people of this country that we should approach the matter in that spirit and from that point of view.
I have been in this House for a considerably shorter period than Deputy Corry, but I have been in it sufficiently long to know and to appreciate the difficulties and the hardships which many rural Deputies have to put up with in endeavouring to represent their constituents; but I am afraid we cannot legitimately take that into account because what we should take into account is the position of the people they are required to represent. We are only doing our duty by the people who sent us here if we consider this Bill from the point of view of constituents, and not from the point of view of Deputies.
I am afraid we have reached the stage of the survival of the fittest because there are only two seats and we have three claimants for them. Some of the remarks here this morning from both sides—from Dublin as well as from the country—have been of little help in straightening out the matter. In regard to the remarks of Deputy Ryan, who is a new member, travelling expenses do not repay country members because, out of their allegiance to democratic institutions, they have decided they cannot do two jobs at once. If we are to debate this important matter on the basis of city versus country, we shall not get very far.
I was interested in the remarks of the Minister. Naturally he has done his utmost to show reasons why Cork may have to lose a seat, while other rural areas will not have to do so. In my speech on the last occasion, I wished good luck to every rural constituency. I do so again. I realise that the people in rural constituencies, be it in Donegal, Kerry, Galway or elsewhere, are entitled to the service Deputies try to give them, but all we are asking is that the fair play given to them should also be given to Cork. The Minister mentioned the mileage between two points, when speaking of North Cork and South Cork constituencies. Nobody has control over where a Deputy shall live after the election. We should consider, not the mileage between two points suitable from the Minister's point of view, but the overall mileage in a constituency such as the Minister has been doing in relation to his own constituency in Donegal.
Let us take the position in South Cork constituency. If we want to discuss this matter on the basis of rural or urban population, I should like to point out that there are only three small towns in the whole of this constituency, each with a very small population. All the rest of the constituency is made up either of mediumsized villages or rural areas. When we hear of the distances in other constituencies and the difficulties of people wishing to contact their local Deputy, we know that the same has always applied in South Cork. It may be said that there are a few large towns in North Cork, but if anybody cares to inspect the maps available in the Library, he will see that this constituency also has a very large rural area with a very scattered population. Every member voting against Cork on this should realise that he is voting against people in large, thinly populated rural areas. A few weeks ago, on the Second Stage, the Minister gave the figures per acre in Cork as against Donegal and other counties. Did he include Cork city in these figures? Did he consider it on the basis of rural areas versus the city?
I would not oppose a seat for Dublin or Wexford if I could see the justification for that further representation. We have before us two amendments brought in by the Minister in relation to rural areas, one for Wexford and one for Cork. Cork is not carrying any Christy Ring and Wexford is not carrying any Nicky Rackard, but— let us be frank about this—Wexford is carrying a Minister for Finance and Dublin South (East) is carrying a Tánaiste and Minister for Health. That is where the difference comes in. Has any consideration been given to that aspect of the matter?
Let us consider the figures shown by the census returns in relation to Wexford and Cork. I have not the Dublin figures because, like Deputy Corry, perhaps some of us in the country would not be able to divide too well when dealing with the city constituencies. But let us take the figures for Wexford versus Cork. In Wexford, the ratio is 17,452 electors per Deputy. If the Minister's amendment is carried, the position there will remain unchanged. I shall give the Minister a present now of the lowest figure for county Cork: the figure for West Cork at the moment is 17,158 electors per Deputy. It is true there is a very small balance in favour of Wexford as compared with West Cork, but West Cork is only one constituency in my county. I shall give the figures for East Cork, North Cork and South Cork. In East Cork, the figure is 19,448 electors per Deputy; in North Cork, it is 18,867; in South Cork, it is 19,382 per Deputy.
Where do we stand then on these figures? Is there any hope of securing fair play for the people in those areas? Is there any hope either in relation to constitutional rights or from the simple point of view of fairplay? All these constituencies in Cork are rural in character. There are naturally a few towns included in them, but their character is, as I say, mainly rural. Yet these constituencies, as we know them now, are to be scrapped. East Cork is to carry an increased ratio, although there are over 19,000 electors per Deputy at the moment. West Cork will be likewise increased, although at the moment it is above the ratio in some of the western and north-western constituencies. With the suppression of one seat in Cork and with 11, instead of 12, Deputies representing county Cork, each Deputy under the new proposal will in future have to represent 20,415 electors as against 17,000 odd in Wexford and even lower numbers in other constituencies.
We are entitled to regard Cork county and city as one unit. With a total of 16 Deputies representing the city and county, each Deputy will, if this proposal is carried, be called upon to represent 21,041 electors. We heard a good deal this morning about constitutional rights. Surely, Cork is just as much entitled to consideration from that point of view as any other area. Candidly, we are asking for charity from no one. I go further: I say that no Deputy has a right to either charity or sympathy, but the people he represents have a right to both justice and fairplay.
I know that the Minister for Local Government is in a difficult position. I know that the Taoiseach is in a difficult position. When speaking here on 28th October, as reported in the Official Report, at col. 411 of vol. 177, the Taoiseach said that this Mid-Cork constituency, carrying five members, will not be any larger than Laoighis-Offaly, Longford-Westmeath or Sligo-Leitrim. It was very kind of him to make the comparison, but he conveniently forgot to mention that it would be much bigger than some of the other constituency propositions before the House.
It is hard to have to say it, but I know there are honest men on my right in this House who will be driven into voting for something in which they do not believe, and not because of the vindictiveness of the Taoiseach or the Minister for Local Government, but because of the machinations of four Corkmen and one ex-Corkman. I know who they are. Deputies on the Government Benches know them as well as I do. They did this before in 1947. They split West Cork and they took from that constituency then a large area—an area that was represented so ably and so well by the late T.J. Murphy. The evil genius advising the Minister then, a man who belonged to his own Party in Cork, and others with him, were determined to unseat the late T.J. Murphy, may God rest his soul, but they failed.
Personally, I do not complain. But what of the people whom we are supposed to represent? Will they be represented by the committee of five who, even at the last hour last night, insisted on denying a free vote to those men who want to vote for Cork as honourable representatives of their constituents? Everything has gone by the board now. The Taoiseach, the Minister and the Government know the decision as well as we know it, but I assure the Government, the Taoiseach and the Minister now that the people will know the position before we finish. All we are anxious to do is to serve the people. All we are anxious to do is ensure that our successors will serve them to the best of their ability. In striving to secure justice and fairplay, I have in mind one honourable Deputy sitting on my right who will be facing possible defeat if this goes through. I shall not mention his name. Others know who he is as well as I do. He is as honourable a man as ever sat in this House or in the Cork County Council, but he is not liked and the committee of five are satisfied that he must go. A Fianna Fáil Deputy representing South Cork may have to go. There are two men earmarked for those seats. I know who they are. Other representatives from Cork know them. They have forced the Minister so to revise the constituencies as to achieve the election of two new Deputies for Cork after the next election. I appeal to those Deputies on my right to think of their own.
In the past few months, I had hoped that we could discuss issues here in a manner somewhat further removed from the political bitterness of the past. I had hoped that, though we might have our differences on economic policies, purely political bias would no longer operate. I must now admit that my hope has been dashed in the light of the Bill and the amendments before the House. The secret power behind the scenes has dictated to the Minister; the position is the same as it was in the past. That will get us nowhere. It is a sad situation that honourable Deputies on my right should be forced into the Division Lobby to support something in which they do not believe.
All the figures go to show that an injustice is being perpetrated on the people of North and South Cork. That is being done for a certain purpose, not for the benefit of the people, not for the overall difference in the change in Party strength. The only difference it will show at the next election is that one Party will lose because there are only five seats, but the overall strength of the Government Party will not be altered. Therefore, it is simply being done for political bitterness within a Party that is controlled on this issue from Cork, not by the Minister as I said at the start—and may I make it clear that certainly nothing is being done against Cork by the officials who have advised the Minister—but by the "big five" for the benefit of two members of the "big five", against members of the Fianna Fáil Party who have been sitting in these benches for some years past and also against members of another Party.
The same was done to the late Deputy T.J. Murphy. Because he was hated by one of the "big five" an effort was made to oust him. That attempt failed. It may succeed now but it makes no difference to me. It will make a difference to the people in Rockchapel or Kinsale. It will make a difference in so far as, in these new proposed constituencies, the Deputy who will represent the people in Parliament must attend to the wants of people in six different electoral areas—in the Kanturk, Mallow, Cork, Bandon areas and part of Clonakilty. That Deputy is paid to serve the people and he must try to serve people in five or six different councils areas as well as trying to serve them in Dáil Éireann. That cannot be done. Who is to be the victim? None other than the unfortunate man in the rural area who wishes for service but, in future, will not be able to get it.
I am very concerned with regard to the threat that has been issued from two members of the Front Bench on the other side of the House. They have made a statement which amounts to saying that a Minister of this House came in here with a Bill that was contrary to the Constitution of this State, that this Bill in its original form as brought in here does not comply with the provisions of the Constitution. That statement has been made by Deputy O'Sullivan and repeated by Deputy O'Higgins. It is a rather serious charge against a Minister of this Dáil and I had hoped to hear the Minister reply to it before now. It will have a very serious effect on the manner in which we shall vote with regard to the Dublin constituency— whether or not Dublin is to get this seat.
We had a threat from Deputy O'Higgins about another place and another court. It reminded me of nothing else but the fellow looking for a fight who, when he got a slug in the jaw, said: "I will have the law on you." For the past half hour Deputy O'Higgins was like an old woman saying: "I will have the law on you. If our amendment is not accepted, we shall go to the Supreme Court because the Bill, as brought in by the Minister, does not comply with the Constitution." That was his statement and it was a straight challenge to the House.
He also said that Deputies should consider the constituents rather than the constituencies. I represent my constituents and I have never represented my constituency by living in Dublin. I live in my constituency and I serve my constituents morning, noon and night, and they do not have to come to Dublin to meet me. I feel very keenly on this matter because at one time or another I have represented all those areas. From 1927 to 1937, I fought four general elections in a five-seat constituency in an area which comprised Charleville, Bandon, Mallow, Cobh, Midleton, Youghal, Fermoy and Mitchelstown. It was a hard constituency to work. It was a five-seat constituency and it was a tough job to do it. I patted myself on the back when, in the fourth general election, I got within 77 of 13,000 No. 1 votes there.
I lived in my constituency unlike Deputy O'Higgins, and that was the result. I next took over a portion of South Cork in the area which is at present represented by Deputies Desmond, MacCarthy and Manley. I represented that area for 10 years and I saw the difficulties alluded to here to-day by two Deputies in connection with the city and the central area and the awkwardness of working there. I found that difficulty also. I know the difficulties and the practically impossible task facing a Deputy who represents that constituency. If I were cute, I would perhaps shut my mouth but I know I could walk in there in the morning and head the poll. I have no doubt about that; it would be no bother to me.
The Minister was attacked to-day and it is a pity that the Deputy did not make the argument he made to the Minister for the two Benedicts who were having that quiet "confab." The Minister was so sympathetic about a person getting married down in Bandon that he shifted the constituency and included Bandon in North Cork. That is what we are putting against Deputy Desmond's allegations——
You know who they were.
I heard Deputy O'Sullivan talk with his tongue in his cheek. He was smiling and humming to himself at the change that had been made. I never in my life saw a happier man.
If the Deputy will vote for the extra seat in Cork, I shall vote with him.
There is a fellow feeling between the Minister for Local Government and his predecessor since he left four seats in the constituency lest that he might lose him. The Deputy should be satisfied with that.
There are only three seats in my constituency.
The two Deputies who are sitting side by side have a better leg of the Minister than I have.
Deputy Corry should discuss the amendment.
I am discussing the three amendments.
He is discussing the break-up.
Or the break-down.
I am discussing what has happened in Cork and I am anxious to hear from the Minister— because I know how it will affect a vote in this House—whether there is any truth in the allegation that the Bill is contrary to the Constitution. That allegation has been made by Deputy O'Sullivan, followed by Deputy O'Higgins. Is it true or is it not? Deputies have a right to know the position so that they may consider it fully. I know why that allegation was made. It was made in order to create difficulty between the two rural constituencies and to save Dublin out of it.
Deputy Ryan, that child over there, spoke about his constituency and of the difficulty of travelling it. He said he has to pay 1/2d bus fare to travel his constituency. Take Deputy Desmond. If he is elected for the new five-seat constituency in Mid-Cork, he will have to pay not 1/2d bus fare but very considerably more. In fact, he will need a helicopter. If Deputy Desmond starts from Crosshaven, where he lives, to go to the Kerry boundary to have a chat with Deputy McAuliffe and if he hires a taxi the cost will be more than the cost of going to Dublin.
A difficulty arises there. That is why I say that, unless the Deputy's allegations that this Bill is unconstitutional are corrected, the two seats should be given to the two rural areas. I got a lecture 1½ hours long from Deputy O'Higgins. I know what has happened here. I have not the slightest confidence in this House as far as justice is concerned. Last week I had to give an example of what happened here in regard to my constituency before and what did happen here in regard to the South Cork Board of Assistance and Cork city. The act of this House, despite the fact that Deputies challenged a division, cost the ratepayers in my area £3,250,000 in the past twenty years. The figures are there and cannot be contradicted.
As far as I can see, Deputies do not give a hang. The attitude seems to be that Dublin is safe; the baby is to be looked after and to the dickens with the country. There are three amendments before the House. Every Deputy is here to do what he considers is right. A Deputy who can travel his constituency at a cost of 1/2 on the bus, as mentioned by Deputy Ryan to-day, has far fewer rights to an extra seat than a Deputy in a constituency which is about 110 miles long and who has to travel through the constituency by car at a cost of £7 or £8 per trip. Consider the convenience of your constituents. A Dublin city Deputy can sit down in his home and bring in any of his constituents who may come to his door.
They come in hundreds.
And mine do, too. However, in many cases they have to come at a cost of £4, £5 or £6 a trip to see me.
But not many of them will come.
A man has to travel 30, 40 or 50 miles to see his Deputy in East Cork. In Dublin, a threepenny bus fare will take a man there—and then some people want the extra seat to be given to Dublin. No case has been made for it and it cannot be given to Dublin in justice or in fair play. I know what it means myself. Take the town of Cobh as an example of an area that would be part of a city. There are more votes in one street of that town than in a rural parish. I walk into that town at every election and I come out with the bag —3,000 votes odd.
When Miss Hartland is not around.
I worked for it for 33 long years. I saw many fellows come and go and I will see many more of them, too.
Sure.
I know how easy it is to work there. I worked in the suburbs of Cork. At one time, I represented Spangle Hill and Gurranebraher and got a jolly good vote there. The longer I was there, the better they liked me.
Is that why the Deputy left?
I know the difference between a Deputy getting into a car in the morning and going to Cloyne and meeting 100 people there and going into a town where you can clean up 3,000 or 4,000 votes in a couple of hours. I know the difference—provided you have done a bit of work for them in the meantime. I know how a Deputy living in Dublin and representing Laois-Offaly is fixed—a Deputy who was kind enough to tell me to consider the constituents. I am considering the constituents now. You do not consider them by living in Dublin. Nobody ever could or will.
I am asking this House to wipe out the first amendment, to get rid of Dublin. I am asking all the country boys to marshal themselves together and to do the job. Then we shall have no difficulty. We shall have a seat each. One will be for Wexford. North Cork went into Wexford at one time, I believe.
Maybe they will go there again.
In that way, we shall finish the difficulty that arises here. I have listened very carefully to the case which has been put before the House for Dublin but there is no case for Dublin here. There is no case for a constituency where every constituent can meet the Deputy by getting the bus.
That is the trouble about it.
What will happen in the case of, say, Deputy Desmond down in Crosshaven? Suppose a man from Rockchapel says: "I voted for Deputy Desmond and for Labour in the last election; I shall go and consult him," he has to hire a car at a cost of about £10 to take him to see that Deputy. There is a great difference between that case and that of Deputy Ryan and his 1/2d. bus. Yet we find this House marshalling itself under a Whip —I do not care what Whip it is—to vote for giving an extra seat to Dublin. Then we have the insidious threat by two Deputies opposite that the Bill as brought in by the Minister is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. This is only an amendment.
It would not be the first time.
I know every parish in that new constituency in Cork. I lived in one of them for 13 years and the people there were sorry to lose me. I know every part of that constituency and the impossible situation of a Deputy facing all that. If I have to choose, I must decide against the case in which the least hardship and the least difficulty is involved and that, to my mind, is Dublin. Therefore I am suggesting that the amendment in respect of Dublin should not be accepted.
I am not concerned with any of the three constituencies but I should like to put certain considerations to the Minister. First of all, we spent over 2¼ hours asking: "Are we going to add two seats to this House?" I believe that instead we should be discussing reducing still further the number of seats. However, if we intend to add the two seats I should like to support the Cork Deputies on both sides of the House. If we take Cork county as an entity with a population of 224,500 people represented by twelve Deputies, the average number works out at 18,714 for each Deputy and if the Minister is to implement the suggestion expressed by the Taoiseach that as few changes as possible should be effected in this Bill, the best thing would be to leave the Cork constituencies as they are. With the exception of West Cork the other Cork constituencies show an average much higher than the rest of the constituencies and, with a little adjustment in the case of West Cork, Cork should be left as it is with twelve seats.
I do not want to enter into a discussion on the relative merits of the cases for Dublin and Cork but I have a great deal of sympathy with the view put forward that Dublin is under-represented. As a country Deputy my main submission would be that on the basis of the figures the Minister has at his disposal, it would be unjust and unnecessary drastically to alter the present set-up in Cork.
During the debates in connection with the abolition of P.R. I supported the Government, and one of the arguments I put forward was that the smaller the constituency the greater the stability of Government. I may have been right or wrong in that but I still hold the same view about it. If the Government proposals are carried, we shall be creating a new five-seat constituency and we shall be increasing the number of Wexford seats from four to five. I submit that is completely contrary to all the arguments put forward on the P.R. debate and certainly contrary to the views I expressed on that occasion.
The three-seat constituency for a rural area is the ideal size. My own constituency has four seats but it is part city, part county. As Deputy Corry said in his first speech here this morning, a three-seat constituency in a rural area gives a better opportunity to constituents to keep in touch with their representatives. That is about the only thing Deputy Corry said during his two speeches with which I would agree. However, I strongly support his advocacy for retaining four three-seat constituencies in the county of Cork.
I wish to refer to the need for giving Dublin an extra seat. The Minister and the Government should themselves have settled this matter of the two floating seats. Reserving the discussion of this problem for the House is like throwing a bone to a number of dogs. It stands to reason there will be a considerable rivalry on this score. The reason I make a case for the city having an extra seat is that the amount of work imposed on the urban Deputy is far greater than that imposed on the rural Deputy.
An argument is made in favour of the rural Deputy on the basis of geography. In other words, it is assumed the rural Deputy goes out of his way to travel all around the area looking for trouble. I do not accept that at all. I can assure Deputies that I do not go anywhere; the people come to me and I have an army of 40,000 people around me in my area. The number in that area will now jump to 64,000. I should complain of having another 24,000 people to cater for. Like Deputy Corry, who I believe works hard, I word hard and that is the reason I am here. I should complain about having so much extra work to do but I am happy that the extra constituents I shall have are all Sherwinites and I shall not object to that.
As regards the amendment to the Bill, it is all right to say that a Deputy has to spend only 1/4d. but he has to spend many such amounts. Apart from that point of view altogether, it is the people who do the spending. The constituents come to us. They come in vast numbers and they are there morning, noon and night. They meet you in the street and on buses and elsewhere because they are all around you. At least the rural Deputies know that the bulk of their constituents are 50, 80 or 100 miles away. They may correspond by post but that is much easier than having people personally asking you to do the impossible and delaying you from your work.
The work of a Deputy for an urban area is six times greater than that of a Deputy for a rural area because the constituents of the rural Deputy are not on his doorstep. I am not trying to make any bones about the work I do but I can assure the House that constituents come to me at the rate of 700 a week. I am pretty sure that a rural Deputy's constituents do not come to him to that extent. They may write to him but the rural Deputy has an excuse if somebody complains about something. He can say: "You did not see me." We have not that excuse. Do not forget that a lot of the work done by members of this House is work that should be done by local representatives but once you are a Deputy people think you can do more for them than anybody else.
In the city you also have the problem that there are 42,000 people living in Corporation dwellings where they are always in trouble and always contacting you. The rural Deputies have not got that trouble. Therefore the matter should not be thought of in terms of the size of the constituency but in terms of the number of people you have to serve, whom you cannot avoid serving. One Deputy may be an active man and get around his area but I am quite certain the average Deputy does not look for trouble. He may visit his area during an election but he will not do so otherwise. In the city the people come to us. While this House is sitting rural Deputies, or the Deputies from the country generally, have not much trouble. They have a good excuse that they are here on Dail business but they will not be annoyed while they are here. We are; we are annoyed before we come in here, when we go home to dinner and when we go home for tea.
Looked at from that point of view it can be realised that the urban areas should be better represented on that score. Deputy Russell mentioned that he referred to the size of the constituencies on the Second Stage. I asked the Minister on the Second Stage why had they stressed the importance of single-member constituencies, and pointed out that we did not have single-seat constituencies with P.R. His argument was that the Constitution did not allow it, but the Constitution allows us to have three-seat constituencies. It does not compel us to have five-seat constituencies. I do not see what the excuse is for not breaking up the Twenty-Six Counties into three-seat areas but I suppose there are political reasons for it. I am not involved in this matter but I am making the case that the urban Deputies have considerably more work to do than rural Deputies for the simple reason that we cannot avoid our constituents. They will be in my home when I go home but the rural Deputies are safe.
When I spoke on this Bill on Second Stage, I expressed the hope that it would be left as it was. I have certain convictions about representation in this House and I appealed to the Minister to use all the pressure at his disposal against the inclusion of these two seats. I regret that has not been done. We are wasting our time and the time of the country. No seat is worth that but since it is inevitable, since the Government have made up their minds that these two seats are to be included, I appeal strongly on behalf of the rural areas that the seats be allocated to them.
I do not want to enter into any controversy between town and country but, in regard to the comments made here this morning, I think there is still a misunderstanding. Dublin Deputies will have to remember that it is very easy for them at all times to represent this city in the Dáil. They never have to leave home and have not to incur personal expenses on the scale that country Deputies have.
What amazes me about this Bill is the complete inconsistency and illogic shown by the Government in their approach. If the Government were logical and consistent from the start, they would have gone into the areas where the population has dropped considerably. Prior to this rearrangement were there 30 constituencies where Deputies represented a population of fewer than 20,000? Under the change contemplated in this Bill, before these amendments come into operation, there are 19 constituencies where members will represent a population of fewer than 19,000 per head. The inclusion of these two seats brings us very near the danger line when each Deputy on average will represent 20,126 persons.
Naturally, being a Cork man, I speak from no selfish motive or no personal ambition but for the sake of those who will represent North and South Cork in future years—I think that Cork, as Deputy O'Sullivan said, is the only area that has faced a complete territorial change. The utter unmanageability of that area for one Deputy is completely preposterous under this arrangement. For that reason I appeal in all earnestness that the Cork constituencies be left as they are and to give extra representation to Wexford. The two seats should go to Cork and Wexford.
As I say, I do not like putting town against country but there is a strong feeling that the preponderance of Dublin Deputies has given the Dáil a Dublin rather than a national complexion. These Deputies can be here at all times as against the man who has to travel 200 miles from the west or south of Ireland. The personal expenses they have to incur because of the terrain over which they have to travel are reasons why they are entitled to that consideration here when this opportunity arises. I regret it has arisen but once it has become inevitable let us give the representation to the rural areas. It is much easier for Dublin Deputies to represent 30,000 people than for many rural Deputies to represent 20,000.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 86; Níl, 13.
Tá
- Allen, Denis.
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Barry, Richard.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Dan.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carroll, James.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Johnston, Henry M.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lindsay, Patrick.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Moran, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- O'Toole, James.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Russell, George E.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Sherwin, Frank.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Níl
- Casey, Seán.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Everett, James.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Norton, William.
- Spring, Dan.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Tully, John.
- Wycherley, Florence.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies M. P. Murphy and McAuliffe.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 5, to delete the entry relating to the constituency of Wexford and substitute the following entry:
"
|
Wexford |
The administrative county of Wexford. |
Five |
"
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 40.
Tá
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carroll, James.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Dan.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Johnston, Henry M.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Toole, James.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Níl
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Barry, Richard.
- Burke, James.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Casey, Seán.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Russell, George E.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Tully, John.
- Wycherley, Florence.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies M.P. Murphy and McAuliffe.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 7, in the second column of the entry relating to West Limerick, to delete "Ardpatrick", "Darragh", "Kilfinnane", "Kilflynn" and "Particles".—George E. Russell.
As I mentioned to the Minister on the Second Stage of this Bill, the purpose of the change in the constituency proposed by the Bill is to transfer five electoral areas from the constituency of East Limerick to West Limerick. As the constituency stands at present, there are four Deputies elected for East Limerick on an average by 20,819 electors. In West Limerick, as it stands at present, it takes 18,202 electors to elect each of the three Deputies. With the Taoiseach's sentiments for my guidance, I again submit that a minor alteration of this nature is quite unnecessary and that the Minister would do well to leave matters as they are.
The constituency of East Limerick, which I represent, is roughly three-fifths an urban constituency and two-fifths a rural constituency. I submit that there is no question of having a surplus population. It takes only just over 20,000 electors to elect each T.D. That figure is very substantially less than the average number of electors required to elect a T.D. in any purely urban constituency such as Dublin or Cork. The average in West Limerick at 18,202 is substantially higher than a number of the constituencies which it is not proposed to alter and is now substantially higher than Wexford which has retained its five seats with an average of 17,452 electors.
I do not want to go down through the whole list of the constituencies. Offhand, I shall just mention the following which have fewer than an average of 18,000 electors which have not been touched: North Donegal, South and North Galway, North Kerry, South Kerry, North Mayo—approximately the same as West Limerick but it has not been touched—Monaghan, which cannot be touched—it is a three-seat constituency—Sligo-Leitrim, North and South Tipperary. The Deputies are elected by little over 18,000 or the present average number of electors for each T.D. in West Limerick.
There is another point also. When the old constituency of Limerick was divided in 1947, it was decided to give three seats to West Limerick and four seats to East Limerick. The people in the electoral divisions which it is now proposed to transfer, having voted in East Limerick for the past 12 years, are represented by members for that constituency. For a number of years that portion of East Limerick, which is now scheduled for transfer, was represented by Deputy Tadhg Crowley who lived very close to that area. If the five electoral divisions are transferred, it will mean that you will have an isolated leg of the constituency there which cannot be again represented by a Deputy elected from its own area.
Furthermore, its nearest neighbours in West Limerick will be situated anything from 40 to 60 miles away. Deputy Collins in Abbeyfeale on the Kerry border is very far away from that area and so are Deputies Jones and Ó Briain. The natural course of the roads is from the city of Limerick to these areas. The natural fall of the population for marketing or shopping or to see their Deputies is towards the east and the city of Limerick. I suggest that, having regard to these considerations and the overall sentiments expressed by the Taoiseach when speaking on the Bill, the Minister might leave matters as they are.
I am not personally affected to any substantial extent by this because, so far as I am aware, the votes in that area, where the population is 2,500, representing some 1,500 electors, go generally to all the Parties that contest East Limerick.
I should like to ask the Minister, in the spirit of the Bill generally, to leave things as they are. It would be unjust to these people to transfer them into a new constituency without any valid reason on the basis of population. It is a fair request and I hope the Minister will accept it in the spirit in which it is made.
If anyone would be affected, it is I. If anyone has a "crib" or complaint, it is I. Naturally, having headed the poll on each occasion in East Limerick, it is not very pleasant to see 2,500 votes being taken from one's constituency. Nevertheless, I welcome the change. I think it is a good thing. It is a good thing from the administrative point of view. There is a peculiar anomaly to which Deputy Russell did not advert. These areas are in the Kilmallock rural district for county election purposes and Kilmallock is in West Limerick. So, up to now, there was the peculiar position that the East Limerick T.D., if he were a member of the county council, was acting, for local authority purposes, for people who were outside his area for Dáil election purposes. For this small area, this Bill is righting the position. If anyone is affected, it will be the Fianna Fáil Party because the Kilfinnane-Ardpatrick area is a nationalist stronghold and has been down through the years.
I must also correct the statement of Deputy Russell—I wish he would get his facts correct when speaking in this House—on the subject of the distances Deputies are from this small area. Deputy Ó Briain, for instance, lives within 15 miles of the area and, certainly, it would be far more convenient for the 2,500 persons concerned, if they wish to see their T.D., to meet Deputy Ó Briain, who passes through the area every week-end or Deputy Collins who is usually there once a month, than to have to travel 40 or 50 miles into the city of Limerick.
On the whole, the move by the Minister is to be welcomed and gives these people an opportunity of discussing matters of local and national importance with the same people as represent them in the county council and in the Dáil.
I do not like disagreeing with a fellow-Deputy from my constituency but Deputy O'Malley's argument about the electoral areas is nonsensical. The boundary between East and West Limerick cuts across two electoral areas. Deputy O'Malley was careful enough not to refer to one of them, that is, the Bruff electoral area, which is far closer to Limerick and is cut off in East Limerick and is part of West Limerick. As a matter of fact, on that point, the boundary of West Limerick and the boundary of the city of Limerick are coincidental.
With regard to the other electoral division, Kilmallock, even taking in what the Minister is taking in now, the five electoral divisions, there is still the big proportion of the electoral area of Kilmallock in East Limerick. The only difference is that, due to these changes, the people in that area who will remain in East Limerick will be even more inaccessible and more cut off than previously. I have a map here which very closely illustrates the position. This is the boundary between East and West Limerick. This is the Dáil division down here. This is the area concerned here. It is now proposed to bring the boundary over around here, thereby drawing something like a small miniature of Italy sticking into the Mediterranean, with a long arm sticking out. I suggest it is making an incongruous mess of the two constituencies.
With regard to the question of voting there, I am not conversant with an organisation that rises to the heights suggested but what Deputy O'Malley has stated in the House now and what he stated outside the Dáil are not compatible. I find it very difficult to understand the change in his figures in his submissions in this debate. However, I am not so much concerned about who got the votes or who did not. If you cut out these five electoral divisions, you will create down there a limb in which there will be people who will be largely on their own and will not have an opportunity in future of electing a T.D. Up to now, the people living in the electoral divisions to be transferred were, I am quite certain, represented adequately by, amongst others, Deputy O'Malley himself. The number involved is so small —not 2,500 votes, but 2,500 people, representing about 1,500 voters, of whom about 1,250 would normally vote—and the change is so incompatible with the sentiments expressed by the Taoiseach and, indeed, by the Minister himself, that my view is that it might be very well left alone, not in the interests of the Deputies but in the interests of the people living there who have voted in East Limerick for the past 12 years and are, apparently, quite satisfied with things as they are.
In reply to Deputy Russell's suggestions in regard to this amendment, let me right away say that again, as in the other arguments we have had in the House with regard to what should have been done and what should not have been done, it is quite easy to draw a parallel that would seem to indicate that since we left certain constituencies alone, there was a better case why this one should be left alone. The fact of the matter really is that in our consideration of this constituency and its present boundary and the average figures in each of the two constituencies of East and West Limerick and looking at the regulations which, broadly, had to govern all our actions in regard to this matter, we felt that it was practicable to make this change and to make the figures as between the two constituencies more nearly uniform. In the absence of any suggestion as to how better they might be made more uniform than in the existing constituencies, this proposal is now before the House. It is on that basis I am asking that the House should add in the areas as proposed in the Bill.
Why did the Minister not follow the same policy in regard to other constituencies?
We regarded it as practicable to make the changes bringing about near uniformity between these two constituencies, and the regulations direct us to do that, where possible. Whereas in other cases we did not think it was practicable, we did think so in this case. Since comparisons with other counties have been made, I must point out that the Donegal constituencies were not changed at all in 1947. On the other hand, there was a change in the constituency boundaries in Limerick at that time.
I did not say they were changed.
If I understood the Deputy correctly, he made the point: why should this change be made in Limerick, whereas it has not been made in other counties, where, from the point of view of population figures and ratios, it should have been made?
I think the Minister took me up incorrectly. I did not approach it from that point of view. I approached it from the point of view that the average number of electors who elect each T.D., at about 18,200, is quite larger in that constituency than in some of the other constituencies the Minister mentioned. I did not suggest that he should change the other constituencies. My point was: leave West and East Limerick as they are.
18,000 voters, not electors.
In fact, all the figures used are population figures.
Yes, population.
I think the Deputy's argument still goes in the same direction. If the figures and the ratio in West Limerick are greater than those in some other constituencies that have been left untouched, that strengthens the Deputy's case for asking why West Limerick was left untouched? In reply to that, I must refer again to the fact that it was practicable to make changes in this constituency, whereas I hold it was not practicable in the other constituencies the Deputy mentioned. It was against that background we made the changes. We felt they were practicable and that we were governed by the regulations which said that, where practicable, the figures should be as nearly uniform as possible. We have brought them nearer to each other as a result of this change. I feel the change will not make either of the two constituencies unduly awkward for either Deputies or constituents. It is on those grounds we are putting the proposals to the House.
On the question of practicability, the Minister is in a position to say that something is practicable and that something else is not. I am not in a position to controvert him. The Minister can say that it is not practicable to touch 38 of the 39 or 40 constituencies but it is practicable to touch yours and the one next door. I do not know whether that is right or wrong. If he had time, I should like the Minister to demonstrate to me that it is not practicable in other constituencies to make alterations which apparently are practicable in this constituency and to create what must be one of the most incongruous constituencies in the State. If the Minister says that, I cannot contradict him.
To try to resolve the slight difference between Deputy Russell's views and my own in regard to what is practicable and what is not, let me put it another way. Let us take Dublin city and county and let us take my own constituency, which I know intimately. Changes were practicable in and around the Dublin city boundaries, the metropolitan area, the county, Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown. Not only were changes practicable, but they made for greater convenience. Surely there can be no comparison between that situation and trying to bring in 3,000 or 4,000 population from East Donegal to West Donegal? They are completely different in lay-out. That is an illustration of extremes in regard to what is and what is not practicable in dealing with this matter.
I cannot disagree with the Minister because he has taken a very strong argument for his own point of view—Dublin and Donegal. Why not take Galway and what we are considering now or North and South Kerry and what we are considering now?
Each Deputy, in order to illustrate his own views, naturally chooses the most exaggerated example he can get.
The Minister is not above doing so, either.
I regard myself as another Deputy.
Surely the Minister ought to tell Deputy Russell the real reason? Deputy Russell should suspect it by now.
I assure Deputy Norton I have no illusions at all.
It is only incidental from this that the Government hope to get two seats in West Limerick.
We have had them for years.
It is like bringing coals to Newcastle.
I would not call him "coals" yet. I should like to hear his view on it. I know his mind is absolutely incorruptible in the matter of seats.
We have had two seats in West Limerick since the constituency was established. We had them at every election. In fact, we have 3,000 votes over two seats.
You are trying to pull a fast one.
There is no need as things stand. Of course, none of us can be certain of the future, neither Deputy Norton in Kildare nor I nor any other Deputy in Limerick. I should like to see the position remain as it is, but I agree it is practicable to make the change and the Minister's way of doing it is as good as any other.
Yes, I think it does the job.
I have accepted what the Minister is doing and I shall vote for it.
I think it does the job very well, but I thought the Deputy did not see the good job it was doing for his Party.
I do not know which or whether. We shall know in the next election.
He does not know yet that the constituency is being stuffed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
Would the Minister clarify one point? I gathered from the Second Reading speeches of the Taoiseach and the Minister that Donegal was pivotal. In fact, it was only when that principle was found to apply to the position in Donegal that the same considerations were made applicable to some of the other western counties. Donegal apparently turned upon the difficulty caused by a big range of mountains. Could the Minister tell me now where does that range of mountains run? Is it east-west or north-south?
In regard to the way in which the mountains run, as practically every Deputy here knows, they are fairly widespread. Deputy McGilligan can take it that they run mainly from east to west. The constituencies are known as East Donegal and West Donegal, and it might seem from that that the line runs in a direction which makes that division feasible. I do not think that Deputy O'Donnell, or any other Deputy for that matter, will contradict me when I say that, if you draw a line across and say that line divides north and south, the mountain range is running mainly east to west.
In fairness to the Minister, I think he is wrong. The range of mountains runs north and south, but the constituencies are east and west of the range.
Of the range, yes.
That is what I mean. In fairness to the Minister, there is that range of hills running down from north to south, and the constituencies are east and west of that.
At any rate, does that mountain range assume the proportions of the Himalayas, or something like that? I am mystified because the Taoiseach spoke of east and west Donegal being divided by a range of mountains, with only four gaps. Does the Minister accept that?
I do.
To complicate matters still further, the Minister holds there is a mountain range that practically divides the northern part of the county from the southern part. Have we two mountain ranges in Donegal?
We have about 102.
Where do these ranges start and where do they end? Where are the four passes?
I shall give the Deputy the two main passes—Barnes Gap and Barnesmore Gap.
These are only two of the four passes.
These are the two main passes.
But someone spoke of four. Does the range go from east to west or from north to south?
As Deputy O'Donnell has pointed out, they run north to south. I have a feeling they divide east from west.
They are a very mobile mountain range.
No matter where the mountains are, one could always make a case for Donegal, but take any point in the north or south of any constituency. In most of them, you have only one road, so it is no use talking about passes.
The Deputy does not know the size of the country we are talking about now.
This mountain range runs north to south sometimes, and east to west at other times. Does it?
As I said, Deputy O'Donnell has his interpretation and I have mine. There are so many mountains right across the county that I think one could be right, no matter in what direction one said the range runs.
They are running in every direction then.
Might I object as a Deputy who represented Donegal when Donegal had seven Deputies.
Eight.
We could get to the stage, talking about mountain passes, in which we might create the impression that, outside Donegal, motor cars normally take to the bocage and drive across fields, rivers and valleys. The normal habit for any person perambulating this country is to adhere to the metalled road. Whether it is flanked, right or left, by hills or plains does not make very much difference to the travelling Deputy. But I admit that in Donegal, serving the people there, was a very much more picturesque experience than it is in the flatter parts of the country. I would not wish Deputies, strangers or, indeed, tourists, to imagine that getting around Donegal is a virtual impossibility, or that it appertains in any way to Arabia Deserta, or anything like that. There are ample roads, very picturesque, and anyone who wants to travel in Donegal will find every facility for travelling anywhere he wants to go. I think undue emphasis has, perhaps, been laid upon this Sputnik-like range of mountains which seems to swing in its orbit north to south and east to west. A picturesque county Donegal certainly is. A county with admirable roads I know it to be; a county I was happy to represent, not east or west or north or south but in all four points of its expansive compass.
One has heard of a moving bog but not of a moving mountain. Where does this mountain range lie? Can we not get some information about it?
Deputy McGilligan is paying one of his all too infrequent visits to this House. I admire his wit as a cross-examiner in the profession to which he belongs, but, after repetition here, it becomes somewhat boring listening to this playing back of a broken record. Where does the mountain range lie? Is it a moving range? As I said at the outset, there are a number of ranges strung across that part of the county. I hold there is a main mountain range running east to west. Deputy O'Donnell says it runs north to south. On further consideration, I agree that he is, in fact, right. I am also right. There are two mountain ranges, one running east to west and one running north to south. They do not move.
May I draw the Minister's attention to two statements which are, I think, somewhat contrary? Speaking on the Second Reading on 28th October at column 405 of Volume 177 of the Official Report, the Taoiseach said:—
I do not know if Deputy Desmond is aware that Donegal has this peculiarity; the east and west of it are divided by a range of mountains with only four passes by which people can travel from one to the other.
Replying to the Second Reading on 29th October, at column 508, the Minister complicated matters still further by stating:—
... there is the mountain range which practically divides the northern part of the county from the southern half.
Where are we now?
Might I move to report progress until such time as these mountains have been inspected and we find out definitely where they are?
Would the Deputy like to bring them down with him after his visit?
Remember, Donegal is the pivotal constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
We return now to Section 2, amendment No. 1.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 2, line 16, to delete "Forty-two" and substitute "Fortyfour".
This amendment is consequential upon the others.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
This day week.
Would there be any difficulty in taking it now?
Yes, definitely. We need at least a week to discover the position of these mountains in Donegal.
I shall take the Deputy there over the week-end, show him, and possibly lose him in them. May I put the point that I am not pushing this matter? I do not wish to do so, but there is the constitutional requirement of having this legislation completed and signed by the President on or before 26th of this month. If it could be agreed by the Dáil that we could take all Stages to-day, it would greatly facilitate our chances of getting that done and keeping within the provisions of our own Constitution. If there are objections, I am not pressing the matter.
We should be very anxious to meet the Minister so far as we could, but I suggest that if we could leave the Report Stage until next Wednesday, subject to any further developments, we would then assist the Minister so far as we could to see that he got all Stages that day.
Very well.
Let me remind the House that the Taoiseach said there was no urgency in connection with this Bill. There has been no urgency since it was introduced and constitutional provisions have been met.
The leader of the Opposition has expressed the views generally of the Opposition and I am prepared to take them, regardless of what Deputy McGilligan says.
Might I suggest with regard to this growing practice of coming here and asking for all Stages on Committee Stage, that Deputies might at least be informed that it is proposed to take all Stages and that we are meeting to consider not merely the Committee Stage but the Report and Final Stages?
We are not taking them.
There is a habit which is growing of asking for them. The request could more easily be granted if Deputies had notice that the Final Stages were being requested.
The Deputy cannot blame us for asking.
Would the Minister arrange to make the actual map showing the changes available rather than the transfer between now and Report Stage?
The completed map in its permanent form.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 18th November, 1959.