Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 May 1961

Vol. 189 No. 4

Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1961—Fifth Stage.

I move that the Bill do now pass.

I should just like to say a few words on the last stage of this piece of legislation. This is, in all probability, the last appearance in Dáil Éireann of what I describe as the third effort to rig the Constitution in favour of a particular Party. The first effort was the effort to abolish proportional representation and it was beaten by the people. The second was the constitutional monstrosity that was passed a couple of years ago and that was beaten in the courts with one of the strongest judgments on a constitutional point that has ever come from these courts. The third is the legislation we have now before us. It is a piece of gerrymandering that is not so glaringly unconstitutional as the piece of legislation for which it is a substitute.

When I was speaking on the Fifth Stage of the 1959 Act I indicated that there were two ways in which the legislation might be challenged in the courts. One was at the instigation of a private citizen and, personally at the time when I was speaking, I did not think any citizen would take upon himself the hazard of the finances that would have to be put forward or supplied to get the matter discussed in the courts. However, a private citizen did take that action and, as I say, it resulted in a judgment which was so strong that the Government did not dare to challenge it in a higher court as they might have done.

On that occasion I said there was a second way in which the legislation might be discussed by the courts and that was if under the Constitution the President referred the legislation for an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court as to whether or not the legislation was constitutional. That had to be done within a limited time. When I was speaking on the Fifth Stage of the 1959 Act I said that I could not see how the President could be relied upon to refer that piece of legislation to the courts and, in fact, he did not so refer it.

I, personally, do not see how a President, who did not refer what I have called a constitutional monstrosity to the courts, can have any great inclination to refer the present legislation and, in fact, I do not think it will be done. At least, I hope it will not be done. I think we should resort again to the people. An election can finish this problem and we can put into the place of the present Government people who can be relied upon to draft legislation affecting constituencies with a clear conscience in accordance with the Constitution in a way that it will not be the plaything of a Party.

When I was speaking on the Second Stage of this Bill I indicated that as far as my view went there were three points that might be challenged with regard to the present legislation. The first was that, clearly, we were in default in not having passed this legislation inside a period of 12 years.

The Deputy, of course, knows that what falls for discussion is what is in the Bill.

I am speaking on what is in the Bill and what I said, that I think it is unconstitutional under three points. The first is the time within which it will be perfected. That will certainly not be inside the 12 year period the Constitution demands.

The second thing is, it is ordained by the Constitution that the constituencies should be determined in accordance with the last census. A census has been taken and according to statements in today's paper about 92 per cent of the returns had been collected by a date early in this month. No matter how many are collected, I suggest it is part of the court decisions in connection with electoral law that the census returns are ascertained on the night on which the census is itself taken and that, in fact, the census has been ascertained. Certainly, in accordance with the Irish phrase, the census has been taken. The present legislation takes no account of that.

The third, then, is the matter upon which the last Act was discarded as being unconstitutional, namely, whether the ratio between the number of people to be elected and the population in different areas is maintained the same throughout the whole country. On Second Stage I made reference to the calculations made by the Judge of the High Court who heard the last case. His calculation was that the whole thing depended, as far as rural areas were concerned, upon townlands and as far as cities were concerned upon streets. There is no difficulty in dividing streets. There is certainly no difficulty in dividing one side of a street from another. His calculation with regard to townlands was that the townland had a population of about 100 people and if, so to speak, the pawns that can be moved about represent pieces of the population numbering not more than 100, it is quite obvious that a better and nearer approach to the same margin could be made throughout the whole country. That margin has not been made the same throughout the whole country.

These are the points upon which the matter might be challenged. I do not think it will be challenged. Personally, as far as I am concerned, I would hope that it would not be challenged. I have no belief that the President who did not refer the last piece of legislation to the courts will refer this. The best we can hope for is to let the legislation go through, bad and all as it is, and let us proceed to the point of which it is a preliminary, namely, a general election, as a result of which we may be able to get some piece of electoral law which will be free from the condemnation passed upon this and its predecessor by most people—that it was an attempt to gerrymander constituencies in favour of a particular Party.

I want to make one or two observations on this Bill. It is not necessary now to recapitulate all the events surrounding the last Bill or the legal and other circumstances which brought about the introduction of the present Bill. One thing is clear, that is, that in many respects the present Bill is unsatisfactory. I do not say that the Government had many choices before them, having regard to the recent decision of the court on the previous Bill and having regard to the proximity of a general election.

We have now finally evolved a pattern of constituency representation which is probably worse than we have ever had in the past 40 years. Many constituencies have been carved in order to suit a judgment of the court. That court judgment is supposed to be a legal interpretation of the Constitution. If that legal interpretation of the Constitution is a correct one, that is, if it would be confirmed by the Supreme Court, then all our constituencies and all our Parliaments which have been elected under our Constitution have been illegal so long as the basis of representation in the Parliament was the same basis as was so vigorously denounced by the judge when he condemned the Act which we passed 15 months ago.

I do not suppose, however, that any serious consequence will flow from the fact that there were people sitting in this House who, in fact, were not entitled under the Constitution to sit here. I do not suppose any consequences can now flow from the fact that some constituencies had representatives here which they were not entitled to have or from the fact that some constituencies had less representation than they were entitled to have according to the legal opinion which has been expressed of our electoral law and of our constituency representation by the High Court recently.

We have now been left a kind of jigsaw puzzle in many respects so far as constituency representation is concerned. It has been an understandable pattern of representation here that constituencies, as far as possible, followed county boundaries and that in some instances constituencies followed two county boundaries and that in some instances constituencies followed two county boundaries or that where the county was considered to be too large for a single constituency, a well-established line of demarcation was drawn between the north and south or between the east and west. In the course of time these boundaries established themselves and were clearly understood. The compactness of the county, from the point of view of representation, was clearly discernible in the whole pattern.

Now, of course, we have departed from that. Pieces of constituencies have been grafted on to a main constituency. I quote an example, not from a personal point of view, but as an illustration of the mess we have now made of constituency representation. County Kildare was previously a three member constituency. It has now been made a four member constituency. That result has been arrived at by grafting portion of South Meath and portion of Westmeath on to Kildare, so that people of Westmeath and people of South Meath, to a fraction which makes their association with Kildare statistically insignificant from the point of view of influencing the overall representation of the constituency, have now been put into a constituency where I am quite certain they do not wish to be.

I have no doubt that the people of South Meath would prefer to remain in Meath. I have no doubt that the people of Westmeath would prefer to remain in Westmeath for the purpose of Parliamentary representation. But, under this Bill, under the legal judgment relating representation to population, we now get a situation in which the people of Meath, who always voted as a homogeneous unit in Meath, are now being carved up. Portion of them will remain in County Meath and another portion will be pushed into County Kildare for parliamentary considerations. The same applies to County Westmeath.

That has happened elsewhere. Deputy Kyne cited the case of Waterford where about one-third of the representation is being torn out and put into South Tipperary, portion of South Tipperary being pushed into North Tipperary. If one were to attempt a solution on the basis of causing the maximum dislocation, this seems quite a good scheme, but I am sure that when we sit back, we can all realise it is a great pity we have to resort to a method of representation like this. I do not blame the Government for this at all in the circumstances.

It is a legal judgement which has hit this Parliament like a tornado. Something had to be done quickly and this is the result, but, for heaven's sake, let us realise it is a catastrophic result from the point of view of strangling a large section of the electorate. I feel sure the people of Waterford now allocated to South Tipperary would prefer to remain in Waterford. That goes for Meath and Westmeath as well. We are engaged now in the last act of forcibly associating them with other counties, though they would prefer to remain with counties of which they are naturally and historically a part.

That is a great pity and while it may be difficult to alter it because of the legal position and the Constitution, I think it ought to be altered, even if so doing involves an amendment of the Constitution. The Constitution ought to be for the purpose of facilitating the nation's business. It ought to exist to help the nation, not to thwart it or to have the effect of breaking up, fragmenting and dividing entire communities.

The Deputy is going far outside the scope of the debate. He is complaining about the Constitution.

I cannot avoid referring to the Constitution since the justification for this Bill is in the Constitution. I am complaining about the Bill which is carving up well-established counties and associating small bits of counties with entire counties. That is not fair to the people who will be separated from what they regard as their natural units of association. Two years ago, we indulged in the luxury of endeavouring to amend the Constitution in order to get rid of proportional representation—a perfectly idiotic performance.

The Deputy is travelling far outside the scope of this measure.

I am not. I want to get this debate finished as quickly as possible.

The Deputy is taking a peculiar way of doing it.

What we ought to do, seeing that we are told the Constitution makes a Bill of this kind necessary, is to get together an all-Party committee to examine the mess in which we are now placed by the character of the constituencies emerging under this Bill and we should charge that committee, if necessary, with the responsibility, if need be, of altering the Constitution, of trying to evolve constituencies under proportional representation which will maintain the indivisible character of the counties and the constituencies as we have known them up to now. I hope this will be the last time we will have to look on at this mutilation of counties taking place in order to conform with the Constitution. The only way I can describe it is as a piece of lunacy.

Before the Bill was introduced, and after the High Court decision was given, I asked whether it was intended to submit this new Bill to the Supreme Court in order to get a certificate that it was in conformity with the Constitution. I did that in order to avoid the possibility that after the Dáil had passed this Bill and the Seanad had done likewise, some enterprising citizen, legislator or otherwise, might go back to the court and say: "Look here, this Bill does not do what the High Court judge said should be done and in any case there are other grounds for saying it is ultra vires the Constitution.” This might happen within a month of the general election. Then a judge might sit and discuss the matter at great length and give judgment for or against the Bill. It does not matter which, but there could be an appeal to the Supreme Court and in that case the Bill could be thrown into the melting-pot again by some enterprising gentleman whose name, win or lose, would go down in legal and parliamentary history.

I do not want that to happen. No greater certificate of its own incompetence could be written by this Parliament than that that should happen a month or so before the general election. What is being done to ensure that, the moment this Bill is passed by the Seanad, we will all know it conforms with the Constitution as the Constitution is at present written and we will not be all forced into a situation in which it may be possible, by the passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas, for some citizen to take action in the courts the effect of which might be to call the constitutionality of this Bill into question and that the last position might be worse than the first? I think, for the sake of Parliament, we ought to take steps to ensure, if the power be in our hands, that the court will pronounce as early as possible that this Bill complies with the Constitution.

The carving up of the constituencies that has occurred under this Bill is most undesirable. We have reverted to a system which we all thought we had done away with—the taking of a slice of one county and throwing it into another. Our county boundaries were very well defined and people within the counties felt themselves to be units or communities. It is a grave injustice to take portion of one county and put it in with another, as has happened in this case.

I am thinking of the position in Roscommon-Mayo. For a long number of years the people in that part of Roscommon have been accustomed to Roscommon Deputies in the Dáil. I do not think that it is fair to deprive Roscommon people of a Roscommon Deputy. However, such as it is, I suppose it has to stand for the next twelve years but the principal purpose that brought me to my feet was to ask the Minister if the Government would consider side by side with the coming general election the question of holding a referendum on the same day to alter the Constitution which has brought about this Bill.

We must take into account the declining population of the rural areas. If the trend continues, this House will soon be composed of a vast majority of members from a few cities, with a very thin representation from rural areas. I am sure that the Constitution never envisaged that. It is going to be grossly unfair to the rural parts of Ireland, particularly the West of Ireland. You must take into account the size of the area that a member of Dáil Éireann has to look after. The argument has been put up that the same should apply to city and country populations but I think that area should enter very largely into it also and that in rural constituencies a lesser population should have the power to elect a member to this House. That is the only point that brought me to my feet. I think that the Government would be well advised to consider a referendum on the Constitution to give fair representation to rural constituencies; otherwise, you will have a lop-sided House.

I should like to take this final opportunity of expressing my disapproval and condemnation of the action of the Minister in depriving Waterford Constituency in this Bill of a representative in Dáil Éireann. The Minister made much play in his Second Reading speech of the fact that this Bill was forced on him and that his natural desire was to give expression to the views of the rural constituencies by providing representation for them here in the Dáil in so far as it was possible, but now that the High Court Judge had come to his decision, he was bound by law to accept that. He also said that if he had his way he would be motivated—was motivated—by a desire to upset as little as possible the natural boundaries of counties or even of the cities.

I am afraid that I cannot give the Minister that solution which Deputy Norton has handed out; neither can I believe that the Minister has been motivated by anything other than to gerrymander for Party purposes the constituencies in this Bill. Nobody will convince me that there was no Party affiliation and no intention to achieve Party gain by the tearing of Waterford constituency—one-third of it—and putting it into South Tipperary. There is no argument that will convince me that that was not a political move dictated by a desire for political gain.

On the Second Reading I believed the Minister and I endeavoured to find a way of moving an amendment on the Committee Stage. I queried the Minister. I asked him was it not population that was the important fact and I pointed out that Waterford was more entitled on a population basis to a four-seat constituency than the neighbouring constituency of South Tipperary. To my amazement the Minister's answer was that because of the High Court decision, the 1959 Act was revoked and he had to go back to 1947. As if that changed the census of 1956! Notwithstanding the fact that he knew that the statistics returned by the Government Statistics Office showed the population of Waterford to be higher than that of South Tipperary, the Minister went back to the 1947 constituency of Waterford vis-á-vis Tipperary. It was ridiculous.

Notwithstanding that, on the Report Stage I endeavoured to save the Minister from a charge of gerrymandering. I gave him the opportunity of showing to this House and to all Ireland that he was not motivated by any political desire to gain advantage. I suggested an amendment that would unite Waterford and Tipperary and allow them the quota of seats to which they are entitled. Then he came across not with the High Court decision, not with the question of population, but with the suggestion that it was too large. When it was indicated to him that there were other constituencies under this Bill that were larger, more difficult to traverse, not as compact, the Minister had not a word to say beyond the fact that he was not going to do it.

Of course the Minister had his mind made up. What was to prevent the Minister seeking help from the various Parties? I challenge the Minister to say that he did not discuss this with the Deputies of his own Party to get their suggestions, and that he has ignored the other Parties. If it was not for political gain why did he seek that advice from the members of his own Party——

The Deputy is making a Second Reading speech.

All this is in the Bill because it is a result of this meeting about which I am talking. That is what made Waterford a three-seat constituency and South Tipperary a four-seat constituency.

The Deputy may speak only on what is in the Bill not on what influenced the Minister to do this.

These matters are in the Bill and surely I am entitled to ventilate them?

On Second Reading, yes.

I have done so now. I bow to your ruling. I shall ventilate these matters throughout the length and breadth of my constituency and I will have no Ceann Comhairle to stop me.

I voted for the Bill when it was introduced because I agreed in principle with the Bill. The Bill allows a greater number of seats to Dublin. I held Dublin was entitled to more seats and it was for that reason I gave evidence in court. The people who formerly lived in rural districts are now living in either England or Dublin. That is evidenced by the 1950 census: at that time, of the 500,000 people living in Dublin, 200,000 were born in the country. From the evidence I have now, I believe that the next census will disclose that 250,000 more people born in the country are now living in Dublin. Naturally, representation should follow. Although arguments were advanced that Deputies representing rural constituencies do more work I hold the opposite view. Because of the tremendous density of population here we are at the beck and call of people all the time. I support the Bill because it gives Dublin the representation to which Dublin is entitled.

I do not say that I agree with all the details of the Bill. Accusations have been made of gerrymandering. Possibly there has been a little of that, but I imagine any Party in power would indulge in it anyway because every Party naturally loves itself better than its enemies. Little changes will have to be made here and there to protect the principal henchmen of the Party. It would be fatal if one of the pillars went down because of some change. In that regard I should like to mention the case of Ballyfermot.

On a previous occasion the Minister tried to justify transferring Ballyfermot into County Dublin; he said that Ballyfermot was originally part of County Dublin. I said: "Yes, when it was green fields." In the past 12 years 30,000 houses have been built there and Ballyfermot is now part and parcel of Dublin City. Ballyfermot is represented on the Dublin Corporation. How silly can we be? Is it not just stupid to put Ballyfermot now out into County Dublin? In the last Bill Ballyfermot was brought into Dublin City. We should not forget that. The Minister recognised then that it was part and parcel of Dublin City. Having recognised that in the first Bill, he now changes his mind and puts it back into County Dublin. We ask ourselves why?

This great body of people will be disfranchised now. Their local representatives are in Dublin Corporation. But their local representatives will not now be able to stand for the Dáil in that area. There will be no municipal election for four years and no one will bother very much now about Ballyfermot. There is always an incentive which drives people. If Ballyfermot were included in the city area people would continue to fight hard for Ballyfermot. Now Ballyfermot is gone and the incentive is no longer there. In all probability the people elected to represent Ballyfermot will not come from Ballyfermot. The existing members do not live in Ballyfermot and from what I know those who will go up for election are not likely to be residents of Ballyfermot. They will live miles away from it. From the point of view of active representation Ballyfermot will be disfranchised. I know what I am talking about.

The Minister may argue once more that originally Ballyfermot was part of County Dublin. May I remind him now that so was Finglas, but Finglas is now brought into Dublin City? If Finglas is regarded as part of Dublin City why is not Ballyfermot also part of Dublin City? On the other hand, if Ballyfermot is part of Dublin County, then why is not Finglas part of Dublin County? There is one essential difference as between the two areas. Finglas is actually separated from the city by green fields. There are hundreds of them forming a dividing line. Whatever justification there might have been for leaving Finglas in County Dublin there is no justification for putting Ballyfermot back into County Dublin for Ballyfermot forms a continuous line of houses the whole way out. There was only one purpose obviously. I shall say no more.

I believe this Bill is open to challenge in the Courts. In the case of the last Bill the judge said he hoped it would go to the Supreme Court. He had a certain doubt, as one man will always have, but the Government did not go to the Supreme Court and we do not know for certain, therefore, whether or not this Bill is constitutional. It could happen that a month after the election a defeated candidate might challenge the Bill. If the same judgment is given in regard to this Bill, where are we then? We will be in the extraordinary position of sitting here legislating under an unconstitutional measure. I make the point for what it is worth. I shall say no more.

Generally, I support the Bill because it gives Dublin proper representation. I do not approve of all the details in the Bill. I am personally fairly satisfied though I wonder a little as to why Finglas East was brought in in the last Bill into my area. Now it is out. I am well got in Finglas. I do not know whether some of the boys thought they might be putting the skids under me. They have not, because in the area I shall represent under this measure I shall do even better. I got a great many votes from Finglas. I have lost Finglas. I am not complaining. It is difficult to know—it is damn suspicious —what motivates some people.

We must all appreciate the fact that the Minister had a number of difficulties to face in regard to this Bill. First, he had to conform with the requirements of the Constitution. Secondly, he had to conform as nearly as he could to the representation of the members of his own Party and ensure that this revolution, as someone described it here this afternoon, would not unseat more Fianna Fáil Deputies than could be helped. I do not blame him for that. Any Party in power would do the same. I think the present situation, however, highlights the urgent necessity there is for some form of permanent committee to preside over the rearrangement of constituencies whenever such rearrangement is necessary. Any Minister in any Party is naturally anxious not to damage in any way the representation of his own Party. He is also anxious to ensure that their interests will be protected. Charges of gerrymandering could be obviated if there were an all-Party committee functioning as a permanent institution in relation to the rearrangement of constituencies.

I do not know what the position will be with regard to the next revision of constituencies. According to the Constitution they should be revised at intervals of not more than 12 years. Will the next revision be dated from this 1961 Bill or from the unconstitutional Bill of 1959? I think that the constituencies should be revised at intervals of not more than ten years so that the revisions would coincide with the census which takes place every five years. We would then have a Dáil which would be more representative of the people than the Dáil we get by having the revisions in between the census periods. I think that this offers a good opportunity to the Minister to make certain amendments to the Constitution.

That would not arise on this stage of the Bill.

Would it not be possible to have a referendum concurrent with the next general election in which an all Party committee would agree to submit to the people certain amendments to the Constitution?

The only questions before the House are the matters contained in the Bill.

The reason I mention that is that one of the impracticalities that has emerged out of the present position is the fact that we are going to have, under the Constitution, constituencies of not fewer than three members. If we could have constituencies of fewer than three members, a great deal of the difficulty of the overlapping of county boundaries could be avoided. This would be a good opportunity, with a general election coming off in the near future, to ask the public to vote on changes recommended by an all-Party committee or any other necessary amendments of the Constitution which an all-Party committee might consider as desirable.

It seems as if we are going to have the same anomalies cropping up all over again unless something is done to put the matter right. The discussions on these two Bills have brought out the fact that the Constitution is not practicable in a number of its clauses. I supported the abolition of proportional representation. I still think that the straight vote is the best but the country thought otherwise and I have accepted that decision. There is a lot to be said for small, compact constituencies in both city and country and anything that the Minister could do to bring about that condition of affairs would be a good thing.

I do not want to delay the House, but, when I spoke on this matter before, it appeared that the Minister was of the opinion that I was under the wrong impression in so far as South-West Dublin was concerned. Deputy Sherwin, who is a north city Deputy, has mentioned Ballyfermot. Ballyfermot is in both my municipal area and my parliamentary area and I give most of the credit for the fact that I am the senior alderman of the City of Dublin to the people of Ballyfermot. I am sure I will be pardoned for assuming that I know Ballyfermot, that I know the people and their desires and that I know its geography as well as the Minister and possibly much better. I stated on the last occasion that 21,000 people were being taken from South-West Dublin and almost the same number from South-East notwithstanding the fact that, at the tip of the area, we had a large section taken out of South-West and put into South-East and again that a large section has been taken out of the South-West and put into the county.

I appreciate that the Minister and his advisers had to take away something because that is now a constituency which had too great a number of voters. We were one of the very places that had at least 15,000 people more in the 1956 census. I accept the Minister's statement that he was prevented from giving an extra seat to North-Central by the natural boundaries. In North-Central Dublin he did the same thing; he decided to take the first area adjacent to the Liffey out of the constituency. I reiterate, lest anyone is of the opinion that I did not know what I was talking about on the last occasion, that the Kilmainham Ward was always in the South-West constituency but that Ballyfermot was not. When one thinks that the people of Ballyfermot are from the liberties of Dublin, from the tenements of Dublin, one wonders why they should be put in with the county.

I said, when speaking here on the last occasion, that I wanted to feel that the Minister was not motivated in this matter by any factor other than figures and mathematics. According to what he has done, or what he has been advised to do, he would not get a pass, not to mention honours, in mathematics. I accept the position. It has its compensations. It is difficult to speak dispassionately but I want to assure the Minister that I accept the changes. From the mercenary point of view I welcome them but I am unconvinced that these changes were made on the basis of figures and figures only. If they were there was bad advice given to the Minister.

I think that this Bill could be best characterised as an escape Bill. It is an escape from the judgment of the High Court. I dislike the Bill because of its disregard for old-established historical boundaries which are now being cast aside. I dislike it for the increase in the representation that has been given to Dublin. Governments down through the years have shown a Dublin, rather than a national, outlook. The future Parliaments of this country will be composed almost of 25 per cent. of representatives from Dublin. The Bill was not approached in the proper way because of that feature.

A great significance attaches to Deputy McGilligan's point. The census was taken on the 9th April and no matter what legal quibble is made this Bill comes into law subsequent to the recent census. Even if the figures are not available, the records are there. It is only from these records that the figures will become available and therefore the constitutionality of the Bill may still be questioned. Considering the average attendance here, which is so small, anyone would be convinced that this House, numerically speaking, is over-represented. It would have been far more businesslike had two counties been joined together rather than that either county should be chopped up, even if it meant a reduction of one member on the number that represented the two counties before their amalgamation.

Down the years the representation given in this Parliament was always nearer 20,000 per Deputy than 30,000. Surely a change in the Constitution is urgent? It could be made very simply by arranging that, say, the Dublin representation should be as near as possible to 30,000 while in the rural areas the representation could be around 20,000. That would be fairer. It would give a more representative Parliament and would encourage a little rural bias which is very much needed in this Assembly.

I do not know what is wrong with the Deputies opposite. First of all, we attempted to create single-member constituencies which to my mind was desirable. There was opposition to that. Then the ten-year change was made in the constituencies and the Deputies opposite contested in the High Court the legality of a Bill passed here and got a decision there. Now they are moaning at the result of their own decision. They are complaining that pieces were taken from one county and put into another. However, that was done in conformity with the decision of the High Court Judge.

I cannot understand why Deputies are so nervous. This is the fourth time the constituencies have been changed since I came into public life and I have no dread at all of facing the people I faced 35 years ago. Any Deputy who has worked for his constituents need not be one bit afraid of this change. I agree with Deputy Manley in regard to representation of cities, not alone Dublin City but Cork and other cities. The whole system is wrong. Any Deputy in a Dublin constituency can travel from one end of his constituency to the other in a threepenny bus.

And the people can do the same.

Yes, the people can also travel to the Deputy in a threepenny bus.

In thousands.

Take the unfortunate man living on one side of a constituency if, as Deputy Manley suggested, two counties were joined together. If, say, a Labour Deputy were representing those two counties he would have to travel 160 miles to cover the whole constituency from one end to the other. His constituents would have the same difficulty in contacting him.

They could not come so often.

Judging by the representatives coming from the cities I would say five votes for every one in the rural areas would be the proper ratio. If the Deputies opposite do not agree with what is being done, let them go to the courts again. Of course their last shot at the courts has had such a rebound that they are apprehensive of repeating that effort. Any Deputy who has fulfilled his duties conscientiously need have no worry about the new constituencies. My constituency stretches from Youghal to the Kerry border and I am not in the least afraid of facing my constituents because I know I have done my job. I am as sure of coming back as the Ceann Comhairle and that is sure enough for anybody. I have watched those who have been returned here. I have seen Deputies returned time after time. There are Deputies on those benches who were returned here with me in June, 1927, and they are here ever since because they did the work their constituents wanted them to do. Any noise made here is made by the dodgers who are now afraid of the results of their dodging.

It is all right for the Deputy and for me but what about the other poor fellows?

Deputy Sherwin has already spoken.

Mr. Ryan

The whole level of this debate, like that of the debate on the last Electoral Bill, is an appalling reflection on this House. It clearly indicates that the vast majority of Deputies assume that they have a right for life to the seat they hold in this House. Their own personal convenience has been the main consideration of most of the Deputies who have criticised the Constitution about which so much disturbance has been created over the years.

Our primary duty in this House is to elect a Government and to pass legislation. It is not to be chasing after every Tom, Dick and Harry pretending to be doing the devil and all for them when we know well most of the things we are doing will have no effect in regard to the ultimate decisions that are made administratively upon the affairs of citizens. As we are here in the first instance to select a Government who have very solemn and serious duties to perform, it is very necessary if democracy is to prevail that every person, as far as it is practicable to arrive at such a result, should have equal say in the selection of a Government. I am sorry I have to disagree with my colleague, Deputy Manley, for whom I have very great esteem. I feel he must be to some extent disturbed when his champion is Deputy Corry. But what right has this House or has any section of the Irish people to reduce by one-third the say of any other section of the community in the selection of a Government?

The suggestion has been made that in areas where the Irish people are crowded together, because they are crowded together they are to lose at least one-third, if not a half, of their political force. That is all very well. You might not like Dublin if you do not live there. We do not know how in the next 50 years some other centre may develop outside the cities of Dublin and Cork where people may be crowded together to pursue their lawful vocations and to live together in peace for the good of themselves and their neighbours. Are we ever to consider any constitutional amendment or, by reason of that simple geographical fact, are we going to deprive people of an equal say in the selection of a Government?

Because this Bill distributes political power amongst the people, it is to that extent not an objectionable Bill. But to the extent to which the Minister has deliberately endeavoured to maintain the strength of his Party in the House, the Bill is a sorry reflection upon him. He could have done the bold and manly thing and arranged the constituencies on a much fairer basis. Had he done so, in the long run it would have redounded to the benefit of his own Party. This Bill has only two things in sight: (1) the number of Fianna Fáil Deputies returned in the 1957 election and (2) the 1961 general election.

An effort has been made to maintain the existing representation. The Government know only too well that it is only by adopting such a trick they can hope to come back to this House with a working majority. That does not unduly disturb us because we know that the best laid plans of mice and men are not always successful in achieving what the planners hope. Of the 144 Deputies who will be returned to the next session of Dáil Éireann there will certainly not be as many as 70 members of the Fianna Fáil Party. It will be a minority Party. It will be a Party without the means or the opportunity of revising the electoral legislation.

It is to be hoped we will not have to wait another 12 years to get rid of the many idiosyncrasies and queer arrangements which were put into this Bill just to suit the parochial convenience of a number of Deputies. An Electoral Bill is there to give the people equal political power. It is not there for either the convenience of Deputies or of the minority of constituents who seek to resort to Deputies. If it were only a matter of convenience it would be very easy to arrange things. I want to say to the Members of this House and to every future Dáil they have no right whatsoever to fiddle with things to suit their own convenience.

While I appreciate the motives of those who believe that an all-Party committee in the future might be the proper way to prepare electoral legislation, having heard what Deputies have been bold enough to say here concerning their own personal convenience, monetary gain and such things, I would have very good reason to fear that at an all-Party committee, meeting in secret, the wishes of the people would not be considered at all. The whole political structure would be carved up. There would be a certain amount of bargaining and exchanging which would be detrimental to the Irish people and would have a disastrous effect in the long run. While Deputies might wish to suit their own convenience, if they do so by thwarting the natural units which exist in their community, they are doing untold harm. It is better that our law should remain as it is and that a Minister who fiddles has to come into this House and face a barrage of criticism, leaving it to the mass of the electorate to decide whether or not he has done right or wrong.

It is a Bill which has respected the Constitution. I hope we will have no more of this tripe that it is a Bill which was dictated by the action of a public-spirited Irish gentleman who pleaded in the courts what so many of us pleaded here and elsewhere—that the Bill of 1959 was unconstitutional. All the verdict of the Court has done is to make this House and the other House aware of the Constitutional provisions. It was quite apparent during the debate on the 1959 Bill, and it is still apparent now on the Fifth Stage of the 1961 Bill, that several Deputies are either not aware of the constitutional provisions or are not concerned about them. I believe the fact is that now they are aware of them all right, but they seek to have them changed. That is another day's work, and I challenge any of them ever to try it. I believe they will get a walloping from even the rural constituencies they might seek to favour.

I believe that deep down in the hearts of the Irish people is a feeling of fair play. There would be as much resentment in the thinly-populated portions of West Cork and Donegal as there would be in the heart of the tenements and working class areas of Dublin if an effort were to be made to deprive the Irish people of equality in the selection of a Government The constitutional provisions are here to stay, as the people have twice enacted them in 1932 and 1937. I believe that if anybody endeavoured to change them, they would find the people wanted equality of political strength as far as that is attainable.

I hope the Minister will not endeavour to make a rather puerile debating point and say the Constitution does not provide for equality of voting strength because the constituencies are not based upon electorate but upon population. It is clear from the figures of population and of electorate that there is no definite pattern for the cities and a different pattern for rural areas. There are some constituencies in which the electorate represent anything from 50 to 60 per cent. of the population, and such constituencies are to be found both in the country and in the cities. There are some constituencies in which the electorate can go as high as 75 per cent. of the population, and there are constituencies in which the electorate can go as low as 45 per cent. of the population but there is no definite pattern which would justify the extravagant suggestion of Deputy Manley that in the cities a Deputy should represent 30,000 and that in the country he should represent 20,000.

Coming from Deputy Manley we know that suggestion is inspired, not by any spirit of jealousy or wishing to "do down" the city man as against the country man. I believe Deputy Manley had regard to the difficulties of communication and of transport in rural areas. If it be that we need a system to allow people in thinly-populated areas to have means available to them to make representations to Government Departments and local authorities, that is an entirely different matter and we can do it if we wish by some system of citizens' advice bureau or on the Scandinavian Ombudsman system but we should not try to do it by depriving people in thickly-populated areas of the fair representation to which they are entitled.

Whether we like it or not, the trend in all countries is away from the land and towards the larger areas of population. I do not believe that we are going to bring about such a tremendous economic revolution that we shall have a drift from the cities to the country. I hope that will happen but it is not likely in our time or in our children's, unless atomic warfare encourages people to disperse. That being so, we must maintain the Constitution as it is and not give privilege to any one section of the people more than the other. Deputies are well aware that even within the cities and towns the majority of the citizens are first generation city people and either their parents or their immediate predecessors are from the country. Are we therefore to consider any suggestion that we should penalise any Irish people who in the future might drift to the cities and towns? I believe it would be grossly unfair.

If it be that the larger proportion of our people are living in our cities and towns it would be necessary that their problems should have a voice in this Chamber. If their voice is to be lessened in the selection of a Government the grave danger is that we would be sowing the seeds of revolution. After all, in most cases, revolutions occur in the cities and towns and not in the countryside. Therefore, I feel that while the Government may have considered it—all the indications are that they considered making an amendment to the Constitution—one consideration which they might have thought of is that it might be sowing the seeds of revolution and of difficulty in the future.

I have no doubt whatever also that the principal reason they did not do it was that they would not risk a second referendum defeat in two years. Be that as it may, we have this 1961 Bill before us not by reason of any decision of any one judge but by reason of the Constitution and because one man took upon himself tremendous financial onus and personal risk to ensure that neither House of the Oireachtas nor a Government would ever ignore the Constitution in a manner which was so fundamental because it goes to the very roots of the liberties of our people. Each and every one of them without regard to their financial standing, their ancestry, their geographical location or education should go to the ballot box with the firm conviction that they will have as much say in the selection of the Government as any other person.

On the first occasion in 1959 when I spoke on the Electoral Bill I used a quotation of the late Professor Canon O'Keeffe, Professor of Politics in U.C.D. He said that democracy was a strange system of Government in which the village idiot and the University Professor of Politics had equal say in the selection of a Government. That is democracy and, if it is to survive, we must maintain the situation in which every person be he the chef or the person who eats the meal, will have an equal say as to what is to go on the table, who is to pay for it and where it is to be bought. It is only by equality of representation for all sections of the people that can be maintained.

Since this is a corrective Bill it is a pity that the Minister did not keep his own Party inclinations out of it. We could have had a Bill that would have lasted for the next 12 years; instead we have a Bill which, while it distributes power equally, usurps that distribution by trying to arrange that particular individuals who are in the House for the time being will have their own parishes, their own local areas and pockets of loyalty attached to them. That was a very foolish thing for the Minister to do because many members of the House will go out at the next general election and never return. He has created now a number of monstrosities which will be an embarrassment and a difficulty to administration in the future. There was no need to do some of the things he did, but I am confident that within the year there will be a new Government in office which will be able to respect the principle of equality in political power and also to arrange constituencies in such a way that they will be nearer to the natural units which have existed for generations past.

I had hoped that on the last stage of the Bill we would have had some expression from the Opposition that would have given food for thought regarding a matter so serious as a revision of constituencies. Instead we have merely had a repetition—I may say a somewhat watered-down repetition—of various charges that have been levelled here on all stages of this Bill and for which no tittle of evidence has been produced.

In the early stages of the discussion the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Dillon, made a very short contribution in a rather flippant way but, at the same time, had the first "go" at throwing what mud he could think of. Then he baled out of the House to be followed by his Party henchmen as the debate went on. I doubt if Deputy Dillon believed one word that he said when he charged the Government and the Minister for Local Government with gerrymandering in this measure. If we go back to the debates we find that at Column 206 of the Report of the 12th April, 1961, Deputy Dillon himself demolished the grounds on which he could make the charge that gerrymandering had taken place or is taking place when he said: "I think that here an effective gerrymander cannot be done." That was after he had made the charge that it was being done.

Of course, there were others who fell into the same charges and then demolished their own arguments. Deputy Corish, for instance, continued the attack on the lines that Deputy Dillon commenced with and he also, at a later stage in the same debate— Column 210, Volume 188 of the Official Report—said:

However, that is another story and I do not think this Bill will have a great effect on the result of the next general election.

Again, if gerrymandering is, in fact, the motive behind the various parts of this Bill and if the word means what we have been led to believe it means, gerrymander carried out by a political Party or a Minister would surely be expected to result in a political advantage unfairly got or given to his own Party. We have the charge and then we have the disavowal of there being any grounds for that charge by the very same person who had made it.

We had another example of this view on gerrymandering in this country. Deputy O'Donnell, on 28th October, 1959, as reported at Column 415 of Volume 177 said:

It is most difficult to arrange such a revision of constituencies without a charge of political corruption or gerrymandering....

He had himself been a Minister for Local Government and had initiated the moves that would bring about the Bill for a revision of constituencies and, therefore, could be regarded as a person who had some knowledge of what he talked of. That is what he said even on the 1959 Bill which was later disputed and declared to be unconstitutional by the courts. I am sure he has not changed his view in that regard since.

It is true, of course, that these statements by the people whom I have quoted in on way prevented others following and making the charges again. Of course, we had Deputy McGilligan following his leader on that occasion and continuing in the same vein here today. I would say to Deputy McGilligan and to other knowledgeable Deputies that if there were brought into this House a constituency revision Bill, which was conceived, produced and had the blessing of Deputy McGilligan, it would still meet with opposition from very many quarters in this House, no matter what shape that Bill had. Deputy McGilligan knows that well, but, of course, that does not stop him coming in here today to continue his charges of a political gerrymander for party advantage, charges of doing things that there was no necessity to do, and so on.

In going through the debates one thing which has struck me very forcibly and which typifies the vacillating points of view expressed by Deputies opposing various parts of the Bill is the statement made by Deputy Sweetman and Deputy O'Donnell. Deputy Sweetman, as reported at Column 308 of the Official Report of 12th April, 1961, said in reference to my constituency in Donegal that it was designed to suit the Minister for Local Government on the one hand, and to get rid of Deputy Sheldon on the other. We have reduced the representation of that constituency to three and it is said that it is to suit the Minister for Local Government and to get rid of Deputy Sheldon whereas, under the 1959 Act, when it was proposed to retain without change the representation of that constituency, we had Deputy O'Donnell, as reported at column 417, Volume 177 of the Official Report, saying as follows:

We saw the Independent Deputy for East Donegal voting in favour of proportional representation as Deputy Desmond pointed out. We now see the consideration for his having so supported the Government. The consideration is that we are going to leave him a safe seat in East Donegal, which he or his successor may retain for the next 12 years. That is the consideration given to him for his support of the Government.

When we were leaving the seat, Deputy O'Donnell attacked us and said that we were really paying Deputy Sheldon for his allegiance to Fianna Fáil or for his vote on proportional representation. When it comes to this Bill we have Deputy Sweetman of the same Party and the same front bench of Fine Gael saying, now that the seat is being taken out of East Donegal, that the constituency was designed to suit the Minister for Local Government and to get rid of Deputy Sheldon. These are two front benchers of the Fine Gael Party and these are their views as expressed in relation to a particular constituency and in relation to a particular Deputy and in relation to the motives of the Minister for Local Government, the same Minister on each occasion. We have Fine Gael backing the two horses in the same race.

It is the old story, "heads, I win; harps, you lose." They just cannot lose if they can keep on codding the public with statements which are completely contradictory, relying on the forgetfulness of the public. If a few months elapse between the making of one statement and the next, the public will have forgotten and will not realise that the two statements are contradictory and disprove each other. That is a typical example of the manner in which this measure has been approached and the veiled threats and allegations that have been made here and which, certainly, are no credit to those who made them.

We have Deputy McGilligan today saying that the court decision was so strong that the Government did not dare challenge it. I do not know whom he is trying to bait or for what purpose. He goes on then to say—I felt at the time he was bordering on the brink of the greatest possible disrespect—that he could not see how the President could be relied upon to refer the legislation to the courts. I felt that that was badly taken. I trust that what seemed to me to be implied in that was not really the intention of the Deputy but, the Deputy being such an able manipulator of words, I question very much if I misunderstood. However, he then waltzes around, as he did on the final discussion of the 1959 Bill, and now expresses the beliefs and the fears that the Constitution again is being violated in regard to constituencies and in regard to the census having been taken, as he puts it, and then he waddles off from that and has a dart in another direction. The ratio is questioned again and he says the ratio, according to the Constitution, should be maintained the same throughout the country.

Furthermore, he says that in regard to the mathematical calculation in this matter we should have regard even to the point of dividing the country to such a degree that only townlands and streets or half streets would in fact come into the reckoning. Again, the inference to be drawn there is that we have not balanced it finely enough and that on the basis of the census of April 9th last this measure is, in Deputy McGilligan's learned opinion, unconstitutional. However, he seems to be far from opposing it.

What does Deputy McGilligan really mean? Does he want the Bill really declared unconstitutional or is he talking with his tongue in his cheek in saying that he wants to see the Bill through so that we can get to the country in a general election as quickly as possible? I think the most reasonable contribution made here this evening was that of Deputy Norton. He has pointed out, and rightly so, his belief that the operations which have had to be taken under this Bill may, in fact, disfranchise groups of people in South Meath and in the eastern parts of Westmeath by their being added in such small numbers, in relation to the whole, to Kildare. I agree with the Deputy wholeheartedly. Other people have made the same comment.

The only difference between myself and those who assert such things is that I went into the court to try and prove my point whereas the people who now make these statements did not lift a finger to point that out. I am very sorry indeed that those people did not take such positive action when the matter was before the court as they now suggest they have adopted. Had they done so at the time, I believe the court decision could very well have been quite different.

However, that cannot be helped now. We are dealing with a fait accompli. I agree with Deputy Norton that the people of South Meath and many in Westmeath who are now added to Kildare are at a disadvantage in that they will not have the due weight of representation which they might have enjoyed had they remained as part of their respective counties. I have not been enabled in respect of those areas to have regard to the existing boundaries which had become so well defined that people now object strongly to their being taken out of them.

All in all, the position may not be quite as catastrophic as Deputy Norton suggested but I do agree with him that this measure can in fact operate in a manner in respect of different parts of the country which will have unfair repercussions on the people concerned, so far as electoral representation is concerned. Some of them will know that we cannot help this kind of thing.

Deputy Norton also said that the Constitution, if necessary, should be amended. There was much the same suggestion from other members of the Labour Party, as also from members of the Fine Gael Party. If there is to be an amendment of the Constitution in regard to a matter such as this, I have no doubt whatsoever that if the Parties opposite honestly feel as some of them have expressed themselves in the views put forward in the debate on this measure that the Government Party at the moment or at any other time will be as receptive as they were——

As they were when they introduced the proportional representation and referendum proposals?

Why does not the Deputy catch himself on? Is it not quite obvious, without my having to say it, that the one set of people in this House who felt themselves concerned about a problem such as this are the Fianna Fáil Party and we are delighted now to see that some conversion of Deputy Mulcahy's Party has been brought about to the point where they are now making public statements like this in the House.

The Fianna Fáil receptiveness is increasing. It has moved from the frozen position in which it was at the time of the Proportional Representation Bill.

When the Deputy talks, whether it be a long peroration or a short interjection, I always find myself confused. Possibly that is what he intends.

It is quite clear.

As I was saying, we have had these conversions. We are now able to listen to general talk about an all-Party committee of this house to deal with the proper method of arriving at a revision of constituencies. With one notable exception—the last speaker, Deputy Ryan—there has been this growing demand from members of the Parties opposite for an all-Party committee to sort out these boundaries and bring about the perfect situation in which the perfect revision Bill would be brought before the House which would satisfy every Deputy here. If we are to have a committee other than one composed of members of the House—which I think would be the better committee—it follows that it would be representative of the various interests in the House. No matter what conclusion such a committee would come to, I have no doubt that when the measure they might propose came before the House it would not relieve one whit the objections in the minds of those who are not on that committee and who will not agree that the method of revision proposed by the committee is what they feel is the best.

Again, of course, we do recall—and indeed in this I am thankful—that when we proposed that some sort of commission would be set up in relation to the Third Amendment to the Constitution, if the referendum were to go through, we suggested that the commission should be presided over by a member of the judiciary and, of course, from the Fine Gael benches we got the slighting references and innuendoes and the comparisons and descriptions that left us in no doubt that, if that were to happen, it would merely mean that "they were a Fianna Fáil set-up, a commission which would have a lickspittle of the Fianna Fáil Party in the Chair." That is what we were faced with then and yet we have, from the same Opposition benches, these appeals made for an all-Party Committee that would do the right thing, in the right way, at the right time and that will not be able to do any wrong.

Candidly, I am sick of listening to the hypocrisy that I have had to, not only on this Bill but on the 1959 Bill and on the Third Amendment to the Constitution Bill. I am sick and tired of listening to that hypocrisy that is so frequently putting the case one way and can so easily switch over to put the opposite case tomorrow and that will call down the saints from above to witness how strongly these people feel in those cases, even though they are contradictory.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister has only himself to blame.

If the baby Deputy they have over there, who apparently squawks when he has not got his bottle with him, will hold on I shall give him some headlines for tomorrow.

There are babies over there.

Deputy O'Sullivan should not grieve because he missed the boat and will not have his name in the paper tomorrow or get his name on the air tonight. If he interrupts sufficiently, with a little more humour than he is displaying at the moment, he may be in the swing when it comes to any share of publicity that will go with any row kicked up. In so far as this Bill is concerned, the matters that have been done are done to conform with what is said to be the interpretation of the Constitutional Articles that govern these revisions of constituencies. If they appear, as I tear no doubt in places they do appear, to conflict with views that have heretofore been expressed by me, it is not my choice and proves no inconsistency or change of mind on my part as to what I personally believe is the manner in which these things should be done.

If we trample on the toes of certain Deputies, if, for instance, in the Waterford-South Tipperary flare-up which we have had here, if Deputies feel aggrieved—they feel sore to the point of imputing to the Minister for Local Government the basest possible motives in the division of part of Waterford and bringing it into South Tipperary—do those people realise at all that all this noise and crying on behalf of that sundered portion of West Waterford, that all that could also have taken place, if we did what they wanted us to do, sunder part of South Tipperary and put it in with Waterford? Surely these people should wake up to the fact that the boundary will be mutilated whether or not we leave four seats in Waterford or four in South Tipperary, and that, in so far as the claims of the one area as against the other are concerned, there is little between them. I am not, and should not, be taken as saying that I relied on the figures of 1947 when, on the Committee Stage and the Report Stage, I gave certain figures which disprove what Deputy Kyne said here, that on the figures Waterford had better entitlement to the four seats than had South Tipperary.

I gave him figures which showed that by six odd hundred in a matter of many thousands South Tipperary was better entitled to the four than Waterford.

The Minister was wrong; they were wrong figures.

I am not wrong, and the Deputy, if he goes back again, will find that the figures I have used are correct. If they do not appear to correspond with his calculations it does not follow that his figures are wrong either. He should remember that.

Would the Minister tell us that the figures in the Statistical Abstract are incorrect?

Is the Deputy entitled to make a speech?

The Minister has made the statement that the figures Deputy Kyne gave were wrong.

I did not say that. Why does the Deputy not keep his ears open? I said that the figures I gave were correct figures. I did not say that, if they did not correspond with Deputy Kyne's figures, that his figures were wrong. Think that one over and see whether or not I have said that his figures are wrong. I am claiming that my own are right. I am also saying that the fact that mine are right does not prove that Deputy Kyne's are wrong. Think it out and come back in a week or two and tell us what you find.

It would be like the chicken and the egg.

Exactly. In so far as this whole matter is concerned, I want it to be fully and clearly understood that the matters that have had to be done and which are complained of—and I say justifiably from the point of view of the people locally who feel aggrieved —have been done, and done practically over my dead body, because again I defended these things in court. I went there day after day. I went in on oath, which is more than any of you people here were prepared to do, defended my point of view and gave my beliefs Deputy Sherwin, as he has said here went in because he believed Dublin should have more seats; he had the guts and the courage to go in and say what he thought about it. What about all the other Deputies who now profess to be so concerned about the loss of seats to rural Ireland? Where were they when their voices might have counted for something?

Mr. Lynch

They went to court.

They did not go to court. They did not offer their assistance in court or go through with the view that they were trying to establish there and which has been accepted since 1922 in every revision that there has been since.

Only because it was never challenged in court.

Each one has been accepted and upheld. Deputy Norton said so here this evening; if it is true that this judgment is what it is said to be, every Dáil elected here since 1922 has been illegal.

Of course.

The appointment to the bench of the judges who tried this case would also be in some measure illegal. But there is the actual position. We have these people now complaining, with tears rolling down their faces for the people who are going to be disfranchised. Then we have people like Deputy Ryan who comes along and tells us again where we have been wrong, telling us how this debate was on the floor and he was coming in to lift it off the floor and to give us his views in a manner that would seem to imply that all the wisdom of Solomon was there in that head of his and that it was only a matter of giving him sufficient time in this House to make us all realise how wise he is.

Put a penny in the slot.

He has continued the same old story. He has made this suggestion ad nauseam that every vote should be of equal weight. It is not equality of votes that the Constitution is concerned with and it is not on the relationship to the register of electors that revision of constituencies must be based. Revision is related to population. Equality in regard to population ratios does not necessarily give equality of votes. Deputy Ryan says that the disparity is so slight, taken over the whole country, that it does in fact give what he maintains the Constitution implies. The Constitution does not imply equality of votes. Consider this much disputed area of Ballyfermot. It is said we do not know exactly whether it belongs to the county or to the city. There are approximately 20,000 people in Ballyfermot. There are slightly over 7,000 registered electors.

Mr. Ryan

They are mostly children. They will be 21 in a few years' time.

There is one elector for each three persons living there. In my constituency there are seven electors for every 12 residents in the area.

Mr. Ryan

That is because of emigration.

That is a fact over which Deputy Ryan tries to glide when he talks about equality of votes and the requirements of the Constitution. If the Constitution is to serve the purpose for which it was enacted, surely fair representation for all is much more likely to be the intention rather than mere equality of strength. As time goes on those who oppose this measure will see the folly of their opposition. I went into court to defend my views and to give the results of my experience. The know-alls who now condemn are condemning exactly what I myself condemned under oath in open court.

Mr. Ryan

One has to have three children before one can get a house in Ballyfermot. Are we to give houses to people with no children? The Minister cannot have it both ways.

A short time ago it was stated on the other side of this House that 37,000 houses were built in Ballyfermot from 1947 onwards. The 1956 census gives the total number of houses as 29,000 odd. We have, therefore, more than one house per head.

I said in Dublin, not just Ballyfermot.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister does not know Dublin and Ballyfermot.

Someone said it and someone now denies he said it.

I said it, but I said in Dublin.

It is just a red herring to confuse the issue. It merely pinpoints the lack of logic and the slovenly calculations. Deputy Ryan really does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Ryan

I was right in 1959 and the High Court has said so. I might be right again if the Minister is too provocative.

I charge the Opposition with not being in court to give their views. Actually there were three or four of them there doing their day's work, in their wigs and gowns, not giving the court the benefit of their time, knowledge and experience. Deputy McGilligan was there in his professional capacity. Deputy Ryan says he was right in 1959 and that he might be right again. If he is right again, he will, of course, claim that he is right now. Does the Deputy claim that the Bill is wrong?

Mr. Ryan

It is unconstitutional in some respects and the Minister knows that quite well. It should have been right before 1959. It can never be made right now.

The Deputy wants another each way bet. He wants to back so that he will not lose. But for the Deputy's advent here we would still be ignorant. We would not know anything about the Constitution. We would not know what our own laws meant. All of us here, including the Deputy's own front benchers, men who were here before either the Deputy or I were born, had their heads covered in sacks unaware of where they were going, until Deputy Ryan came in here. We did not see the light until Deputy Ryan showed it to us. We will leave it at that. If in the years to come it is shown that Deputy Ryan was the spark that set alight the flame of knowledge here, he will get due notice in history, but I am sure it will not do him much good. There is no doubt about the Bill before the House. It conforms with the Constitution as interpreted by the learned judge in the High Court.

If there are those who feel they have a grouse, who feel that certain people in certain parts of the country have a grouse because of the breaking up of boundaries, there is nobody more sorry that that should happen than I am. I believe that they have grounds for their complaints but the interpretation of the law is such that there was no option left to me or to the House but to go ahead and do this regardless of the break up of boundaries. It may be said that I could have done such a thing somewhere else but if I did it somewhere else I would be told that I should have done it here instead of there. There are plenty of alternatives but all the alternatives are as objectionable as the proposals in the Bill are.

There is one thing I should like to say with regard to the Ballyfermot area on which Deputy Carroll took issue with me. He said that he is a representative of the people of Ballyfermot, that they have voted for him for the Corporation and also in the 1954 and 1957 general elections. All I can say is that if the people of Ballyfermot have been voting for Deputy Carroll in 1954 and 1957, they were voting in the wrong constituency. Ballyfermot ward is not and has not been part of the South-West constituency. Where Deputy Carroll has got this idea I do not know, but that is the fact.

Part of it is in Deputy Carroll's constituency.

I say to Deputy Sherwin, who undoubtedly has an intimate knowledge of Dublin, that since the 1947 Electoral Act no part of Ballyfermot has belonged to the South-West constituency. If there is a part that is not in the Ballyfermot ward but that is locally known as Ballyfermot, that is another matter. The official Ballyfermot ward is not in the South-West constituency. These people had no right to be voting in the South-West constituency because they belong to County Dublin since 1947. If there should be a bye-election before this Bill becomes law, Ballyfermot would not be in South-West Dublin. It has not been in it for a long number of years.

They are in with the cows and the sheep.

That is not the point I have been trying to make to the House.

All the Dubliners are in Ballyfermot. I said that there are 200,000 country people in Dublin but that the real Dublin people are in Ballyfermot.

The longer one talks and the more explanations one gives, the more explicit one tries to be, the more one is misunderstood and because of that I shall say no more.

Seeing that the Constitution and our electoral legislation have been in conflict, due to the fact that the Constitution provides that seats should be on the basis of population rather than on the basis of electors—in a population there are probably only 60 per cent. electors—would the Government give consideration to the question of discussing with other Parties some method by which we could get an agreed amendment of the Constitution which would give us some arrangement of the constituencies so that these traditional boundaries would be preserved?

As I have already said, seeing that there is a growth of these ideas that would seem to give us a solution of our problems, I have no doubt that the Government and the Fianna Fail Party will be only too glad to discuss these matters.

The Minister did not say whether it is the intention of the Government to have the Bill referred to the Supreme Court.

I should have mentioned that matter, as it has been asked here so often. I cannot, and this House cannot, undertake that this Bill will be referred, through the President, to the Supreme Court. It is for the President, if he so thinks fit and after consultation with the Council of State, to refer this or any other Bill to the Supreme Court.

Could the Taoiseach ask the President to consider whether or not he should send it to the Supreme Court? If the next general election were to be held on the 18th October and if, in the middle of July, somebody decided themselves to refer the matter to the Supreme Court we would be in a queer position.

They would make a right muck of it. This is the prerogative of the President in consultation with the Council of State. Further than that we cannot go.

The Presidential establishment should have some function of this sort. He ought to call the Council of State together.

It should be clearly understood that we regard the President as being sufficiently knowledgeable in all of these matters to be able to consider them himself. It is his prerogative to take action in this matter rather than that we should call on him to do it.

The Deputies are inquiring if the Taoiseach will ask the ex-Taoiseach to consider the matter.

When the Deputy is speaking about the President he should refer to him as such.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68: Níl, 39.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Dan.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Clohessy, Patrick.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Cotter, Edward.
  • Crowley, Honor M.
  • Cummins, Patrick J.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Donegan, Batt.
  • Dooley, Patrick.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Egan, Nioholas.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Faulkner, Padraig.
  • Galvin, John.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Johnston, Henry M.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • MacCarthy, Seán.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maher, Peadar.
  • Medlar, Martin.
  • Millar, Anthony G.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Moloney, Daniel J.
  • Mooney, Patrick.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Malley, Donogh.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Toole, James.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Teehan, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

  • Barry, Richard.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Burke, James.
  • Byrne, Patrick.
  • Carroll, James.
  • Casey, Seán.
  • Coburn, George.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Hogan, Bridget.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Lynch, Thaddeus.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Manley, Timothy.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • Murphy, William.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • Palmer, Patrick W.
  • Russell, George E.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Tully, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Kyne.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share