Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Apr 1961

Vol. 188 No. 9

Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1961— Committee Stage (Resumed).

North-East Cork.
Question proposed: "That the entry stand part of the Schedule."

I believed, rather foolishly now it appears, that democratic principles would govern the activities of the Minister in the proposals he would put before us. It is obvious now that those principles do not apply. There is one difference between the Minister and his colleague, Deputy Corry. The latter did explain why he was opposed to the amendment and why he preferred to have this proposal relating to North-East Cork stand. He admitted he had travelled over a good part of that area and that he had "poached" into a good deal of it but it would not be possible for him to cover another little area we would wish to have included in this constituency. We were anxious that one small portion should go back to North-East Cork, a portion over which Deputy Corry might not have an opportunity of poaching.

We at least know where we stand with Deputy Corry. We do not know where we stand with the Minister. He made it quite clear that the onus was on us to give the relevant facts when dealing with an amendment calling for the deletion of certain areas from North-East Cork. We accepted that onus. The Minister says he has put proposals before us. He has refused to commit himself in any way as to the reason he puts this proposal before us as against a proposal which would be fairer and more just to all directly concerned. From that point of view, I must couple Deputy Corry as the Minister's twin: his sole object seems to be something that will suit the Minister, on the one hand, and himself on the other, irrespective of the needs and wishes of others directly concerned in both North-East and South Cork.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 13.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Cotter, Edward.
  • Crowley, Honor M.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Mick.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Donegan, Batt.
  • Dooley, Patrick.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Galvin, John.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Johnston, Henry M.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • MacCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maher, Peadar.
  • Medlar, Martin.
  • Millar, Anthony G.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Moloney, Daniel J.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Toole, James.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Teehan, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.

Níl.

  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Carroll, James.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, Denis.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • Norton, William.
  • Russell, George E.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Tierney, Patrick.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman. Níl: Deputies Kyne and McAuliffe.
Question declared carried.
South-West Cork.
Question proposed: "That the entry stand part of the Schedule."

Would the Minister explain why he has decided to annex the town of Macroom and present it as a Danzig, sitting in mid-Cork but no longer the capital of mid-Cork, and transferred to the South-West? It will now be joined by a very attenuated link to the South-West constituency. If he was obliged to seek additional population for the South-West constituency, would he explain the reasons that activated him in this decision?

The Deputy, in the latter part of his contribution, has given the reason why Macroom and other parts of mid-Cork had to go. About 7,500 of a population was required to bring up the numbers in the old West-Cork constituency to a point where it would be regarded in law as justifying three members. That is the reason it comes about.

Will the Minister appreciate that whoever the Deputies are for that constituency, they will have to pass through Macroom, unless Macroom can, by some miracle, succeed in electing someone from the town. It will, therefore, be on very rare occasions that a Deputy elected for the constituency will have any associations with the out-flung portions of the constituency. Has the Minister examined any other possibilities in trying to increase the population of that constituency, other than taking over what was known as the capital of mid-Cork and putting it into the South-West Cork constituency?

Of course in regard to any changes now before the House, many alternatives other than those put to the House have been considered. It was my duty to do so. You cannot merely deal with this as if it were squares on graph paper. Populations in various villages and townlands are not the same in any two such entities. The result is you have to move them around. This has been done in order to conform with the requirements of the law in this respect. Each and every division that has been made was made after many alternatives had come under review.

I should like to refer to this suggestion about the capital of mid-Cork. We have heard at some length about the other three entities outside the borough of Cork. We have almost three autonomous local authorities, amounting to nearly three county councils. Now it is being conveyed to us that we have two capitals in County Cork. I deplore these changes more than anyone else in this House. I dislike them and disagree with them, but I am conforming to the dictates of the High Court and all I can say to the Deputies who complain about it is that it is a pity they did not lend their weight in the courts when this matter was under consideration there.

I am amazed at the Minister and the Deputies behind him that they are so loath to refer to the existence of a Constitution in this country. We hear from them of the court's decision but they would like us to forget that there is a Constitution and that the court was interpreting the Constitution. We did not draw up the rules of the game but, as an Opposition Party, when we see a foul being committed, we shall blow the whistle.

As a Deputy from West Cork, I am with the Minister in this. Heretofore, I had to go through the town of Macroom to get to the extreme end of my constituency in Ballyvourney, Timoleague and Courtmacsherry. Now, as a result of the change, Macroom and the area around it is in my constituency and it looks quite a natural decision. I welcome it and I welcome Macroom into West Cork area where it was before. I can tell the people of Macroom that they will be well looked after.

There is no reason for Deputy Wycherley to get mixed up in his geography. We can forgive the Minister but I am surprised at Deputy Wycherley, who never loses his way around West Cork or on the road to Dublin, saying that he cannot get into Ballyvourney or Timoleague or Courtmacsherry without going through Macroom. Deputy Wycherley must know the onus is on him to attend to the requirements of Courtmacsherry and the other areas in the West Cork Board of Health area and should the rest of us in the West Cork area attempt to look after the welfare of the people in the Timoleague area, the Deputy would very soon tell us to keep out. Why he should wish to spread his wings towards Macroom, I do not know. Deputy Corry has probably done a little poaching there already.

Because of the natural line of demarcatation in West Cork, any change should be eastwards. That is an area within the confines of the West Cork Board of Health area. There is no excuse for the Minister or his new colleague, Deputy Wycherly, to move off in a north-easterly direction and call the new constituency South-West Cork. Why they called it "south," I do not know. The facts are plain for the Minister to see. The figures are there to support our case. He has brought Bengour into the Bandon area and he has proceeded north-east to Macroom but he made sure, for some reason or another, that he has left Courtmacsherry in the Mid-Cork area. There is no reason for it. The Minister cannot now say that the onus is on us to show where he is wrong because it is quite obvious to us that, whatever onus is imposed on the Minister, he has no intention of changing the mood he is in today in order to give fair play to the people of West-Cork.

Deputy Wycherley may not have examined the delineation of the new constituencies closely because he seems to be under the impression that the rural area around Macroom was in the north constituency. The situation is that Clondrohid, which lies midway between Macroom and Ballyvourney will be in Mid-Cork but both Ballyvourney and Macroom will be in South-West Cork. The fall of the country, as we say, into Macroom, to the north and to the east, will be in Mid-Cork, but the town will be in South-West Cork. We know of an occasion when a colleague of Deputy Corry became a bit mixed up about the confines of his constituency and we would not like Deputy Wycherley to have that experience.

As far as I can see the line is straightforward enough, right through, and I do not know where Deputy O'Sullivan got his line. I suggest he goes down to the Library and looks at the map.

I know every mile of the road.

We are all complaining that there is a bit gone here, and a bit gone there and another corner taken from here and that that makes all the difference as to whether we will get back again or not. That seems to be the whole upset. Cork is a very big county and, after all, the Minister has given way to the appeals made here when the question of single constituencies was before the House and when Deputies were appealing for large constituencies. Cork had only three-seat constituencies up to then and the Minister has given way that much to make certain of Deputy O'Sullivan——

What about P.R.? What had he in mind then?

We saw a lot of maps then.

I do not see how the Minister could preserve the position in any other way in West Cork without directing 6,000 or 7,000 voters into it. He had to do that to preserve it. We have this argument about why not take them off this corner or that corner but, after all, each Party can have candidates in each of those constituencies and, if it is not good for one candidate in one Party, it is good for another candidate. I see that Deputy M.P. Murphy is not here. Why in his absence should people try to wipe out Macroom——

What about Councillor Finn?

I can assure the Deputy that in whatever area Councillor Finn stands on the work he did——

I do not see how that arises.

I cannot help the interruptions, Sir. Please do not blame me. I know there are a lot of Deputies who are afraid of their lives that Councillor Finn——

The names of candidates may not be discussed on this measure.

But this is an "every-man-for-himself" Bill.

Cork Deputies should try to realise that there are other Deputies in the House besides themselves.

To be fair to everybody I cannot see where the 6,000 votes would be got more conveniently than in Macroom. I know the minds of the Macroom people and I am sure they will welcome Deputy Wycherley. They will be delighted to see him there. I cannot see where the line would otherwise come in. As far as Deputy O'Sullivan is concerned, he realised the difference very quickly and became a member of a local authority as fast as he could. But I do not see where that big difference comes in. A Deputy is elected to do a particular job in this House. As far as Macroom is concerned, although it was in North Cork, up to now it was in South Cork for local authority business so I cannot see any difference from its being shifted. When it was wholly represented by the North Cork Deputies it still had to do its work through Father Mathew Quay in Cork City, as far as local authority work was concerned. Therefore I cannot see that it makes any difference. I am sure Deputy Wycherley will make a good representative.

The Minister complains that he is the victim of a judgment of the Courts.

I did not.

The Minister did.

I merely outlined the position in which I find myself.

The Minister spoke of himself as being the victim——

I did not. I have not said I was a victim of anything at all. I merely outlined the position in which I find myself in bringing this Bill before the House.

The Minister spoke of himself as being a victim.

I did not say I was a victim.

At any rate, we are the victims now.

The Minister says that he did not say it.

The Minister says he did not say it. I do not necessarily adopt any statements that fall from him.

The Deputy must accept it.

Let the records accept it. The Minister's difficulties have been passed on to us here and the Minister's tears. Whatever toil he has been forced to, he may have some satisfaction in seeing the way Deputies have to knock their heads together to try to get rid of some of their difficulties.

We are not here talking principally of constituencies. We are talking of Parliamentary representation. The work we are doing here in relation to the Electoral Bill is for the purpose of ensuring that we have a representative Parliament here. The difficulties that Deputies in Cork and elsewhere have, and the labour and toil of Ministers, arise out of the fact that the spirit in which our people wanted to set up a Parliament has been deliberately departed from and has been thwarted in every possible way. What we wanted was a Parliament in which the various sections of the people, geographically and in relation to their classes, vocations and interests, would be fairly represented by their fair, free and equal vote and the Constitution that it planned for itself. It was the idea of a Party moving to get a Party machine here as Parliament rather than a representative Assembly that gave us the position in which the basis of proportional representation was wiped out, when the scheme was devised of imagining proportional representation as reduced to 3-member constituencies, 4-member constituencies and so on. We are just simply trying to build a representative Parliament on a basis that has been very radically interfered with by electoral legislation dealing with constituencies.

That is the position of difficulty here and that is the difficulty that we are in in finding an Electoral Bill put down as a patchwork quilt that might to some extent bring our minds back to West Cork when, in our wanderings in the Gaeltacht and elsewhere, we saw the patchwork quilts that were made, not necessarily with patches of equal size, but of big patches and small patches. We are discussing this matter because the groundwork upon which the idea of Parliamentary representation was based has been radically interfered with, first, by making four-member and three-member constituencies as the basis of electoral law and then proceeding to try even to wipe out any kind of proportional representation by coming down to single member constituencies with a vote in them that would practically wipe out the majority will of our people by having a situation like you have in some of the British by-elections taking place at the present time where a man getting 15,000 votes can get a seat as against 25,000 votes cast for two other candidates in the constituency. That is where the Minister's tears and toil come from. The Minister is, in fact, a victim, a victim of a policy that has been pursued by a Party in this country to wipe out the representative basis of our Parliament.

After hearing fully explained to me just what is the matter with me, I might leave it at that but I am afraid I do not quite agree with the dissertation that has been given as to what is the matter with all of us.

Deputy Mulcahy says that fair representation is the idea in the Constitution, with which I fully agree. Equal votes is a principle which, as I have indicated, as now dictated by the interpretation of the law, which we fully accept as an interpretation of the Constitutional requirement, I do not think is possible down to the last degree which Deputy Mulcahy appears to feel should be there.

The margin is left in the Constitution as between 20,000 and 30,000.

That is not what we have been talking about, in any sense of the word. The 20,000 and 30,000 as referred to in the Constitution does not refer to equal votes or fixed seat; it refers to population heads. It is on that basis that I say that no matter how you equate the population figures, it does not follow from that equation that the strength of the vote in any one area is absolutely equal and identical to the strength of the vote in another area.

The complaint also is made that P.R. is being defeated in that the constituencies have been reduced to small sizes of three and four seats. Has Deputy Mulcahy considered that in this Bill the number of these small number constituencies to which he takes severe objection has in fact been quite drastically reduced and that this Bill will, in fact, go a long way to meet his argument that the small-number constituencies are defeating P. R.? This Bill should be quite a consolation to him because we are, in fact, reducing the number of small-number constituencies very considerably. I trust the Deputy will appreciate that his anxiety in this regard is in fact relieved to some considerable degree for the future, by this Bill, if it goes through.

The Minister might extend his operations in that way.

I think even the Deputy will agree that we have done a fair bit in this regard to meet his point of view as now expressed in that we have reduced the number of three-seaters, as in the 1947 Act, from 22 to 17. That is not a bad start. If we were to progress in that direction, no doubt we would find ourselves after two or three enactments such as this over the years that lie ahead, having five or six counties bunched together and 13 or 14 seats being competed for by maybe 100 candidates at a general election, which I take it is the logical conclusion to the idea of fair representation as intended by proportional representation.

It would have some reflection on the economic progress we foresee.

It is in line with the argument advanced here that if small number constituencies are being created and perpetuated, it is defeating P.R. in that the minority elements in various regions are not getting an opportunity of getting themselves elected. The logical sequence to that is that we create regional constituencies, provincial constituencies, and that we all compete for 20 or 30 seats and that every sort of small minority, no matter how much of the crank element it may contain, will in fact get an opportunity, at the expense of the convenience of all the rest of the people, to get themselves elected here.

I should like to ask members of the House, since the matter is now raised, what do they foresee, if that were the type of Parliament that ultimately came to be elected here? If we merely had that type of mixed element, where there were no two having the same view about anything, we would never have a Parliament; we would not have a Government for more than a month at a time. I do not think even Deputy Mulcahy wants that situation to develop.

As I have said before, no matter what sort of Bill is introduced here, no matter by which Minister or under what Government, dealing with the revision of constituency boundaries, it will not be unanimously accepted in all its details. My predecessor in the last Government, Deputy O'Donnell, on a Stage of the 1959 Bill made a similar statement from the Opposition Benches, and I make it now from the Government Benches, that it is just not possible to get unanimity on a matter such as this where personalities and their constituencies are being affected.

We hear talk about boundaries being broken. There are district and board of health boundaries. There are provincial boundaries, county boundaries, town boundaries, borough boundaries, electoral area boundaries, rural district boundaries, district electoral division boundaries, townland boundaries and, if you go into the cities, you are likely to get even street boundaries. There are parish boundaries and barony boundaries. I cannot see anyone being able to introduce legislation here without being charged with violating one or other of those known boundaries. There are so many boundaries that are not coterminous that, no matter what constituency boundaries are drawn, the charge can be made and well-founded that some other boundary has been broken.

The learned judge, in his judgment on this case, made it clear that these matters were not of real importance, that they were to be ignored if they interfered with the Constitution as he saw it outlined. County boundaries were not even to be considered. It was a good idea if it was possible to use them, but county boundaries could be changed by the Minister or the Government, changed to suit the constituencies rather than the constituencies changed to suit the boundaries. I do not agree with all that, but the fact is I accept it fully because it is the interpretation of the requirements of the Constitution which I also accept and respect.

That situation makes things awkward and there is nobody for whom they have been made more awkward than for myself who, as Minister for Local Government, had to return to the House with another Bill as expeditiously as possible having had the 1959 Bill passed, which although it did not suit everybody could not be said to be objectionable and which in my estimation, was the most acceptable Bill that any Minister could put before the House on a matter such as this. Whether I agree personally with the interpretation of the Constitution is immaterial. I am putting these matters to the House against that background. We must realise that it would be humanly impossible to produce a Bill on this subject which would be unanimously accepted by the House.

Do I understand the Minister to state that city boundaries or county boundaries do not matter, that he is governed by mathematical factors regardless of everything else? It is hard to reconcile that with his statement this morning that he gave every consideration to city boundaries or borough boundaries. Apart from the electoral factors concerned, how in future will the G.A.A. be able to pick a team to represent a county, not to mind a province, if we are to accept the Minister's statement that all these boundary considerations must be swept away and that this question must be put on a mathematical basis? I would ask the Minister to consult his advisers and instead of taking 20,000 from one section and putting it into another, to get a more satisfactory unit of representation for the people we are supposed to consider.

I concede that the Minister acted properly in regard to his last Bill which I understand had the approval of the Opposition and to which he acquiesced on the direct representation of the Opposition. However, if a certain thing happened to upset that I only want to be satisfied so that I can keep the Minister in the high esteem in which he would wish me to keep him, and so that I can tell the people who are affected that it was done because he had to sweep all boundary considerations aside and not because as has been suggested, it is a good thing to reduce the number of three-seat constituencies. It has been suggested by Deputy Corry that even an atheist could get in in a five-seat constituency. I do not know whether that would have any effect on the Minister.

That was in Cork.

The Deputy should confine himself to what is before the House which is a discussion on the South-West constituency of Cork.

I accept that. I am merely saying that the last submission of the Minister is in complete discord with his submission this morning when he was dealing with the constituency with which I was concerned.

In fact it is not and if what I have said has given that impression I would like to correct it. What I have just said in regard to the sweeping away of boundary considerations and everything else must be taken against the background of the requirements of the Constitution as outlined by the judgment in the court. If that is necessary all these things can and must be swept away. Where it is desirable and possible to maintain certain boundaries and still keep within the strict terms of that judgment, I have tried to do that. The over-riding factor is the interpretation of the constitutional requirement in these matters. Where there were variations, the consideration I have mentioned had to predominate. Where it was possible to give some credence to the other considerations and to maintain those boundaries, I endeavoured to do so, always remembering that the Constitutional requirements as per the judgment in the court must predominate and that anything that interfered with it must go.

Mr. Ryan

I did not intend to intervene at this stage, but two remarks uttered in the past twenty minutes provoked me to speak. Deputy Carroll suggested that the Opposition gave their blessing to the 1959 Electoral Bill. The fact is that on at least two occasions the Fine Gael Party voted against the Government. The only reason there was not a third division was that on Second Stage the Taoiseach gave a specific undertaking that he would examine the possibilities with regard to the two spare seats and it was hoped, at that stage, that something might be done about the disparity between Dublin and the eastern seaboard. On Fifth Stage, the Fine Gael Party voted solidly against the Government.

They voted with them today.

Mr. Ryan

I do not know what happened on some local issue. There is a big difference between the 1959 Bill and the 1961 Bill. It is not the ruling of the High Court—which Fianna Fáil love to recite—but the 1937 Constitution——

We are discussing the South-West Cork constituency.

Mr. Ryan

I know. The Minister has justified his proposals in this Bill on the decision of one man in the High Court, when he knows that it was the decision of the Irish people who voted under the Constitution over a period of 40 years. That is what confines us to the principle of equality of voting power. That is what the Minister is endeavouring to achieve. He has done so within the law on this occasion, but he has, of course, arranged the borders to suit his own interests.

As representation in South-West Cork is the subject of debate at the moment, I should like to make it clear to Deputy Carroll that far from the Fine Gael Party voting with the Government this morning, the Government in fact were voting with the Fine Gael Party. Let me qualify that. When the 1959 Bill was before the House, the Fine Gael Party moved that a seat be not taken from Cork. The Whips were applied by the Government in support of the removal of one seat from Cork County, and with their majority they carried the day. It was a Constitutional provision that gave an opportunity for a second look at that matter, and they found they had to restore the seat to Cork. For that reason, we thought it proper that we should support the Government at least in their intention. They should never have attempted to remove one of the seats to which Cork was entitled.

There seems to be quite a bit of divergence as to what actually happened at the time. The record shows that the division on the overall acceptability of the 1959 Bill was taken on Fifth Stake. The other two divisions were on the internal matter of where the two floating seats were to go. As Minister, I put down three amendments: that one seat should go to South-East Dublin, one to Wexford and one to Cork. The catch was that there were only two seats.

Deputy O'Sullivan is wrong in saying that he voted against a seat being taken from Cork. The fact is that when it came to the amendment on the Order Paper relating to Cork, he failed to get support in this House to carry that amendment. It is not quite true so to say that fine Gael opposed the seat being taken from Cork. They did not divide on that issue; they did not vote on that issue. In fact, the general vote was taken on the Fifth Stage of the 1959 Bill.

Did the Minister not meet private delegations on the subject?

If the Minister were to disclose all the delegations he meets, there would be a flock of red faces in the House at the moment.

Mr. Ryan

The Taoiseach intervened on Second Stage and he tried— I do not use the word offensively; I use it for want of a better word—to buy off opposition to the Second Stage by making a specific promise that he would consider the matter.

With regard to buying off opposition, the House should not forget that there were still two seats to be allocated. They were claimed respectively by Cork, Wexford and Dublin and in deference to the opinion expressed by the Opposition, I put down three official amendments on Committee Stage, suggesting that a seat would be added to each of the three. The first two amendments were taken and carried. The third amendment was not moved—it could not be moved because there was no seat left —and a vote was taken on Fifth Stage on the whole Bill.

In the Seanad, from which emanated the action taken and of which the man who was ultimately the instrument whereby the matter came before the courts is a member—I do not intend to reflect on him in any way—no vote was taken. No vote was challenged in the Seanad. I believe that that Bill was as near to an acceptable Bill as it would be possible to get on a matter such as this. That does not mean that Fine Gael had not views or that individuals had not views, but by and large, it was fairly well accepted.

It is true, too, that during the passing of the Bill through the House, the Leader of the Opposition, while he had reservations, said that he agreed with the intention of the Bill. I cannot imagine why the belief is now growing up and being perpetuated that Fine Gael opposed the 1959 Bill tooth and nail, and that it was objectionable to them from the first kick-off. The records do not show that. Fine Gael should stop trying to perpetuate the myth that they were, in fact, totally opposed to that measure all along.

Furthermore, I should like to suggest also that the 1937 constitutional provision in relation to this matter was very nearly—and, in fact, in its interpretation was held to be—the same as the provision in the 1922 Constitution. For anyone to say now that a short few years ago people did this, that or the other thing in regard to this Constitution, and also having regard to the fact that the same mistake, which is said to have been contained in the 1959 Act, was also in the 1947 Act, the 1935 Act and the 1923 Act——

Mr. Ryan

It was getting worse all the time.

Our difficulties in setting out these areas have been getting worse also, but little regard is had for that at the moment. It is a fact that if we accept that the 1959 Act was wrong, then all the other Acts since the foundation of the State were also wrong.

We are an unconstitutional body, so?

That depends on how you look at it.

The Minister has just admitted it.

I am suggesting that the present situation obtains with regard to the Constitution which was enacted by the people. The matters which are now objected to as having been drawn up under the 1922 Constitution would have been misleading to the people in 1937, they not knowing the real legal interpretation of the Constitution under which they had operated previously.

There has been a lot of talk here about the Third Amendment of the Constitution and trying to get small constituencies. It was sought to show that we were inconsistent in trying to get the people to accept the idea of small constituencies and then proposing large constituencies. That is a misleading argument. We believed in the other matter. I still believe in it. That is not the point. The people did not accept it. Therefore, we accepted their verdict and reverted to what we have had for many years. We proceeded along those lines rather than try to defeat the people's wishes by insisting on our own beliefs. There is nothing inconsistent about that. We are adhering to the law of the land as enacted by the people through their Constitution and interpreted by the Courts of Justice set up under that Constitution. If that seems to diverge from the opinions we expressed when we went to the country on the Third Amendment of the Constitution, it is because we are abiding by the law of our own people interpreted through our courts.

You do not know whether it is in accordance with the Constitution or not yet.

Could we get a little closer to the constituency of South-West Cork?

Does the Minister realise the importance of portion of his statement? The Minister stated he tabled three amendments. Did he? One was tabled for Wexford and another for Dublin, but where was the one for Cork? Did the Minister himself move the amendment for Wexford? I am amazed that the Minister should lead the House in that direction.

I shall obey the Chair and come back to the matter before the House. It strikes me as strange that the Minister has completely deviated from what is before us. Is that merely to suit his own case? I tried to put my case as well as I could and deal with the South-West Cork constituency. The Minister quoted the views expressed by a learned judge. I am glad the Minister corrected himself. As far as I am aware, that was a case of going beyond certain boundaries where that was necessary. The Minister has not made any attempt whatever to justify his going outside the set boundaries in West Cork. Over the centuries, those boundaries have been known to all of us, and they bring into West Cork the areas I mentioned previously. That area, coupled with Enniskean, would give the Minister the population figures in West Cork required by the Constitution. The Minister recited for us certain actions in the past. Will he now explain why he found it necessary to extend the constituency beyond the natural boundaries when there was no justification for doing so?

That was answered at the outset, but perhaps it was clouded by what took place afterwards. We broke that boundary in order to add 7,000 or 8,000 to the population, as required by the Constitution and by the court in their interpretation of it. The Deputy wants to know where was the amendment in regard to Cork in the 1959 Act. It was on the Order Paper.

Put down by whom?

By myself, the Minister for Local Government.

And moved by?

Wait, now. Let us not cloud this issue. There were three amendments. Two of them were moved and carried, and the third could not be moved because the House carried the other two. Once the two had been carried, there was no seat left that could be given. Therefore, the amendment was not moved.

I deeply regret all this, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but surely we must protect ourselves against these statements? The Minister knows that at one stage the Taoiseach made it clear he was prepared to have a free vote within the Fianna Fáil Party. But he then decided not to allow a free vote of his own members. The Minister, in moving the amendment for Wexford, knew that the majority in this House would have to answer the Whip of the Taoiseach's Party. However, I am not interested in the past. The Minister still evades my question. He states that, because of certain factors which had to be taken into account, he had to go outside the boundaries of West Cork. Will the Minister answer one fair question? What are the population figures for the electoral areas of Enniskean, Timoleague, Court-macsherry and Barryroe? They are within the confines of the constituency we know now as Mid-Cork. Mid-Cork could have carried on without them as I pointed out here last year. In view of the fact that the population of those electoral areas would give West Cork the necessary numbers, why does the Minister say he was compelled to go outside the boundaries of West Cork? He is refusing to admit that he has left out of his calculations an area actually within the boundary of West Cork.

On a number of occasions, the Minister mentioned that the courts had decided the previous Bill was unconstitutional. The courts did not decide any such thing. One court and one judge decided it, not the courts. The Minister implied that we had gone through the entire legal process. We did not. In fact, the judge stated that he expected and hoped the case would be appealed. It does not follow, therefore, that the old Bill was unconstitutional. That has never been proved.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 63 63; Níl, 6.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Johnston, Henry M.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • MacCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Cotter, Edward.
  • Crowley, Honor M.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Mick.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Donegan, Batt.
  • Dooley, Patrick.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Galvin, John.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Maher, Peadar.
  • Medlar, Martin.
  • Millar, Anthony G.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Moloney, Daniel J.
  • Mooney, Patrick.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Toole, James.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Teehan, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Wycherley, Florence.

Níl

  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Norton, William.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Tierney, Patrick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl, Deputies Kyne and Tierney.
Question declared carried.
Entry relating to the constituency of North-East Donegal agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of South-West Donegal agreed to.
Dublin.
Question proposed: "That the entry stand part of the Schedule."

There is an amendment in relation to this constituency but I understand that the general matter of Dublin was discussed earlier today.

Amendment No. 4 was discussed with amendment No. 2 this morning.

Was some understanding come to with regard to it?

Further consideration is being given to all three amendments. They are interrelated.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.
Question put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of East Galway agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of West Galway agreed to.
North Kerry.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 8, in the second column of the entry relating to North Kerry, to delete the word "Crinny" and insert the words "Cordal, Crinny, Derreen."

The purpose of this amendment is to put the electoral divisions of Cordal and Derreen into North Kerry. As some Deputies may have noticed, it was indicated in the memorandum circulated that these areas were in fact covered in the Bill. I am asking the House now to rectify the departure from what was intended and to incorporate these areas in North Kerry. The reason we are doing that is that, in taking the Dingle peninsula and a few other electoral divisions from North Kerry, we had taken more population from North Kerry than was necessary. It is desirable to redress that imbalance by taking a little bit out of South Kerry to compensate for the excess taken from North Kerry, in the first instance.

Amendment agreed to.
Question "That the entry, as amended, relating to the constituency of North Kerry stand part of the Schedule" agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of South Kerry agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Kildare agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Laoighis-Offaly agreed to.
East Limerick.
Question proposed "That the entry stand part of the Schedule."

Why did the Minister not stick to the boundaries set out in the 1959 Act? They were in accord with the provisions of the Constitution.

I would say that the ratios now are better than they were then.

What does the Minister mean by better?

More nearly equated.

Better for whom?

Better for the Constitution.

On several occasions, the Minister stated he was in favour of as little disturbance as possible of existing boundaries. In the case of East and West Limerick, his anxiety in that regard would be met if he left the constituency boundaries as set out in the 1959 Act. They conformed with the provisions of the Constitution. Over-representation in West Limerick, according to the 1959 Act, was only five per cent. and under-representation in East Limerick was only .2 per cent. The Minister has now decided to transfer three additional electoral divisions from East Limerick to West Limerick and for some reason—perhaps I can guess what the reason is—he has decided to transfer two electoral divisions from West Limerick into East Limerick. Would it not be simpler to leave the 1959 arrangement stand?

The fact is we could not leave the 1959 arrangement stand. West Limerick's ratio per Deputy was too low. It was a question of redrawing the boundary and not a question of leaving it as it was in the 1959 Act. We have now a better ratio and one which comes within the general national tolerance of divergence.

If West Limerick is too low, why did the Minister transfer two electoral divisions out of it into East Limerick? It seems a rather odd proceeding if it was already underpopulated.

Does the Deputy want them in his constituency?

That is not the question.

As far as this matter is concerned, I do not know of any real boundaries existing in the West Limerick constituency. There have been three votes on supposedly inviolable boundaries in Cork county, and I am beginning to wonder if there are such boundaries in every county and if they must be adhered to. I have improved the ratio from 19,062 under the 1959 Act to 19,415 under the 1961 proposal. That is within the term of the ratios throughout the rest of the country. Whereas West Limerick's 19,062 under the 1959 proposal would not get by, and would be open to a better case being made against it, it is now being put beyond question.

The Minister has not answered my question. I am still at a loss to know why two electoral divisions are being taken out of a lower population constituency and being transferred into a higher population constituency. The Minister may have reasons for doing it, but they are not such as to bring it within the Constitution.

Every last sentence in this Schedule can be queried on an individual basis, and I could still raise queries after you have finished raising them, but what would be the point?

It is obvious that the Minister does not intend to answer my question, and there is no use labouring the point.

Question put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of West Limerick agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Longford-Westmeath agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Louth agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of North Mayo agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of South Mayo agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Meath agreed to.
Monaghan.
Question proposed: "That the entry stand part of the Schedule."

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 10, in the second column of the entry relating to Monaghan, to insert the word "former" before the words "Rural District of Ardee No. 1."

The word "former" appears before the name of every rural district in the Schedule. It was omitted in this instance through error, and the amendment is merely a drafting amendment to put in the word "former" as in the other parts of the Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.
Question: "That the entry, as amended, relating to the constituency of Monaghan stand part of the Schedule" agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Roscommon agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Sligo-Leitrim agreed to.
North Tipperary
Question proposed: "That the entry stand part of the Schedule."

It is important to note that the register that has now been issued is intended to include an extra number of persons who have reached the age of 21 since September last. It would have been thought that the numbers on the register would show some increase. If we take the part of South Tipperary that it is proposed to transfer to North Tipperary, on the figures issued by the Minister, it is suggested that the estimated electorate that would thus be transferred would be 1,531. Actually, when we look at the register that has now been issued, the number of persons on that register who are Dáil electors will be 1,459. When we compare the register for 1959-60, which is the only one which I have conveniently at hand, we find that so far from there being an increase in the number of Dáil electors on the new register in the area that is now being transferred there is an actual decrease.

In fact, the register in respect of the area now being transferred from South Tipperary to North Tipperary will show a fall of about three per cent. in the number of electors in spite of the fact that it ought to show an increase. That is important to comment on, in so far as it reflects the position as regards the electorate. I hope that is not a foreshadow of a shadow that seems to have been on the Minister's mind when he was painting the picture of what might happen. I do not know what the overall position is likely to be as that is only a small area.

That is this year's publication?

That is the register just out and it shows a fall of three per cent.

In this particular area?

In the area that is being transferred from South Tipperary to North Tipperary.

Question put and agreed to.
South Tipperary.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 11, in the second column of the entry relating to South Tipperary after "except" to insert "the parts thereof which are comprised in the county constituencies of North Tipperary and Waterford" and to delete "the part thereof which is comprised in the county constituency of North Tipperary;

and, in the administrative county of Waterford, the district electoral divisions of:

Ballymacarbry, Graignagower, Gurteen, Kilmacomma, Kilronan, St. Mary's, in the former Rural District of Clonmel No. 2:

Dromana, Dromore, in the former Rural District of Dungarvan:

Ballyduff, Ballyhane, Ballyin, Ballynamult, Ballysaggartmore, Cappoquin, Castlerichard, Drumroe, Gortnapeaky, Kilcockan, Kilwatermoy East, Kilwatermoy West, Lismore Rural, Lismore Urban, Mocollop, Modelligo, Tallow, in the former Rural District of Lismore:

Templemichael, in the former Rural District of Youghal No. 2."

and in the third column to delete "Four" and substitute "Three".

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are consequential. The object of both is to get the Minister to consider the existing position in both constituencies. The Bill proposes to give South Tipperary four seats and Waterford three, the reverse of the present position. My amendment is not put down through any ill-will towards South Tipperary but because of the fact that the Minister is held within the confines of a High Court ruling which directs him to allocate a certain number of seats on population figures. As I see it, the Minister, when forced to face this problem of dealing with South Tipperary, North Tipperary and Waterford, found himself in the position that he had to give North Tipperary three seats and that it became imperative to transfer different areas as between South Tipperary and Waterford. Had he dealt with the whole of the county of Tipperary alone, I would have no quarrel with him. That would have been the natural way to deal with the problem with which he was faced.

Having dealt with Tipperary, he then had to decide as between South Tipperary and Waterford and to consider how many seats should be allocated to each area. He had also to conform with the ruling of the High Court. Looking at it from that point of view, according to the 1956 census on which this Bill is based we find that Waterford had a population of 74,031 as compared with South Tipperary's 73,780— a difference in Waterford's favour of over 300. Anybody contesting a Dáil constituency will know how vital such a majority can be sometimes.

Why, faced with these figures which he admitted here on April 29th, 1960, should the Minister ignore them and give South Tipperary the extra seat? Deputy Mulcahy has told us that, in the transfer of part of South Tipperary to North Tipperary, 1,531 voters were affected. I am quite sure that represents a population of 3,500. Therefore, in looking at South Tipperary in comparison with Waterford, the Minister will see immediately that the population of South Tipperary would then be not more than 70,000 people as against Waterford's 74,000. That brought up the majority in Waterford's favour to 4,000. Still the Minister, in his wisdom, ignored that fact also.

Then we come to another factor in Waterford's favour. The extension of the Waterford borough boundary added to the Waterford population a further 1,000 people, giving Waterford a population of 75,000 as against, as I said before, South Tipperary's 70,000. This new figure will take a lot of explaining, no matter how the Minister looks on it.

There is still another point which must be considered. Notwithstanding the High Court's decision, there entered into this matter the question of the majority of voters. In this case also, Waterford is far above South Tipperary. My belief is that Waterford has practically 2,000 more voters than has South Tipperary and if you add the 1,500 people mentioned by Deputy Mulcahy, you find that Waterford has 3,500 more voters than South Tipperary. Through the Waterford borough boundary extension, the official figures say Waterford benefited by an additional 398 voters. That would give Waterford nearly 4,000 more voters than South Tipperary.

Considering all these factors, I should be very grateful to the Minister if he would explain to me how he arrived at his rearrangement of these two constituencies. He spoke about the violation of natural boundaries. If that were the answer, I could understand it because one third of Waterford County was chopped off—earlier, I called it the rape of a county.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 2nd May, 1961.
Top
Share