Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Dec 1968

Vol. 237 No. 11

Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1968: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

When speaking last week on this Bill I referred to the strange lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Minister in introducing the Bill to the House. As was pointed out by other speakers, he did not recommend the Bill, which is usually done. That may possibly have been a slip on his part, but psychologists say that there is no such thing as a lapse of memory or even a slip of the tongue; we forget what we subconsciously dislike remembering and we make slips because the subconscious is pressing on us in some way. That could very well be the truth in this particular instance because this Bill has certainly not been introduced with any flourish either to the House or to the people in general. We have, in fact, the very extraordinary situation of the Government blaming a High Court decision for the situation in which they find themselves and longing obviously to blame, too, the citizens in general who tacitly, by their action in the referendum, went against the Government's proposals. That action on the part of the people is something the Government would dearly like to blame but it is, of course, a rather risky thing to blame 600,000 voters publicly for the action they took and the resolute stand they made in such a vitally important matter as the referendum.

The fact is that the Irish people have, since the setting up of this State, come to recognise what they should do. I believe that their action is something which is in the best interests of the country as a whole. I believe, also, that whatever critics may say against the system, it has enormous advantages. It has had the great advantage of solving differences which existed in our immediate history. I refer to the events prior to 1920 and the events after 1920. I refer to the difficulties encountered in setting up this State—the "Troubles" and the Civil War—and to the fact that the voting method we have used over a number of years has actually resulted in helping to seal the bitternesses in so far as they existed. That, I think, is probably the greatest single reason why the Irish people have again and against shown their love for this system of election.

I was speaking about Dublin and the carving up of constituencies and I referred to the constituency which I represent at the moment with four other Deputies, the constituency of Dublin South-Central. That constituency has disappeared into thin air. It is gone. Part of it has gone into Dublin SouthWest. Another part is being merged with a constituency across the Liffey. Another part has gone into Dublin South-East. It is rather extraordinary to split up an area which had an entity of its own, which had built up its own point of view on certain things. Various organisations and various branches not all branches of political Parties had become accustomed to considering that they are an important part of the city of Dublin and that Dublin South-Central was a going concern, so to speak. Now those interests are split up amongst three different constituencies.

The Government have been reduced to the expedient of crossing the Liffey and amalgamating two areas north and south. That happened in the past but it did not survive for very long. It was always felt that the dividing line between north and south was a very useful division and a very useful base for the city wards. The Government have made a number of constituencies all of which will elect four members. Those constituencies have a population of 83,000 odd. The old natural boundaries have been altered and destroyed ruthlessly. The Government's argument is that they had to do this on the one hand because of the interpretation of the Constitution as laid down in the High Court decision, and on the other hand because of the fact that they could not carve up the constituencies into single member constituencies, so they arbitrarily made four member constituencies. In fact, of course, they are perfectly well aware that there is no reason why we should not have five, six, seven or nine member constituencies. Those numbers allow for the full play of proportional representation.

You cannot have 13½ seats. That is the only way you could avoid breaching the Liffey.

The population could have been divided up in a different way in the city. That is the reason for this strange carving up. The Government want to have so many three member constituencies and if possible nothing more than four member constituencies. In the whole of Ireland I think there are now only two five member constituencies, 26 three member constituencies and 14 four member constituencies. I am speaking from recollection. This shows the Government's reluctance to allow the full force of PR to come into play. Having been beaten in the referendum they now want to win the battle in the carving up of the constituencies.

It is very difficult to say what will happen. The strange thing in the alteration of constituencies is that it has created a good deal of trouble in the ranks of the Fianna Fáil Party. It by no means appeals to the average backbencher of that Party. The idea is that in certain parts of the country they will get two out of three seats in the three-member constituencies, and that in the city of Dublin they will hold an equal number of seats in the four-member constituencies. I very much doubt whether this will work out as well for the optimists in the Fianna Fáil Party as they think, because in Dublin city the tide is receding for the Fianna Fáil Party.

What is being done in this Bill is an effort to defeat the true aims of proportional representation and the wishes of the people as clearly exemplified in the referendum. It is a strange instance of a Government bringing in a Bill which goes against the expressed wishes of the citizens of Ireland in the referendum. As this is what the Bill is attempting to do I am against it.

There has been so much deliberate misrepresentation during the debate on this Bill so far that no one can be surprised if the people of the country are confused. There is an old saying that figures cannot lie but liars can figure. Without calling anyone in particular a liar may I say that what they have contributed to this debate has not been accurate in most instances?

Deputy Fitzpatrick said—it is a petty point and because it is a petty point I as a backbencher will answer it—that the Bill was not recommended to the House by the Minister and this was the first time a Bill had not been recommended to the House. I should like, for the edification of Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy Dockrell, to mention this point also and to point out that in 1959 and in 1961 this formula was not followed. In fact, on these two occasions the Minister did not recommend Bills to the House. I mention this just for their own information. This is just one of these tiny points the Deputies bring up time and time again to try to confuse the public at large. We all know that by 1972 we will once again have to revise the boundaries of the constituencies. This is entirely due to a former member of the Fine Gael Party, now a member of the Labour Party, Dr. John O'Donovan, who, aided and abetted by Deputy Ryan, brought this case in the first place before the court. They were screaming "gerrymander" right up to that time as well. They talk about the wisdom of the people of Ireland. I believe greatly in the wisdom of the people of Ireland and their ability not to be fooled by the antics of the Opposition. I can understand Fine Gael and Labour screaming "gerrymander" as loud and as long as they can in order that the people of rural Ireland will not have time to think who devalued their vote and who is responsible for the fact that their vote is not worth as much as a vote in Dublin. All that they know is that their constituency boundaries, so far as election purposes are concerned, are no longer recognised.

I should just like to say this before proceeding any further: there are as many members of the Fianna Fáil Party here in Dáil Éireann who are as unhappy about the changes in their constituency boundaries as there are in either the Labour Party or the Fine Gael Party. There are some people who are really worried. On the other hand I can cite one Fine Gael TD— I am sure he will not mind my quoting his name——

Any personal discussions you have with these persons, just mention them.

This Fine Gael TD has his home in his constituency. I do not know whether I should mention his name here. I shall not but I can say he is very happy about it. I know other members of Fine Gael also who are——

Is the Deputy making a general statement or is he particularising?

I am saying that members of the Fine Gael Party and of the Labour Party whom I happen to know are very happy about their constituencies.

So far as the Labour Party are concerned, that is not true.

Deputy Treacy and Deputy Kyne who were screaming "gerrymander" the last time about their constituencies admit it. They headed the poll in the subsequent election. Deputy Treacy's constituency has not been changed this time. Deputy Kyne's constituency has not been changed this time either. There is no question of gerrymandering there. This is just sheer hypocrisy and deliberate untruths.

The referendum has been brought into this time and time again. It is interesting to note that in Australia they had 30 referenda and 28 failed, including one the purpose of which was to try to put air safety under the control of the Federal Government, which was recommended by all political Parties there. This failed. People are suspicious about change.

(Cavan): The Deputy should have found that out before the referendum.

The question of gerrymandering just does not stand up to examination. I spent some time studying the speeches made last week. I should just like to state, for example, that here you have a situation in which Deputy Dockrell a few minutes ago said we should have five-, six-, sevenand nine-seat constituencies. He saw no reason why we could not have that. He said that larger constituencies were welcome but he did not say they were better than small constituencies. He saw no reason why that should not be. Yet, in a speech by the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Cosgrave, in the Dáil Debates, volume 188 No. 2, of the 12th April, 1961, speaking on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill at column 272 said and I quote:—

Frankly, I feel that certain changes could be made which to some extent would improve the allocation of seats in the area adjacent to Dublin and certainly would allow a somewhat more compact area to be made which would facilitate not only Deputies but their constituents. My experience over the years, originally as a Deputy for County Dublin, was that when the county extended around the fringe of the city, it was extremely difficult for Deputies to keep in contact with their constituents and difficult for constituents to get in touch with Deputies because of the wide area involved. Similarly, it seems to me the same situation may arise under some of the proposed changes. It may be that it will be possible on Committee Stage to consider certain changes.

Deputy Cosgrave says he is in favour of the smaller constituencies. Anyone can advocate a five-seat constituency for Donegal. Donegal is a big territory to cover and in a three-seat constituency constituents will see much more of their Deputies. The smaller constituency is much better.

There are cries about the invasion of constituency boundaries by taking them away and it is said that this is what Fianna Fáil have done to the people of Sligo-Leitrim. Yet in this particular debate Fine Gael and Labour Deputies do not repeat what they said in earlier debates, which was that county boundaries meant nothing and that they are quite unimportant.

Would you quote that please?

I shall certainly. I am delighted to do so. Deputy O'Leary speaking on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill at column 1517, volume 232 of the Official Report said:

The Taoiseach, originally, and later, the Minister for Local Government, mentioned the great problems involved in changing county boundaries. Who introduced counties into this country? Is this the national Parliament of this country? As far as I know, counties are relics of feudalism. We owe loyalty to this country rather than to any county. We owe loyalty to cities such as Dublin, Belfast and Cork, and to the rural areas: we should not shed tears for county boundaries which were introduced, in the first place, by an English administration.

Is the Deputy satisfied?

He is a city Deputy like yourself who knows little about country constituencies.

Did the Deputy say that Deputy O'Leary knows nothing about it?

As little as you do, which it very little.

This is typical of the misinformation being given out in this debate—a deliberate attempt to fool the people.

(Cavan): Is the Deputy adopting Deputy O'Leary's argument?

Would the Deputy like me to quote him?

Will Deputies allow Deputy Briscoe to make his own speech?

On the 15th May, 1968, reported at column 1403 of volume 234 of the Official Report, Deputy Fitzpatrick said:

I understand that when this matter was before the Courts there was some decision or some suggestion that an effort should be made not to overlap the county boundaries, although in this year, 1968, it is difficult to understand the case which is being made that the county boundaries are sacred at a time when we have members of the Government from the Taoiseach down preaching regionalisation in other spheres;

(Cavan): Read on.

Is that not enough? I have got another quote from Deputy Fitzpatrick. It is from volume 235, column 145, and the report is for 28th May, 1968:

The Minister seems to think that county boundaries are sacred and that the counties and constituencies should coincide identically. I do not think there is anything sacred about county boundaries. For example, for years back, we have had county managers managing two counties. We have had joint county managers in a number of counties. Practically every police district in this State, consists of two counties joined together.

Later on, he is quoted as saying:

The day of the old county hospital is done. A hospital now caters for three or four counties. Therefore, there is nothing sacred about county boundaries—there never has been.

(Cavan): I will not interrupt the Deputy again but I wish to make it clear that he will not find any argument of mine which advocates bits of counties being put in with other counties.

Either one believes in county boundaries or one does not. One cannot have counties chopped half way or three-quarters way. When I quoted a Labour Deputy, another Labour Deputy said the other Labour Deputy was misinformed.

I said he knew as little about it as you do.

He is in danger now.

In danger of what? Do not make stupid comments.

You cannot take it.

You will have to take it shortly.

(Cavan): In the neck, from the people.

Order, Deputy Briscoe.

There was emotionalism in them. For example, Deputy M. E. Dockrell last week, before progress had been reported, spoke about having to cross the Liffey. I quote from volume 237, column 1436 of the Official Report for Wednesday last:

It is not the first time I had to swim in the Liffey but it will only be by accident if I have to swim those turgid waters again.

All this about having to swim the Liffey was, he said, to get to the other side of his constituency. Deputy Dockrell is a member of an old Dublin family who should know Dublin, who should know that he would not have to walk more than 100 yards to find a bridge across the Liffey. There are five bridges spanning the Liffey within his proposed constituency. If the Deputy, who is so uninformed, gets in touch with Deputies from Cork or Limerick they will tell him that they have no trouble crossing their bridges there. Again, these are the exaggerations being put out. At column 1242, volume 237, Deputy Fitzpatrick is reported:

The result, of course, is gerrymandering. The result is a Bill—I shall deal later on with the way in which it is gerrymandered——

I do not know whether "later" meant later on in the Second Stage but nowhere in his speech could I find elaboration of his suggestion that the Bill proposed to gerrymander. Other Deputies made a stab at it but they did not succeed. Deputy Fitzpatrick tried to introduce a new word into the Irish language, "Bolander". Boland in Ireland is a far more sacred name to the people of Ireland than the name Fitzpatrick.

Perhaps the less we say about names the better.

I thought the Deputy would say that. Deputy Fitzpatrick was not in line with the thinking of his Party when he referred to larger constituencies. Of course, everyone is entitled to his opinion on this but the point here is that, all along, the Opposition have been making a case to try to put across on the people that we would gerrymander. At column 1250 of the same volume, Deputy Fitzpatrick is quoted:

The county boundaries mean little or nothing when it comes to the interests of the Fianna Fáil Party, and the Minister put 17 pieces of nine counties into other counties,

All the time they have been trying to imply that county boundaries mean nothing to us. They knew that unless the tolerance proposal was carried in the recent referendum, this would have to happen. In their hearts they were for it but were afraid that if they said "Yes" to one proposal in the referendum and "No" to the other, the people would not understand and might vote for acceptance of the wrong proposal—the proposal they did not want to be accepted.

The truth is, of course, that it was we who tried to defend the county boundaries. They, on the other hand, are engaged in deliberate attempts to mislead the people. At column 1257 of the same volume, Deputy Treacy, beginning his Second Reading speech of this measure, is reported:

There is no doubt that there was widespread astonishment and dismay throughout the country when, a few days after the outcome of the referendum, the Minister announced his intention of revising the constituencies by means of this electoral measure.

This, again, is an untruth. Deputy Treacy knew quite well, if he had bothered to read even a quarter of the Minister's speeches, that this Bill had to come—that before the next general election could be held the constituencies would have to be revised. This, again, is a deliberate attempt at sham astonishment. He underestimates the intelligence of our people. He spoke about the so-called straight vote, the single-seat constituency with gerrymander. All this is gross exaggeration in an attempt to fool the people. They tell the people: "You have turned down proposals and now they have come behind your back with everything that they said would take place if these proposals were passed." There are many people who argue that it could be done other ways and I have a little quotation about that later on. One Deputy said that Galway needed an injection of Fianna Fáil people so they took off a section of Clare and put it in with Galway to bolster up the Fianna Fáil vote. On the other hand, you have another member of the Opposition saying: "I pity the people of Clare, the county of ‘The Chief' himself, ardent supporters of the Party. Their population is being reduced by nearly half, because of their loyalty to the Party, to bolster up portion of Galway." In other words we are hurting the people of Clare. They just want it every way. Deputy Treacy, referring to the 1961 general election, said that the Government then tried to gerrymander two constituencies. At column 1265 of volume 237, No. 8, of the Official Report he says:

You will see that Deputy Kyne was returned at the head of the poll to represent County Waterford and I, a comparatively young man at the time, came into this House for the first time at the head of the poll in my constituency of South Tipperary.

So what are they complaining about? It is too ridiculous. Talk about a comedy of errors. If any member of the public purchased a copy of this Dáil debate—and he could do so in the Stationery Office—read it and was really interested to know what is being said in this debate, he would see the inaccuracies.

They talk about gerrymandering and great play has been made of confusing people over population and votes. This is being done all the time. Deputy Seán Dunne, speaking here last week at column 1282 of volume 237, No. 8 stated that they are being discriminated against by the Minister. He says:

Dublin constituencies are required in all cases to produce hundreds of votes in respect of every seat in excess of the national average, which is set out at 20,028 votes.

The Minister interrupted him to say:

It does not. The Deputy must not be able to read.

Deputy Dunne replied:

I am reading it here and the Minister can tell me where I am wrong.

The Minister said:

It is not there. It is not in that document.

Eventually the Minister had to tell him that it was population. Deputy Dunne had said votes. He did not deny that he said votes. He was again confusing this question of population and votes. It is very difficult to explain to people just what is going on here, the deliberate attempts to mislead and to confuse people. I do not believe that they accidentally slip and say "population" instead of "votes". It is a deliberate attempt to get people confused.

With regard to gerrymandering you have Deputy Seán Dunne at column 1284 of the same volume saying:

I do not see how it is possible today for any Party to say with certainty where their support will lie....

A true statement.

This is stated by Deputy Seán Dunne, an eminent member of the Labour Party. I did not see that quoted anywhere outside the House but again you have people saying that they know where their support is. Others admit it is impossible to say, particularly under the system of PR. Again, there is confusion between the multi-seat and the single-seat constituency. With the single seat it is easier to know where your support lies because of the smaller area involved and, therefore, a commission would be the best thing in such a situation. Perhaps the Minister would comment on what they do in England? Do they have a commission over there?

Deputy Seán Dunne at column 1342 of this volume said:

I am not altogether enamoured of all this talk about the sacrosanct nature of county boundaries. I think they are a relatively modern concept, modern in the historic sense. I do not suppose they are any more than 250 or 300 years old and they are vague at that.

As a matter of fact, I believe it was King John in the early 12th century who first introduced boundaries of that nature over here for Deputy Dunne's information. No doubt he will be able to educate me on other matters.

We come now to Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary) who is congratulated by Deputy Donegan later on as having really done a good job and a lot of research. I did a little bit of homework on some of Deputy Hogan's figures. In fairness to Deputy Hogan he admits at one stage that one can make mistakes in figures and that he may be wrong in a figure here and there. I would like to give him a couple of those figures. At column 1350 he says:

Admittedly, that type of constituency would be big. Sligo-Leitrim itself has got 67,000 acres, but my own constituency of South Tipperary-West Waterford has 77,000 acres.

Sligo-Leitrim has not 67,000 acres but 820,570 acres.

What is a couple of thousand acres?

The South Riding of Tipperary, which is the greater part of Deputy Hogan's area, has 558,034 acres. Therefore, one can see there is no relevance at all in these figures. They are so inaccurate. One does not mind five, six, seven, eight, ten, 15 or 20 per cent error but when it is thousands of per cent error it is just ridiculous and contempt for the public is shown in the way certain Deputies prepared their contributions. Deputy Hogan at column 1360 says:

The views I have expressed are entirely my own. Senator Garret FitzGerald expressed his views in the Irish Independent. My views are somewhat different, but the principle is the same.

I would say to Deputy Hogan he should be a tolerant man and allow also that the Minister's views are different but the principle is also the same with him.

There was a question about the number of three-seat constituencies. I think Deputy Fitzpatrick said they were all in the west and none in Dublin. He will correct me if I am wrong.

(Cavan): I did not say that. I said you had as many four-seaters in Dublin as you could mathematically have.

Yes, there are two three-seaters in Dublin.

I think I have covered most of the points I wanted to make but before I conclude I would like to ask that this mud-slinging and this slandering of Fianna Fáil would stop. Supporters of our Party come up to me and say: "Why do you not answer those charges? I wonder why you do not denounce them?" I said we did. I pointed out that where they are inaccurate we denounce them, but the point is that many of those people do not read the details of the report in the press where those charges are answered and answered accurately. The blind appeal to emotionalism is something that does not fool all the people. It might fool some of them, but not all of them.

The Opposition like to say that there was a majority of 276,000 votes against the proposals which we put before the people. We make no apology for putting those proposals before the people. We still feel they were the right proposals to put to the people irrespective of their free right to decline to accept them. I hope somebody like Deputy McLaughlin, when he goes back to Leitrim, will explain to the people of that county that it was his own Party as much as any other Party who were responsible for the boundaries of Leitrim not being regarded in the re-drawing of the constituencies. I do not expect he will do this but I do not think either the people of Leitrim are such fools that they will not be aware that any tears now being shed by Fine Gael or Labour for the boundaries are purely crocodile tears.

Deputy Briscoe used whatever talents he has fairly well. The only thing about his speech is that he complained that the people do not read what Fianna Fáil say in this House. You know I do not blame them for not doing so because they have been saying such a lot of stupid nonsense over the years.

I did not say that.

The people are fed up hearing this sort of thing trotted out again and again. Some of what Deputy Briscoe said was fair comment but some of it was just waffling, filling up and using up time. I do not know whether the statement by a Fine Gael Deputy as to the size of two constituencies has any bearing or not on the discussion we have here today. That is a matter for Deputy Briscoe. Personally, I do not think it matters a damn one way or the other.

Deputy Briscoe also said that a lot of Fianna Fáil Deputies were unhappy with the dividing up of the country at the present time under the new constituencies. Of course they were unhappy, but who are they to blame? They have to blame themselves and their cumainn throughout the country. One thing I cannot understand is the stupidity of the Fianna Fáil Deputies themselves who "traipsed" in and out of the Minister's office telling him to take a little bit off here, a little bit off there, telling him where the strength was and where the strength was not. However, in their efforts to improve the Party they forgot something they have never forgotten in their lives before—they forgot themselves. The most selfish group of people who ever represented any Party in this House suddenly found they made a mistake, that they had forgotten themselves and found they had left a number of themselves out in the cold.

It is really extraordinary when one gets down to look at the way this matter was worked out. Take, for instance, during the debate on the referendum here in this House when the Minister—I am sure he will not deny this—threatened, although maybe that is not the correct word to use, me with what would happen in my own constituency, the one I represent now, if the referendum went against the Government. He said that perhaps I would find portion of the constituency I represent with Louth and perhaps I would find portion of it with County Dublin. The General Secretary of the Fianna Fáil Party even wrote to my local paper and referred to the fact that I seemed terribly anxious that the Minister would put my area in with Louth and referred to the fact that the rest of the county would be left to the tender mercies of the Minister for Defence and Deputy Farrelly

At that time I challenged the Minister in this House to put my area in with Louth or in with Dublin. As a matter of fact, I particularly wanted him to put me in with Dublin. I said then, and I repeat it here now, that if he put me in with County Dublin where he is a representative himself he would not get things as cushy as he is getting them now.

It is not the first attack you made on Deputy Dunne.

Deputy Dunne does things in a certain way and he is able to get an awful lot of votes but he does not do them in the way I would if I went in with the Minister. That is something the Minister should take into account. The Minister should leave me alone without interrupting and when he comes to reply he can speak for as long as he wants. He spoke for 6 hours and 55 minutes in the Seanad and he can do that again if he wishes because he has the right. Let him listen to me now and if he does not want to listen he has his remedy. He suggested he was going to divide the constituencies. He said that cutting up constituencies would cause terrible things to happen. He kept repeating this again and again. He kept saying that terrible things would happen in my constituency and his General Secretary wrote to my local paper, not one letter but two letters, threatening that I was going to desert them, go off into County Dublin and leave them to the tender mercies of the Minister for Defence.

The Minister's local advisers must have told him that all he had to do in that portion of the country was to put portion of County Meath into Louth and make it a four-seater or to put Drogheda into Meath where the boundary of the Boyne is already in Louth and make it a four-seater. If they did not do that and left it as it was, what would happen? Monaghan and Cavan would have to go together as a five-seater. That did not suit the Minister because the probable loss there would become a certainty.

What does the Minister do? He divides Meath in three ways. He slices off portion of North Meath, my own area, in which I was born and reared and puts a half circle around the village I was born in just in case there were supporters who would be inclined to vote for me and proceeds to slice off what he considers to be an area which would be pretty useful to the Labour Party and he continues on through Deputy Farrelly's home town and nearly cuts off the toes off his boots in doing so. He puts that portion into County Monaghan. He then continues to slice off another portion of North County Meath with two small exceptions and puts it in with County Cavan. Supposing by any stretch of the imagination the same results come after the next election and that we have the same returns for the County Monaghan constituency, what happens? Somebody in North Meath who wants to see a Deputy will either have to go down to Monaghan town to see Deputy Mooney, to Ballaghaderreen where Deputy Dillon resides or to Highfield Road, Dublin, to see Deputy Erskine Childers. Maybe the Minister does not see anything wrong with this because it has become practice in his Party, particularly among Ministers, as soon as they get nice and secure, to feel that the only place to live is in Dublin. I suppose I cannot blame the Ministers or the Fianna Fáil Party. I blame it on the stupidity of the people who continue to support them. Once they get into the big House they have no more use for them; they want to move away and to be as inaccessible to them as possible.

Deputy Briscoe talked here about the breaking of county boundaries. I do not care what any Member of the House says, I have a personal view on this. I believe that county boundaries are important just as I believe that the national boundary is important and I would not agree that somebody who lives in County Meath would be happy being attached to another county any more than I agree with the suggestion which was made here by a former Taoiseach that we should join the EEC, and by the present Taoiseach, that we were prepared to accept everything that was laid down there, which would include giving up our national sovereignty, if necessary. I do not agree that that is right. I do not agree, therefore, that county boundaries should be sundered. The Minister has a sin to answer for. He did one good thing. He gave portion of South Meath which was tied to County Kildare back to Meath.

Just to show how vioious he was, he took portion of Kildare right down as far as Lullymore and put it into County Meath, the object being quite plain to anybody who wants to see. It is not because he was interested in levelling off the numbers but because one of the Fianna Fáil Deputies lives in an area there and, as there are only three seats in Kildare instead of four, he is anxious to provide a seat for him in Meath. Good luck to him if he can win it. If he wins it, he will have to work very hard. Even the portion which the Minister has so kindly presented to him as a going away present from the Kildare constituency will be very little use to him at the time the next election comes.

Quite obviously, what the Minister and his Party were after when they started to gerrymander—it is the only word I can think of—the constituencies was that, if they could arrange things in such a way that they would get at the weak Opposition Deputy in the constituency, they might win two out of three seats, which is what they have been doing for many years. That is the whole idea behind the present breaking up of constituencies. The Minister should admit that this is what they meant to do and that this is what they have done.

Deputy Briscoe referred here to the fact that Deputy Kyne and Deputy Treacy had nothing to complain about as their constituencies were not interfered with. Of course, their constituencies were not interfered with. This is one of two peculiar things which many people looking at the whole pattern realised a long time ago. If the voters consider that an outgoing Deputy is being badly handled by the Government, being ill-treated, that the carving up of the constituency is done for the purpose of unseating him, the reaction of the voters, no matter for whom they had been voting previously, is to give a very large vote to that individual. This has happened, as everybody knows, in Deputy Tom Kyne's case. Deputy Kyne is one of the best Deputies who ever came into this House. This was realised and the effort by the Fianna Fáil Government to unseat him failed because the voters were determined not to allow it to happen and, therefore, gave him a very big vote which put him at the head of the poll. Similarly, in the case of Deputy Treacy, who is also an excellent Deputy, it was quite clear that the Fianna Fáil Party felt that he had not a chance of being elected. They have got their answer. The people put him at the head of the poll. That is one of the things Fianna Fáil have overlooked in the present carve-up. I am quite sure that after the next general election the Government will realise, not for the first time, that they have misjudged the electorate and have walked into something that they cannot get out of easily.

I know that it is not proper to go into details about the result of the referendum on this occasion but I should like to point out that anybody who suggests that if the single seat proposal had been carried there would have been no disturbance of county boundaries must not know the facts. The single seat would mean that Meath, for instance, must be carved up three ways. Knowing what the Government had done on a previous occasion, when they wanted to straighten out the boundaries to suit themselves, and what they have done or are attempting to do under this Bill, I am perfectly satisfied that, if the Government proposal had been carried and if the Government had succeeded in getting away with the single seat constituencies, they would almost certainly have breached the county boundaries as they have done now in Meath in three seats but would also have breached the county boundaries all round because it is not possible to have the exact number required in any constituency.

Reference has been made here again and again, both during this and previous discussions, to the High Court action. Would the Minister care to explain when he is replying why if he, as he says, considered the High Court action had created an impossible position, the Government did not do something about it before now? Why did the Government not try to get legislation through this House to remedy the position or, if that could not be done, why did they not include it in the referendum in such a way that it would be acceptable to the people, and not try the gerrymander, a cute sort of thing which he thought would be carried because, according to Fianna Fáil, the people were thinking only of one side? Deputy Briscoe seems to have overlooked this fact: the people were not codded. The people knew what they were voting for. They knew what Fianna Fáil were trying to do. The people made sure that there would be no doubt about the result. Deputy Briscoe presented us with an extra 40,000 votes. Thanks very much. They were no use to us. We won by 230,000 odd. But then, Deputy Briscoe does get rather mixed up.

Whom do you mean by "we"?

We—the people of Ireland.

"I", your Leader says.

The plain people of this country are the people who won. They gave their answer. The two Opposition Parties campaigned against the proposal. Numerous bodies outside the House who believe in democracy campaigned against it. Democracy won. That is something which might come rather hard on the Deputy who is interrupting.

Right through the debate which took place prior to the referendum we had, as I said earlier, a suggestion by the Minister that the people should vote for the Government proposals "or else". Following the result the Minister sat in the front bench of Fianna Fáil and, as the old saying goes, he had not a word to throw to a cat. It was nearly impossible to get him to answer questions. He had his head down. He was glum. Everybody knew that there was one thing at the back of his mind: "These people have beaten me and I am going to punish them." Now he is trying to punish the voters because of what they did to him in the referendum and his punishment is being meted out in the most sadistic way. He is arranging to have areas throughout the country broken up so that—as he himself said he wants to prove himself right— the transferable vote will result in people having to go a very long way to see a Deputy. Let me repeat that no matter how far you have to go you will not have to go as far as you have to go to see some of the Fianna Fáil Ministers if they represent your constituency down at the end of the country.

Before this Bill has gone its weary way through Dáil Éireann and since we are, according to the Taoiseach, on the eve of a general election, I would hope that a little bit of common sense might seep through to the Minister and that before he puts the Bill through its final stages he might consider there are a number of ways in which he can undo the things he started to do; there are a number of ways in which, having had time to settle down, possibly not the 90 days waiting period we hear of in other places, but a considerable waiting period in which to simmer down, he may realise what he is doing is no credit to him. It was said here this morning, and I agree, that the name of Boland is one which deserves honour in this country. The way in which the name Boland will be considered after this Bill is carried through will certainly not reflect any credit on it.

The Bill also gave an opportunity to the Minister to overcome certain shortcomings which were in the legislation for a number of years in regard to election to this House. I am amazed that the Minister did not include any of those proposals, despite the fact that the title of the Bill gave that right to the Minister. He decided to deal only with the constituency boundaries and nothing else. I would suggest that the Minister might, even at this late stage—and there will be amendments from the Labour Party on these points coming before the House— consider the age of voting. This could have been put before the country in a referendum. The Minister did not include it, but he should at least express an opinion on reducing the voting age to 18 and perhaps we can suggest this is one referendum he could carry if he put it to the country.

Secondly, the system of the compilation of the Register of Electors is a national scandal. In election after election one goes to a polling booth and finds that not alone all the people over 21 on 14th April are not included but many people who were on the polling register since they were 21 years of age some of whom have reached the 60's and 70's find for some extraordinary reason their names have been left off. Do not tell me they have the right to look up the list in the local post office to ensure their names are included. That is all cod. A few people who are interested in politics between elections may go to the local post office, but most people are too interested in looking after their own affairs to bother about these things. It is too big a job for anybody except those who are paid to do it, to bring the Register of Electors up to date.

Dublin County Council are setting up a franchise section. I do not care what they call it or what the Minister calls it, but under the present system, people—rate collectors in the country districts and other people who are given the job in the city—go around or are supposed to go around to find out who should be on the Register of Electors. They go to one house and inquire there who is in the area and make up a list from that rather than go around to each house as they should do. This is wrong. It is also wrong that in a house where there are half a dozen flats a number of cards should be left in the hall, the intention being that somebody will pick them up and have them filled in and sent back so that the list can be made up.

The arrangements for voting itself must be changed. We still have the same arrangements where somebody living beside one village may have to travel through that village and four or five miles to the next one in order to vote, because the townlands were registered in a certain way long ago and have not been changed over. The Minister must seriously consider the question of extending the postal vote. It is unfair that so many of our citizens who are entitled to vote are not allowed to vote because their job or other reasons keep them away from home when the voting takes place. While I know it is not an easy matter, the Minister must look into it and do something about it. The Minister must also seriously consider the question of having the elections held on Sundays. There may be a religious objection to this; I do not know, but I am quite sure——

These matters are outside the scope of the Bill.

With due respect, I say they are not. I have gone fully into this and I do not agree, Sir, whatever your advice is. The title of the Bill itself will show that these points are within its scope.

In this Bill it is the boundaries of the constituencies that are in question.

Would you agree to look at the title of the Bill, Sir?

Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1968.

That is not the full title, the long title.

It is not the full title, but it is the contents of the Bill which determine the scope of the discussion on it. The long title says: "An Act to fix the number of Members of Dáil Éireann and to revise their constituencies and to amend the law relating to the election of such Members."

... "to amend the law relating to the election of such Members". I will have to bow to your ruling, but I submit this gives the Minister scope to include what I am suggesting, if he wants to do so.

They would not be matters that would come within the scope of this Bill.

I do not agree. There will be amendments from the Labour Party coming before the House dealing with these matters. If I cannot speak on the Second Reading on matters which we propose to submit as amendments, is there any point in having a Second Reading of the Bill?

The amendments that will come before the House, if they are in order, will be allowed for discussion.

I have to bow to your ruling, but I think the ruling is not correct.

The Chair accepts the Deputy may have that opinion, but the discussion must be kept within the scope of the Bill before the House.

The matter will be coming up on the Committee Stage. I have covered most of the points I wish to raise. I thank the Chair, if he felt that way, for allowing me to raise them. As I said at the start, the Bill is a vindictive one. It is being introduced by the Minister for the purpose of getting his own back, literally, on the people he feels showed him up during the recent referendum. The Taoiseach has said again and again it was not a political matter: "We put the matter to the country. The country decided, and we accept their decision." That does not appear to be the attitude of the Minister for Local Government. His attitude is: "We put the matter to the country. They have voted against us and, therefore, we are going to punish them for not doing what we wanted them to do."

The idea that the only way in which the constituencies can be drawn up is the way in which the Minister has drawn them up is too ridiculous for words. I have already pointed out at the start of my speech that with a very simple adjustment the Minister could have put four seats in County Louth, three in County Meath, five in Monaghan and Cavan; or he could have put four seats in County Meath, three in County Louth and five in Monaghan and Cavan. Instead of that he decided to slice off two parts of Louth, put them into Monaghan, and make Monaghan a three-seater, Louth a three-seater, Cavan a three-seater and Meath a three-seater. He has sliced off considerable parts of Meath and put them in with Monaghan and Cavan. I think this is vindictive because of the area which he took away. He took away the area where I was born and reared. He did that because he felt it was an area in which I would get, and did get, a lot of support.

No matter what way the Minister twists it around or breaks up the constituencies and uses the weight of the Fianna Fáil Party in this House, it will be all the same. Deputy Ben Briscoe talks about the unhappy members of Fianna Fáil, those who are unhappy at the decision of the Minister for Local Government and who do not like the breaking up of the constituencies. In all their unhappiness they will troop into the Division Lobby to vote for the changes in the constituencies. I can assure the Minister that, despite the efforts they are making to have the Labour Party wiped out, when the next election is over, gerrymander or no gerrymander, he is going to have back in this House a stronger Labour Party, and we will deal with his successor, because I know quite well he will not be there to make an effort to do this sort of thing again. I will tell him something else, that if Labour have anything to do with the next Government—and Labour intend to put enough candidates in the field to be the next Government—one of the first things they will do is review all the constituencies and remedy the situation that the Minister has brought about in his famous carve-up.

I was rather amused to hear Deputy Briscoe's approach to this. He went to great pains and did a lot of research to find quotations from this side of the House, which he took out of context, to support the case he was making. It was quite evident he was approaching this matter and the terms of this Bill in the same manner as he and members of his Party always approach such matters, with a blind political loyalty to the belief that Fianna Fáil can do nothing wrong. Deputy Briscoe went to great pains to criticise Deputy Pat Hogan because he had the courage to suggest to the Minister that there was a more scientific approach. It is right to quote, despite what Deputy Briscoe said in criticism of Deputy Hogan, what is contained at column 1364 of volume 237 of the Official Report. It is a tribute from one of Deputy Briscoe's colleagues, Deputy Fahey, to Deputy Hogan. He said:

I had no intention of contributing to the debate until I heard my colleague, Deputy Hogan. I want to say this much for Deputy Hogan over and above the other speakers I heard on the Opposition Benches. At least he has the courage to make suggestions as to where the divisions should take place in the constituencies in order that the requirements of the Constitution, as laid down by the High Court in 1961, may be complied with. He also had the courage to make those suggestions during the referendum debate here in June. On that occasion he suggested putting West Waterford in with Cork...

Deputy Briscoe seems to underestimate the intelligence of the people when he said that, if they had an opportunity —which they have if they avail of it— of providing themselves with copies of the Dáil debates and reading some of the speeches made here by the Opposition, they would immediately know they were in favour of those suggestions. It is extraordinary now that it is necessary to give more seats to Dublin because we have not the population in the rural areas. It is extraordinary how everything comes to life.

I believe it was Deputy Briscoe's father who said in 1932: "I am happy to think that as things are working out now we shall not have so many persons migrating to the city. The Government is going to look after the whole country and not a section or part of the country." I need hardly remind the House that we are now in 1968 and that the country was so well looked after by Fianna Fáil that the rural areas are now losing four seats to Dublin.

This is the result of the policy which has been pursued over years of denuding the rural areas of their population because they did not get an opportunity of making a decent living. The primary purpose of the Bill should be to revise the constituencies in the light of the 1966 Census which is legally necessary, but it is now emerging that that is not the real purpose of the Bill. We can say in connection with it that Fianna Fáil are taking every opportunity to preserve their interests and ensure that their own representatives will be reinstated after the next election. It is quite apparent that this approach is as a result of a plan that was not prepared overnight but was in readiness so that if the referendum was defeated there would be a way of putting it before the people and ensuring that the Government would be entrenched in office.

That is actually what will happen. Deputy Briscoe could not understand gerrymandering in the sense that it was done by Fianna Fáil but he referred to and I think he quoted my own Leader, Deputy Cosgrave, in reference to gerrymandering some years ago. However, the people in no uncertain terms told the Fianna Fáil Government what they thought of their recent suggestion to change our voting system and have single-seat constituencies, which they maintained will be more workable and will give better results to the people. In the terms of this Bill, however, they are going as far as possible from the principle of PR. It is now suggested that we shall have 26 three-seat constituencies, as against 17 at present, and 14 four-seaters, as against 12 at present, and only two five-seaters as against nine at present. It is well known that PR works more successfully in the larger constituencies. The idea of three-seat constituencies is impossible and with the gerrymandering we would have two-to-one; but, of course, the people have yet to express an opinion on that and the other suggested changes. They will be given an opportunity to do this in the next election, whether this will be in the near future or not.

However, it is quite evident that Fianna Fáil want to get away as far as possible from the full operations of PR and it would seem that they are going along that channel without considering the views of the people. The lesson learned by them in the referendum does not seem to have been enough. The people are thinking for themselves and, indeed, they did this in no uncertain manner in the referendum.

Alternative suggestions have been made here in the House as to how this matter could be approached in a different manner and not in a political manner. At the moment, the Bill suggests the wholesale breaking and breaching of county boundaries and also electoral boundaries and, in the process, we have lost one county. In wartime, we would refer to people on the road as refugees but the people of Leitrim, to my mind, are political refugees. They are on the road. They have lost their county, despite all the talk that we hear in the Republic about getting back the North-Eastern Counties. Fianna Fáil have got rid of one county because the retention of it would not suit the aims and fortunes of that Party.

We must be realistic and approach this matter in a realistic way, in the way that the people of the country would approach it. I am quite sure that the electors will be frustrated when this is presented after the Bill has been passed. Then, they will really know where they stand. They will realise that, despite the lip service that it is for the good of the people, it is for the betterment and future preservation of Fianna Fáil.

I should like to refer to an article in the Irish Independent of Tuesday, November 19th, which gives the Government's plan in detail. It shows the displacement of something like 100,000 people and the breaching of 19 boundaries—this figure is subject to correction. Side by side with that is an alternative put forward by a Senator—Senator Garret FitzGerald—who maintains that, while it is necessary and imperative to revise constituency boundaries, it is not necessary, in his opinion, to displace all those people. He maintains that it could be done by displacing fewer than 40,000 people but, despite that, the Government have emphasised the fact that theirs is the only way, in their opinion, that this change could be successfully brought about. This is correct only in so far as the preservation of the Fianna Fáil Party is concerned. This is gerrymandering in a big way.

Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) gave the history of gerrymandering and said that now, for the first time, we had “Bolandering”. This is a new word, but very appropriate. We know very well the Government are trying to halt the decline in their dwindling forces brought to light in the referendum. They cannot deny the facts. It is there in black and white, that, from the 1965 general election to the referendum, their voting support has been reduced by 175,000. That, in itself, is an indication that the people feel it is high time to have a change of Government. The sooner we have an election the sooner Fianna Fáil will get their answer.

As regards the breaching of county boundaries, I must again refer to what Deputy Briscoe said. He gave us much information but he was taking refuge in the fact that it was necessary to introduce this measure in view of the High Court decision in 1960. He wants to attribute the suggested changes here to what the court ruled, which of course is not sensible. This Bill is what Fianna Fáil desire, what they want and what they will get because they have the majority to put it through. With regard to county boundaries Deputy Briscoe made great play of the fact that Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick and other Deputies on this side of the House had not that great an objection to the intermingling of county borders. He did not say that Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick and my colleagues on this side of the House were definitely opposed to the breaching here and there of county boundaries. We know well that in regionalisation we can walk over county boundaries but the Deputy did not say that we were opposed to and considered it unnecessary that electoral boundaries should be breached here, there and everywhere. Looking at the suggested boundary changes one is reminded in certain cases, such as in my own constituency and the Leitrim boundaries, of a game of chequers. Someone said we will move this a bit in; someone else said we will bring out this bit—in here and out below. Consequently, I have no doubt in the world that there are personal influences at work in the setting up of boundaries.

However, I am not complaining about my constituency. I will let the people answer and I am happy to await their verdict. The Fianna Fáil Party cannot get away from the fact that a lot of this exercise is unwarranted and unnecessary and that there will be general resentment in the country. When the people get an opportunity of exercising the franchise at the next general election they will exercise their vote in no uncertain terms. They did so in the recent referendum in spite of what they were told—that they would never see a poor day if we had the single seat. God help us, we know what would have happened in that event. Now that the Fianna Fáil Party have been defeated they are taking their revenge on the people. They have learned that the people are now thinking for themselves in a mature way. That is good for the country. We are clear on the facts here in the House. The people are not blind either and they will do what they think is best for them and not for the Fianna Fáil Party.

I have no hesitation in saying, Sir, that the people will resent this measure and will in no uncertain terms give their answer when the opportunity arises. Be it sooner or later, we will have a Fine Gael Government in consequence of this suggested gerrymandering and the recent defeat in the referendum.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, believe it or not, when my constituency is divided up I do not think I will return the next time.

You will; I will have a few bob on you, Paddy.

I am saying this seriously.

Have a look at my constituency.

Deputies both sides of the House will lose some friends. The Minister for Local Government has said that he cannot please us all.

You will not have to carry him any more, Paddy.

I have great sympathy for the Minister for Local Government. He has a very difficult job. He was faced with the task, according to the law, of dividing up the constituencies. I should like to find one man who wants to lose friends. I have represented County Dublin for some time and I am about to lose a number of good friends in an area in which I usually got a reasonably good vote, according to what those who usually attend the counts say. We all have to put up with that. I do not like this word "gerrymandering". The Minister had to introduce this Bill, whether it reacts against his own Party or against the Opposition. He had a job to do and he had to consider it carefully. He had no chance of doing what he wanted to do, to save the county boundaries. The people of Ireland answered that question.

I have been listening to the Opposition speakers. It is nice of them to make observations; that is democracy in action. We accept all these things but we have to be just as far as the Minister is concerned. He is, even in his own case, taking in an area in which he got 70 per cent of his votes when he was elected.

(Cavan): He at least consulted these martyrs about their constituencies.

I was never consulted.

I should not imagine the Deputy would be but, if he took his tongue out of his cheek, it would be interesting to hear what he could tell us.

No, no. I am delighted. The Deputy is helping me with my speech.

Sure, I will.

No, not Deputy Collins. I am referring to the family lawyer, Deputy Fitzpatrick.

(Cavan): Did I not put you on to the Nursing Board the other day, instead of Deputy Dowling?

If Deputy Fitzpatrick were over there as Minister for Local Government and had the same job to do, I should be defending him here because I know he could not work miracles either. No man can work the miracle of pleasing everybody. For that reason alone, we have to accept it and it is inevitable.

The tolerance issue was turned down completely by the people. If it had been carried, I suppose Leitrim would have been saved. Unfortunately, even the people of Leitrim did not want any tolerance as they themselves turned it down. I suppose we are all wiser after the event. The last speaker said that Leitrim has gone off the map of Ireland. The people of Leitrim are themselves responsible. Even if the tolerance issue had been carried, these things would be settled——

Nonsense.

That is my opinion. I was listening to you, my dear man. The five-seat and seven-seat constituencies are too big. I am in a five-seat constituency and I find that one has to be in four places on the same night. The flesh is worn off my bones in County Dublin in my efforts to be in as many places as I can at the same time.

Fair play to the Deputy, he makes a great effort to be there.

(Cavan): How many graveyards? That makes it difficult.

A big number of cemeteries. Is that not an argument against a five-seat constituency, for a start off? In a three-seat or four-seat constituency, one has a chance of seeing a few friends but, in a seven-seat or in a nine-seat constituency, one would never be able to manage it at all, especially in the rural part of Ireland where there is a cemetery in every parish.

And two in some of them.

(Cavan): We have not a Deputy Burke in every constituency.

I do not want to dwell on all the Opposition have stated on this subject. I shall just say that the Minister has succeeded in doing a very good job. As Deputy Fitzpatrick very well knows, I am not in the habit of repeating myself but, if Saint Peter himself was there and if Deputy Fitzpatrick was there, they would not succeed in pleasing everybody in this House. While we are all losing friends, we hope to make a few new friends. When this Bill goes through, we must all take to the high road to see if we can make a few new friends to compensate for all the good old friends we have lost. During my time in this House, this is the third occasion my constituency has been changed. I do not think I shall survive this time. However, I shall try. I wish the Minister luck.

I suppose we have to be realists if we are to be politicians. There is no doubt at all about what the real nomenclature of this Bill should be. It is a tremendous effort to try to save waning support for the Government Party. I am going—in a very erudite way, I hope—to illustrate quite clearly the esoteric limits to which the Minister for Local Government has gone in the changes he has made. It is nice to find a kind of avuncular episcopalian episcopus—Deputy P.J. Burke—graciously embracing what is to come and, with a kind of benevolent sympathy, saying farewell to what is gone.

When we look at what has been done to South-West Cork we really can get the guideline of the purpose and the real issue in this Bill because, not only has the Minister succeeded in breaking up county boundaries in my constituency but he has made mincemeat of parishes and for one purpose only, namely, to try to get in a few little strong pockets—some of them will help Deputy Meaney——

It is doubtful.

Deputy Meaney's colleague will tell him they will. But, if you take a view of my constituency objectively, you will find that half of Castletownbere has gone to Kerry. I should be very sorry to lose part of Beara. They are some of the finest people this country has produced. They are a tremendously hard-working, decent people. Kerry is to represent some 3,000 or 4,000 of them. South-West Cork will represent the Beara town itself, down the road into Glengarriff. But, lo and behold, as soon as we get to Glengarriff they take Comhola off us and put that off into mid-Cork and the rest of the parish of Bantry stays in South-West Cork. Then we come up to Keimaneigh and the old traditional parts of Gougane Barra, Inchigeela and Ballingeary—all lopped off. Then we come back into the Macroom area where some most amazing gymnastics have been performed in the transfer lists. We swing around areas and intermix them with other areas and we have some in mid-Cork and the other half of the parish in Cork South-West. There is only one feasible explanation for the whole thing: it is a deliberate, positive and calculated effort to try to make two Fianna Fáil quotas in mid-Cork.

I am not, like Deputy Burke, afraid I shall not come back to this House in the new constituency. The person who is going to beat me in my new constituency will have to do it the hard way. He will have to do it before the public, on merit. While I know that I shall gather many friends in the Bandon-Kinsale area, it does not in any way prevent me from making an effective protest, I hope, against what can only be described as deliberate gerrymandering at one end of my constituency. It is not even gerrymandering; it is the subdividing of parishes even and the splitting of areas in a wholly farcical way for the sole purpose of trying to hold the mid-Cork constituency together.

I give fair warning to the Government, just as I gave fair warning to the Government on the referendum: the Government are making one hell of a mistake. The Irish people can think for themselves. They have learned the value of PR. They understand the purpose and the strength of the system. The last time Fianna Fáil revised the constituencies the revision boomeranged. If we could get Fianna Fáil to the country quick enough the boomerang this time might be even more catastrophic. People do not like being pushed around. They dislike lame excuses: "I am doing my best not to breach county boundaries, but I have to do it in accordance with the decision of the court." That is utter nonsense. The design is quite simple. The rigging is quite obvious. Where four-and five-seat constituencies would have met the situation they were not considered at all because the Government were not sure of the outcome and so the Minister deliberately seeks to reduce the effectiveness of PR by making a great number of three-seat constituencies. Under proportional representation, small groups anxious for representation, are likely to get more effective representation in bigger constituencies and the three-seat constituency is designed to save a few seats for the Government.

Fianna Fáil have had a long innings and, as the sands of time run out, it is inevitable, I suppose, that they should make an effort to bolster up their own shaky situation. They suffered a tremendous reverse in the referendum under which they sought to give themselves such dictatorial powers as had never been experienced in this country heretofore. They have learned a salutary lesson and they are now wondering whether they should have a general election immediately after this Bill is passed, whether they should try to weather the by-elections or whether they should wait until next October or November in the hope that they may be able to solve some of their difficulties in the meantime. It is somewhat unreal to find ourselves here discussing a Bill like this and, if the Government had any self-respect they would go to the country immediately and get their answer there effectively. They would not be playing with parliamentary time. Our economy and even our sovereignty is in danger.

Per se, this is a bad Bill. It has been conceived in hatred. It is designed for the purpose of taking revenge on the people because they had the courage to say “No”. The arrogance and powerlust of the Government had become so apparent to everybody throughout the length and breadth of this State that the people had no option except to say “No”. This Bill is, as I say, revenge. It is designed to force the people to keep Fianna Fáil in power. But it will not work. My only regret is that we have not got some effective machinery to compel the Government to go back and face the jury of the people instead of sitting here creating anomalies all over the country, anomalies which may affect the people's confidence in democracy. While some may think that it is of no consequence to have political Parties wiped out, I think there is a very sinister significance in any such attempt.

There have been many traditional links between Leitrim and Sligo and Leitrim and Roscommon. The only reason why Leitrim is being eliminated is that Fianna Fáil Deputies want to ensure that the constituencies carved out of the defunct Leitrim will return a majority of Government candidates in the next election. This is a deliberate effort and it is founded on the fact that the Leitrim people have always had the courage to take a certain view. It has been suggested that the Minister was forced into a situation in which he had to do all this because of a court decision. That is twiddle and twaddle, because on the basis of preserving the boundaries, the alternative was open to the Minister of creating five-seat and four-seat constituencies where necessary.

This Bill is designed to give the maximum possible return to the Government on a rapidly diminishing vote. That is particularly true in relation to the western seaboard and the south-western areas. We have had this myth, all this codology and all this propaganda spewing out year after year about saving the west, and about what they would do for the Gaeltacht and the Breac-Ghaeltacht, and the constituencies of the west. The myth has dissolved and we see before us the evidence of complete failure. The Government are trying to deny those areas proper constituencies to save a seat or two to keep them in office.

This is a bad Bill. It could not be a good Bill because it is wrongly conceived. Certainly it is Party designed. We have had naïve gestures from Fianna Fáil Deputies saying: "The poor Minister. If he were St. Peter he could not please everyone." One thing is certain. He has to listen to Deputies. They had their say. They brought in their little tally books showing how the vote went in the different polling booths and they said: "Minister, throw out that bit. It is all Fine Gael. Stick that bit in where Fine Gael will get the seat anyway and give me this bit." That is the whole design of the Bill and that is why I can talk about my constituency so effectively. I have told the House about my constituency. I told the House the peninsula of Beara has been cut in two and half of it is now in Kerry and the other half in Cork.

There was no difficulty in connection with South-West Cork and mid-Cork if the Minister wanted to see straight when formulating this Bill. There were about 5,500 surplus votes in mid-Cork and there were 6,000 votes short in South-West Cork, and a simple adjustment of part of the area in the Macroom district would have put the situation right. They chopped off a lump of Berehaven and put it in South Kerry and they re-arranged the mid-Cork constituency completely. They took Bandon and Kinsale out of mid-Cork. Naturally the people resent this constant switching of areas. Fortunately for myself I am fairly well known in the Bandon-Kinsale area and I will make a good fight there to maintain and consolidate our vote. To my mind there is something sinister and something fundamentally evil in cheeseparing on one side of a constituency and chopping and switching on the other side. This has gone on in the South-West Cork constituency. This can be traced back to the fact that we have always been proud, independent, freethinking and level-headed people in that area. No matter what kind of constituency is made of South-West Cork, Fianna Fáil will not get Fine Gael out of it. So long as I am young enough and strong enough to continue, they will not get me out of it.

We have to read this Bill in globo. If we are to do our job as Parliamentarians we must tell the people of the nature of this enactment. It will be steamrolled through the House without reference to anyone's wishes save those of the backroom boys of the Government Party who are designing the constituencies for one purpose only, that is, the continuation and attempted consolidation of the Government in office. That is a shabby kind of trick. It is well within the ken of the Fianna Fáil Party. It is necessary for us, as we did on the referendum proposals, to spell out the background, to elucidate the issues, and let the people know that there is no merit in this type of gerrymandering practice which becomes more noxious when we view the situation in the Six Counties. We are trying to alert the Irish people to the fact that the Government are attempting by statute, by constituency hopping and switching, to maintain power for themselves to which they are not entitled and of which they are certainly not worthy.

I could talk for many hours on this Bill but I do not intend to do so. I have made it quite clear why the chopping has been done on my constituency. I have been down in the areas where the axe is falling and I have left them under no illusion as to the Government's purpose. I have alerted the people generally to the fact that this Bill is a follow-up to the nose bleed which Fianna Fáil suffered, an effort to retrieve something from the catastrophic slap in the face the Irish people gave them in the referendum. It is another miserable dying effort by an atrophied, decaying and semi-defunct Government to keep themselves in an office of which they are unworthy and from which the people would cheerfully evict them if given the opportunity.

Get this Bill through as quickly as you like with your steamroller but, for heaven's sake, be men enough to give the people of Ireland the opportunity of giving you, in the ballot box, the answer that this country badly wants to put it back into a position of confidence, growing hope and proper government. Push it through as quickly as you like, but give us the general election immediately after it.

It is very evident that many Deputies are inclined to view this matter from a very narrow angle. If we look at it from the all-over point of view we will all agree that, no matter who brought in this Bill or who is in power, everybody could not be satisfied. That is definite. It is quite evident that there are Deputies from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour who are better placed than they were after the last change. There are others who are not so well placed, but that is the way it is going to be so long as we have to fulfil the present law.

It has been said that this Bill is brought in for gerrymandering purposes. Of course, I do not agree with that at all. I have listened to Fine Gael Deputies from my own county talking about gerrymandering. When they are in Cork they state to their own people how happy they are; they say that they are likely to gain a seat in Cork county. I was amazed at Deputy Fitzpatrick referring several times to the Minister for Local Government and his qualifications for bringing in this Bill. As a matter of fact, he seemed to be harping a lot on this point. He also seems to be harping on the point of whether he should not have done this on account of the Government losing the referendum. Everybody knows at this stage that the referendum proposals were put to the people in a democratic manner. The people were asked to vote on the proposals and they gave their decision. They gave the decision that they were anxious to retain PR. I would like to remind Deputy Fitzpatrick once again that it was only by a very small majority his own Party were not looking to change PR. His Leader was in favour of change. A number of other Fine Gael Front-benchers were in favour of change. There was also a large group of his Party members in favour of change. When he tries to say that the Deputies on this side of the House introduced the referendum he should look at his own side and see how they lost out on that process. He talks of the qualifications of the Minister for Local Government to bring in this Bill. The Minister is a straightforward man. He is a Republican and the son of a Republican. The only worry Fine Gael and the Opposition have is when he makes them feel the pinch, when he is a director at a general election or by-election. He is well qualified to be a Minister and the Party has complete faith in him. Long may he be a Minister in a Fianna Fáil Cabinet. It has been said that the Fianna Fáil Cabinet put Leitrim off the map. Why did Leitrim lose representation? If our proposals in the referendum were adopted Leitrim would be sending back a representative to the Dáil, but they were not adopted. Those speakers from the opposite side sent out propaganda one way or another and brought in different issues. The result is that one county has now completely lost out. If our proposal of one-seat constituency, "one-man onevote" was adopted you would have a representative from Leitrim coming back to the next Dáil, regardless of his Party affiliations. I know that the Opposition will state that we tried to do away with a county. I have given you the facts which are that, if our proposals had been adopted, Leitrim would definitely have a representative in the next Dáil.

We hear much discussion about the carving up of county boundaries. We have a record of a Labour Party speaker who said that it was really a case of loyalty to the country and not to the county. We have also a Fine Gael speaker who stated during the referendum that county boundaries did not matter. However, now when the Minister has to make out his areas and to cross county boundaries, they are all talking about it.

All this is to the disadvantage of the rural areas. We are all very well aware that this country is getting Dublinheavy. Dublin is over-represented. It does not take as many votes in Dublin to be elected a Deputy as it does in rural areas. Certain proposals were brought in which would save the rural constituencies, but they were turned down. We will now lose a number of seats on the western seaboard to Dublin city. That is to the disadvantage of rural Ireland.

Opposition speakers try to blame the Fianna Fáil Government for people leaving the land. They do not wish to look at the fact that all the world over in Great Britain, in the Continent of Europe and in the USA people are leaving the rural areas and going into cities. This is part of the cycle we are going through and is something that is very hard to stop. One cannot stop young people leaving rural areas if they wish to and going to live in a city where they have more amenities and social life. This is a world-wide problem which is not really confined to this country. Already in this debate I have noticed some contradictions. Even within the Labour Party I noticed Deputy Treacy bemoans the fact that Dublin has got many four-seater constituencies. I quote column 1262 of Wednesday, 27th November, 1968:

They purposely chose four seats as the best means of securing the greatest possible number of Deputies in the Dublin area. These four-seat constituencies in Dublin then are designed to neutralise in very large measure the losses expected by the Government Party in Dublin in the next general election.

I would like to refer Deputy Treacy to a Labour Party Convention at Ennis on Sunday, 1st December, 1968. Mr. Barry Desmond, Chairman of the Labour Party, presided at the Convention and I quote the Cork Examiner of Monday 2nd December:

Grave dissatisfaction was expressed by delegates at the mutilation of Clare under the new Electoral Act and it was agreed to stage public demonstrations against the "butchering" of the constituency. It was also decided to ask the Parliamentary Labour Party to table an amendment to the Bill asking that Clare be allowed to retain its four seats in the Dáil.

I ask the Labour Party where do they stand? Do they want three, four or five seats in Dublin, or four in Clare? I do not see that, with all their talk about candidates to form a Government after the next election, they have confidence enough to put a policy to the people in Clare that would give them at least one of the three seats. They do not deserve Government one way or another.

You will know the answer after the next election.

Why did you want a four-seat constituency? Are you moving that amendment?

We will win a seat in Clare.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share