I think I am entitled also to protest at the tactics used by the Opposition in order to deny me the right of adequate reply after they have spent two full days making all the false allegations they could possibly make. Apparently the idea of the Opposition in regard to the manner in which debate should be conducted now is that unlimited time for the making of irresponsible and knowingly false allegations should be available to the Opposition and that then some stratagem should be utilised in order to deny the Minister the opportunity of replying.
Committee on Finance. - Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1968: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
On a point of order. I want to protest about the remarks of the Minister for Local Government——
That is not a point of order.
——and to point out this was a Whips' agreement, and that his own Party were as active to curtail him as anybody else. This was a Whips' agreement, agreed upon by the three Parties. If Fianna Fáil are going to break agreements, then we will do it in future.
On a point of order, I do not wish to take up any of the Minister's time. He took only six hours and 55 minutes in the Seanad, but I wish to say that this was a Whips' agreement and the suggestion of the Taoiseach was that the Minister should get 1¼ hours.
This is a typical example of the recrudescence of Blueshirtism in the Opposition Parties.
The Minister could not keep any agreement.
What we have heard here tonight is a deliberate attempt by Deputy L'Estrange to try to create a disturbance and to try to deny me the right of free speech. It is a recrudescence of the Blueshirtism that has marked this session of the Dáil.
(Interruptions.)
It is an attempt by Deputy L'Estrange to deny the right of free speech to Members on this side of the House.
If Deputy L'Estrange cannot behave himself I shall have to ask him to leave the House.
The agreement was made by the Taoiseach. The Minister should behave himself.
The refusal of the Opposition Parties to allow this debate to be conducted in the normal way emphasises the insincerity of the bogus suggestion that there should be more time devoted to the business of the Dáil. In fact, the reason advanced for this curtailment of my right to reply to the debate was that the main Opposition Party have arranged a hooley for tomorrow night and are not prepared to continue the business of the Dáil tomorrow. If they cannot face the Dáil after this humdinger of a party they should be able to face it next week.
We said we would meet next week but the Taoiseach wished to finish tomorrow.
Apparently they do not expect to be fit to come back on Friday nor even to be in any condition to come back next week.
Deputy Fitzpatrick, speaking on this debate, said that he could not have made the type of speech that he made if there was a proposal for a commission, but he did make the exact same type of speech when there was a proposal for a commission and the titular leader of his Party made the exact same type of speech and so did the others. When a commission was proposed they said it was a flagrant and deliberate attempt to gerrymander.
On a point of order, no Fine Gael Deputy was allowed to talk about a commission and I do not see why the Minister should be allowed to talk about it.
If Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde ever reads the Dáil Reports he will see that every Deputy on his side of the House referred to the commission. It is true that the Chair tried to bring the Deputies on the opposite side of the House to order but, in their usual manner, they refused to come to order. However, I do not expect to have time to deal with the arguments with regard to a commission tonight because the Opposition have already made plans to deny me the right of adequate reply.
Despite the laboured efforts of the Opposition to make it appear otherwise, it is very obvious from this debate that the volume of genuine dissatisfaction with the proposals in the Bill is small. The dissatisfaction is not related to any general principle but it is related merely to minor details and the personal prospects of individual Deputies in securing re-election to the Dáil rather than to any fundamental principles of the scheme of the constituencies as proposed.
In fact, I relieved the tedium of listening to the same type of allegations being made by one Deputy after another by watching the efforts of the Whips in the Opposition Parties to search out their Deputies from every nook and cranny in the House to persuade them to come in here and make a speech. They were all handed the exact same brief. There was an obvious effort to make it appear that there was in fact some widespread dissatisfaction with the proposals.
In so far as it is possible to identify the actual criticism of the Bill from the mass of personal attack in which it was enshrined, I think it emerges quite clearly that the Opposition criticism is directed, not so much at what is being done in the Bill but against the Constitutional provisions that require this to be done. The debate provided, as was to be expected, many examples of the double thinking that has become so natural to Deputies on the opposite side of the House. We have contradictory statements being made in the same sentence. We have had arguments that the new constituencies have been devised with consummate skill so as to benefit Fianna Fáil and to eliminate individual Opposition Deputies. These arguments were combined with boastful claims that the result of the Bill would be to wipe Fianna Fáil off the face of the earth.
The volume of real complaint, as distinct from personal abuse, is about equal from both sides of the House and this fact is an indication that the task imposed on the Government, as a result of the Fine Gael action in the courts in 1961 and the decision of the people on 16th October this year, has been approached in as fair and objective a manner as possible. A number of Opposition speakers could not refrain from expressing their own personal satisfaction with the new constituencies in which they apparently expect to find themselves. My assessment of the position as disclosed by the debate, in so far as it has been allowed to proceed, is that the Opposition are at least as well satisfied with the proposals as are the Fianna Fáil Deputies.
I do not say, of course, that they have committed the unpardonable crime of expressing publicly their agreement. I have accused the Opposition of many things but I have never accused them of agreeing publicly with any Fianna Fáil proposal.
Of course, I must admit that it is difficult to see how a Bill proposed in the present circumstances could fail to arouse a certain amount of dissatisfaction particularly on the Opposition benches where the instinct of selfpreservation is so strong. After all, the decision which the Opposition was responsible for the people making ensures that at least four Deputies representing rural Ireland who are here at present will not be coming back and the results of by-elections indicate that it is much more likely that these Deputies are at present on the Opposition side of the House rather than on this side. Therefore, irrespective of the actual proposals that are in the Bill, it is inevitable that at least four Deputies from outside Dublin will not be coming back, since the total non-Dublin representation must be reduced by at least this amount under the Bill. That is, of course, unless the planned migration of Fine Gael Deputies from rural areas to Dublin produces results. I have not the full list of the potential migrants but I know that the O'Higgins brethren have been mentioned, Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Lindsay.
We on this side of the House have been following breathlessly the exciting accounts of the ebb and flow of the bitter struggle between these wouldbe migrants and the local hopefuls for the four extra Dublin seats that have to be created and for the declared vacant Costello seats.
I should like if it is possible to console those Deputies who fear they will become the victims of their own action in reducing rural representation so unjustifiably by reminding them that they might have lost their seats in any case.
Despite the fact that only four of the sixteen general elections we have had in this country have been preceded by a revision of constituencies the average number of Deputies in those sixteen general elections who did not return here for one reason or another after the general election was 33. While I admit that this figure is somewhat distorted by the fact that there were 73 who did not come back in the 1927 election, still, the lowest number that did not return after any general election was 19 in the election of 1944—and that election was held within 12 months of the preceding general election in which there were 27 who did not come back. So, I think it can safely be said, irrespective of the proposals in this Bill, there would in fact be a number of Deputies here who would not be coming back. Therefore, I think it should be possible for those Deputies who feel they are sitting for the last time in Dáil Éireann to console themselves with this knowledge that it is quite on the cards that they would not come back anyway.
It is clear from the figures of previous general elections that the pattern of the number of Deputies who did not return has not been affected in any significant way by the previous revisions of constituencies and, mark you, most of them were made by Fianna Fáil. I have no doubt whatever but that there will be no significant difference on this occasion either.
Many Deputies have commented on the short time it took to produce this Bill and, in that short time, I am alleged to have pored over maps, over the Census report and over the register of electors and this mysterious detailed information that is supposed to be available to the Fianna Fáil Party with regard to the past, present and future distribution of votes as among the different Parties in different areas. I am alleged to have done this with every Fianna Fáil Deputy, with every county councillor and with every cumann in the country and to have achieved a scheme that won unanimous approval from all these people. This, I think, would be indeed a remarkable achievement in such a short time and an achievement, I must say, I do not believe it would be possible for anybody to arrive at.
Deputy James Tully alleged I went even further—that I was not satisfied to decide on the areas that were to be changed, particularly the areas that were to be changed from one county to another, on the basis of this detailed knowledge as to how the people voted in the past and will vote in the future, but that I also spent long hours, apparently, ensconced with the Registrar of Births and Marriages and Deaths in the Custom House conducting extensive research into his own genealogy and, by implication, into the genealogy of other Opposition Deputies and that, having discovered the areas from which his forebears originated, I selected that area of County Meath for detachment to the constituency of County Monaghan—apparently on the assumption that all his relatives who were extant in that area from which he had migrated would, if they were left in Meath, support their illustrious kinsman, Deputy James Tully. I think it was a remarkable coincidence that, having made this alleged research, I discovered that this area happened to be the area of County Meath that was contiguous to County Monaghan. More remarkable, later on I was accused of having selected this very same area in order to injure Deputy Farrelly. I was accused of that by Deputy Clinton who is, I appreciate, better acquainted with County Meath than with County Dublin. Therefore, I was fortunate that this area affected both the Opposition Deputies.
I did not, in fact, conduct any research into Deputy James Tully's genealogy but I did have some discussions about this remarkable allegation. What did I discover? I discovered that this area was also the ancestral area of the present Minister for Defence. So, here we find that this area apparently—it is a small area—affects the three of them. That is indicative of the type of nonsensical allegation that has been made.
As I have said, a number of Opposition Deputies during this debate upbraided me for being too precipitate in bringing in this Bill; for acting, as they alleged, unnecessarily and entirely on my own initiative, to change a satisfactory arrangement of constituencies for the sole benefit of the Fianna Fáil Party, However, in the usual contradictory manner of the Opposition, others have alleged I was anything but enthusiastic in bringing in the Bill. For my own part, I accept the latter allegation.
I frankly admit that I regarded the task of revising the constituencies and bringing in this Bill as a distasteful and undesirable one. It has been done by me only under duress. I can show that it was done under duress because from the very moment the 1966 Census of Population was published I was subjected to pressure, through Parliamentary Questions and supplementary questions from many Deputies on the Opposition side of the House.
On 19th October, 1966, as reported in volume 230, No. 8 of the Official Report, Deputy Seán Dunne, my own colleague, asked the Minister for Local Government if it was proposed to revise the Dáil constituencies before the next election in view of the population changes since the last distribution of seats. He pressed me at some quite considerable length with supplementaries on this matter and was assisted by Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick of Cavan on behalf of the Fine Gael Party. Subsequently, on 13th July, 1967, Deputy Michael O'Leary asked a similar question and, again, on 6th April, 1967 Deputy Sweetman asked a similar question. On that occasion, I was pressed to carry out this revision of constituencies by Deputy L'Estrange, by Deputy Cosgrave, by Deputy Seán Dunne, by Deputy Clinton, by Deputy Reynolds and by Deputy Donnellan. Again, I was asked a similar question earlier by my colleague, Deputy Seán Dunne. It was as a result of this pressure by Opposition Deputies that we decided we would either have to carry out the revision of constituencies demanded by the Opposition or else give the people the opportunity, which the Opposition also demanded in 1961, of removing what Deputy Costello described as "this Constitutional infirmity".
I have described the Constitutional position. I did that in my opening statement and no one has seriously suggested that revision was not inevitable. The Government did everything possible to avoid bringing in this Bill. It was because of the pressure to revise the constituencies that we decided to ask the people to amend the Constitution and that decision was in clear response to the demands of the Opposition in 1961. I quoted these demands before and I propose to quote from only one member of the Opposition now and I do so because of a particular speech made on this particular Bill. I quote from the late Deputy Michael Donnellan, volume 188 of the Official Report of 12th April, 1961. Deputy Donnellan said:
The Taoiseach was not man enough to submit the matter to a referendum so that the people might be given an opportunity of changing the relevant Article in the Constitution and getting a fair crack of the whip.
Later he said:
I regret the Taoiseach did not put this by way of referendum to the people.
This was typical of the attitude at that time and, as I said, it was in response to that that we tried to avoid having to bring in a Bill on this basis at this particular time. But, just as the interpretation of the Constitution, with which we must now conform, was established by a Fine Gael manoeuvre in the courts so the rejection by the people of the amendment of the Constitution, which would have made this Bill unnecessary and which they demanded, as I said, in 1961, was also engineered by the two Opposition Parties. It is they who are responsible for this Bill, not I. I am bringing it in only because it was forced upon me by the Coalition and I am— I agree with Deputy Dockrell—completely unenthusiastic about it. I will go further and say I do not know anyone in the Fianna Fáil Party, from the Taoiseach down, who is enthusiastic about it and who does not regard it as undesirable. But the Constitution must be obeyed and this revision of constituencies has to be made because the Opposition have insisted on it.
What is being done in this Bill has to be done, or something very like it, to comply with the law. Admittedly, there is an infinite, or practically infinite, number of ways in which the rearrangement could be carried out. I said that in my opening statement. I also said that I think this is the least objectionable way. That is the most I can say about it. I do not need any Opposition Deputy to point out that I do not like the idea of depriving the rural areas of representation to which they are fully entitled, even on the basis of the most rigid interpretation of any theoretical principle. I do not like having to squeeze an unjustified four seats into Dublin. I do not like having to bring in a Bill which must ensure that at least four of the sitting Deputies in this House will not be coming back after the next general election. I do not like having to take parts of one county and transfer them into another county. Putting it mildly, I am not enthusiastic about pushing people around from county to county and constituency to constituency every five years or, as Deputy Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins said, playing musical chairs with the people. I am not enthusiastic about this. I do not want to do it. I am doing it only because I have to. I am not enthusiastic about requiring Deputies and their political organisations to readjust themselves to new constituencies so frequently, as is likely to be the case from now on, and I am not enthusiastic about the distortion of votes as between the rural areas in general and the Dublin area, a distortion which is inherent in the present position. But that is the law as laid down in the Constitution and as copperfastened by the decision made in the recent referendum.
If we leave out detailed references to specific areas each Opposition speech was, I think, entirely predictable. Certainly, I did not need to come in here and listen to the debate to know what would be said. Knowing, as I did, what has been the motivating force of the Opposition down through the years, I take it as the highest possible personal compliment that their hatred has now apparently become concentrated on me. In fact, the more vicious and hysterical their personal abuse becomes the surer I am that I am on the right lines. All the things that have been said in this debate were of course said before the Bill was published at all. The allegations were obviously drafted in advance. The Parties opposite—it is, I suppose, still appropriate to refer to them in the plural, although I do not see any very noticeable difference in approach between them—made these allegations of gerrymandering before ever there was any inkling at all of what was in the Bill. This was a safe thing to do because information indicating the inevitability of a great deal of chopping and changing of constituencies and the inevitability of parts of one county being attached to another county was available.
It was known before the Bill was published that there were 24 of the 38 constituencies in breach of the Constitution. It was known they must be changed and it was known that the changes would inevitably involve the majority of the other constituencies. This was well known to the Opposition because this position was connived at by themselves. It was well known that it was not permissible to exercise any but the very minimal amount of divergence in, for instance, adhering to county boundaries. It was known even before the Bill was drafted that it was necessary for the rural part of the country to lose at least four seats and that these four seats must be squeezed into Dublin and this would involve a fundamental redrafting of constituencies. This disruption being, as it was, inevitable it was obvious that the Opposition could plausibly allege gerrymandering without having in any way to justify the allegation because they know these things were the inescapable result of the decision made on 16th October at the behest of the Opposition Parties.
They have chosen to interpret the decisive rejection by the people of our advice to change the electoral system as a political victory for themselves. They will, I think, soon enough discover how mistaken they are but, taking into account their long experience of failure in elections, it is not surprising that the result of the referendum should have gone to their heads. They could not even contain themselves to wait to make these allegations until the Bill was published because, as I said, they knew the type of thing that would have to be done as a result of their monoeuvring in the courts in 1961 and the decision made on the referendum earlier this year. But even in this they cannot be logical or consistent. I think almost every Opposition Deputy dutifully repeated this allegation of gerrymandering, and highly skilful gerrymandering at that. They practically all alleged that the end result would be a decisive change of Government. This is certainly a new definition of skilful gerrymandering—a scheme of constituencies that will result in a decisive defeat for the Government which makes the revision. I would be inclined to describe that as anything but skilful gerrymandering.
Shorn of the volume of personal abuse in which they were couched, the Opposition speeches boil down to saying that the Minister did not gerrymander, this was only because he could not do it, and he would have done it if he could. I am satisfied that if a count were made of the Deputies on both sides of the House who are reasonably satisfied, and those who are genuinely worried for their own personal survival, the result would be about equal. I agree with my colleague, Deputy Dunne, that, in fact, it is not possible to gerrymander, that the knowledge on which to base gerrymandering is not available. As reported in the Official Report of the debate on 27th November he said he did not see how it is possible today for any Party to say with certainty where their support will lie. That is the position so far as I am concerned. I thoroughly agree. Even if I had wanted to gerrymander I would not have had the information available to me. However, so far from my wanting to do any of those things I agree with those Opposition Deputies who said that I was not enthusiastic about it. I did not want to bring in this Bill at all. It was forced upon me and the Government.
In order to put the issues, if issues they are, between us in perspective it is necessary to distinguish the matters on which there is a basic agreement apparently, in so far as it can be gathered from the debate, from those matters which appear to be somewhat in dispute. I think there are more of the former than of the latter. The first point on which there is general agreement is the necessity for having a revision before the next general election, having regard to the population figures disclosed in the 1966 census. In fact, it is obvious that this became apparent to the Opposition before it dawned on the Government side. That is obvious from the Questions put down almost as soon as the census report was covered. In fact, it appears that Deputies were waiting for the report of the census in order to demand just exactly what has to be done now.
The second point which appears to be generally accepted is that the total number of Deputies should remain at 144. There was not any complaint about that. The third point on which there was general agreement—I do not say complete agreement—was that in revising the constituencies the maximum divergence from the national average of population per Deputy should be 1,000 above or below the national average. I appreciate that Deputy Fitzpatrick sought to imply that we could avail of a much greater divergence than this, even after all our arguments during the referendum campaign, and in the debate on the Bills, but in view of the fact that the referendum was contested on the basis that that was the maximum permissible divergence, and that in the referendum the people decided to maintain the status quo, I find it hard to believe that this was seriously intended.
I appreciate that some other Deputies, notably Deputy Dunne, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, felt that no divergence at all was permissible, and are of the opinion that even taking four seats from the rural parts of the country and putting them into the Dublin area is still doing a savage injustice to the people of Dublin. That view, I admit, was expressed very forcibly on behalf of the Labour Party by my colleague Deputy Dunne who alleged that we should have taken more seats from the rural areas and put them in Dublin. He did not specify how many. Apparently the Labour Party did not go into the question in the same detail as did the Fine Gael Party, so it is an unspecified number of extra seats apparently which should have been put in with Dublin. Generally speaking, however, I think it was agreed that this divergence of 1,000 up or down was acceptable.
Another point on which there appeared to be general agreement, not complete agreement, was on the regional distribution of the seats. It seems to be agreed that the maximum permissible under present conditions 30 seats should be allocated the western area consisting of County Donegal, the Province of Connacht and County Clare, 38 seats in Dublin, and 76 in the rest of Ireland. As Deputy Donegan said, an eminent economist and statistician in the Seanad and an eminent surgeon in this House put forward their own scheme for this on the same basis as the scheme brought in. Both of them gave the same regional distribution of 30 in the west, 38 in Dublin, and 76 in the rest of Ireland. Here again, of course, Deputy Dunne is the odd man out. He maintains that this allocation of seats was a vindictive attack on the fundamental rights of the people of Dublin, thus apparently placing his two eminent Coalition colleagues in the same category as the Fianna Fáil Minister for Local Government.
There is a wide measure of agreement in regard to the general size of constituencies, that is that the constituencies should return either three, four or five Deputies. I do not claim there was agreement as to the relative number of constituencies of each different size there should be. Apart from one or two Deputies, there was no real advocacy of larger constituencies or constituencies returning a greater number of Deputies. Finally, although there were some Deputies who continued to bury their heads in the sand, there was general acceptance of the fact that the Constitution requires the breaching of county boundaries in many cases. In this respect, as was to be expected, the point of disagreement relates primarily to the precise breaching which must be made and here, naturally, there are almost as many opinions as there are Deputies in the House. Apart from individual complaints about their constituencies there were only two points of general disagreement that I could find in the debate. The first was the relative number of three, four and five constituencies we should have, where the different sized constituencies should be located, and the degree to which the breaching of county boundaries was necessary.
I propose to deal with these points. With regard to the matter of breaching the county boundaries I have said that this is inevitable. What I really intended to convey was that it was inevitable that, if we continue to operate the electoral system as it was in the past—if we go in to a greater extent for the grouping together of counties and if we get constituencies returning a larger number of Deputies, it would be possible to keep every county intact, although many counties would be united with other counties. For instance, a possible arrangement which would avoid the dismemberment of counties but would involve much more multi-county constituencies would be this. The three counties of Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim could justify under the present provisions an allocation of ten Deputies without any breaching. The two Counties of Mayo and Roscommon could be joined into a constituency returning nine Deputies. Clare and Galway would be somewhat over the national average but could be joined to come within the interpretation of the Constitution in a constituency returning 11 Deputies. Limerick and Kerry could be joined together in a constituency of 13 Deputies. Tipperary and Waterford could be joined in a constituency of ten Deputies. Cork County could return 11 Deputies as a single constituency. Cavan, Longford and Westmeath could be joined together to return seven Deputies. Louth, Meath and Monaghan could return nine. Kildare, Laois and Offaly could return eight. Carlow, Kilkenny, Wicklow and Wexford could return 12 and Cork City could return six. Dublin County could return 11 and then that would leave 27 for Dublin City which could conceivably be one constituency or three nine-seat constituencies.
I appreciate that constituencies returning a number of Deputies of this order would be nearer to the situation that was envisaged by the inventors of the system and I admit that, in view of the decisive nature of the referendum result, I was drawn to this type of solution. But I do not think that this type of scheme of constituencies was really an issue in the referendum. I think the decision was in fact in favour of constituencies returning a small number of Deputies as now. There would, I think, be many practical disadvantages in such a scheme of constituencies. For instance, I am sure Deputies will have noticed that if we had Limerick and Kerry joined together in one constituency, as would be necessary to avoid breaching of boundaries in that area, we would have had already in the lifetime of this Dáil, three by-elections in that constituency although the Dáil has still something over a year to run its full course. I imagine that most Deputies will agree that the people would be likely to become somewhat irritated by this almost continuous election activity. I need hardly say that the last thing I would like to do would be to cause any disillusionment with such an excellent system. In this type of arrangement which approaches the ideal of proportional representation Deputies might, for instance, be interested to speculate on the prospects of a deceased Deputy in Roscommon being replaced by a Roscommon candidate in a by-election in a constituency where the Mayo electors would outnumber the Roscommon ones by two to one and similarly in regard to the joining together of Clare and Galway and other areas.
I do not think there can be any doubt about my attitude to this question of the breaching of county boundaries or the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party. Although it is no doubt true, as Senator Dooge informed me in the Seanad, that these divisions were instituted by the illustrious King John at the turn of the twelfth century, we on this side of the House abhor the necessity to breach county boundaries in this way. Deputy Barrett asked me why I have changed my attitude to this matter. My only reply is that I have not changed my attitude at all but the people decided against me and I am compelled to do what I endeavoured to avoid.
Apparently there is not complete agreement in regard to the size of the constituencies but I may say that the Government decided at the outset against the creation of any new, large, unwieldy five-seat constituencies especially in rural areas. We decided, for instance, against the creation of a large, difficult to work constituency comprising practically the whole of County Donegal and similarly with regard to Kerry. The decision not to do this involved in the one case additions to Donegal from Leitrim and in the other case additions to Kerry from Cork in order to retain two three-seat constituencies in these areas. We decided also against the formation of what we looked upon as the suggested monstrosity of a joint Cavan-Monaghan constituency, which would be a long straggling one extending almost in the shape of a "U" around the Border of the Six County area. I think it is only necessary to look at a map to see the impracticality of this suggestion and the difficulty that would be involved both for the people and for their Deputies. We considered an arrangement that would involve a suggestion that has been made here of a Kildare-Carlow constituency, but again the creation of such a long straggling anomalous type of constituency did not appeal to us. This, in fact, involved the disruption of the whole population of Carlow which has been in a constituency with Kilkenny for quite a number of years and it seemed to us at any rate to be a less acceptable solution than the solution that was decided upon.
While I am on this question I must refer to one aspect of the Opposition's contribution that I must admit puzzles me and that is the apparent unanimity in the Fine Gael Party that Donegal should have been made a five-seat constituency by the detachment of the Bundoran and Ballyshannon areas from it and their transfer into County Leitrim. I do not know why there is this apparent concentration on Deputy O'Donnell's seat, why Fine Gael seem to be so anxious to take away a considerable portion of that particular constituency and convert the Donegal situation into a single five-seat constituency in which Deputy O'Donnell obviously would not secure his seat. Of course, it may be that he has been successful in this planned migration of Fine Gael rural Deputies to the Dublin area. I know, because I was present, that he did during the referendum campaign advocate the type of solution that we have in fact adopted—the creation of an increased number of three-seat constituencies—on the basis that this would be a scheme of constituencies that would make it more likely that the people would be able to return a Government at election time. I do know that his Party officially favours the creation of a situation in which it will not be possible for the people to do this, that they have this coalition mentality and that what they aim at is a situation in which there will be continuously indecisive results but I do not know that this was sufficient to justify this attack on his seat. I admit he does not appear here as often as his colleague, Deputy Harte, but then when he does come he behaves himself and does not get himself ejected with such monotonous regularity. In regard to this question of the number of three-seat constituencies——
He seems very short of arguments.
——we were attacked for the number of three-seat constituencies and, particularly, in rural areas. It was alleged that this was done in order to ensure a Fianna Fáil Government. This is a flattering tribute, of course, to Fianna Fáil policy and, in particular, to my colleague who has just concluded the debate on the Estimate for his Department, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. While accepting this unsolicited testimonial as to the merit of the Fianna Fáil policy, I have to ask why should an increase in the number of three-seat constituencies always benefit only Fianna Fáil? Why should it not be conceivable that at some time in the future it might possibly benefit the Fine Gael Party or maybe, at some time in the more distant future, even the Labour Party? I must admit I find it just as hard as apparently the Fine Gael Deputies themselves do to imagine their new agricultural policy, of a reduction in the number of farms so as to arrive at a situation where each farm would be capable of supporting 400 cows, ever being a popular policy in the rural areas but, at the same time, surely the fact is that three-seat constituencies will, as Deputy O'Donnell has said, facilitate people in electing the Government they want and we can only get that support from the people if the people want us as a Government. So that this allegation that the creation of three-seat constituencies must ensure the return of Fianna Fáil seems to me to be an admission that Fianna Fáil will retain the support of the people and I am not going to argue against that.
After all, it is agreed that, generally speaking, something around 50 per cent support is necessary in order to get two seats out of three and if the Opposition choose to assume that this will always be attained by Fianna Fáil and never by them, I will not argue about that, but it does seem perfectly clear to me that, under this system, the people will be able to return us when they want us and when they do not want us it will be reasonably possible for them to elect an alternative Government. The only real complaint I see in this is that by increasing the number of three-seat constituencies from 17 to 26 we are making it less likely that a Coalition situation will result. But while the Opposition argue that this must always favour Fianna Fáil, they have also, in the same debate, been saying that there is a significant swing from Fianna Fáil. Obviously, these two propositions cannot stand together. One is contradictory of the other.
As I said, I appreciate that there are many different ways in which the constituencies could have been revised. We have brought forward one which we think is the least objectionable and there have been two alternatives put forward by the Fine Gael Party. Both of these are also feasible. I think they do not produce as reasonable a scheme of constituencies as what we put forward but I admit that there is room for disagreement on that and, as I have said, many other arrangements could also be suggested. However, I assume that I am expected to comment on the two definite proposals that have been put forward by the Fine Gael Party, one by Senator FitzGerald and one by Deputy Hogan. The main claim, strange as it may seem, that is apparently made for both of these is that they involve actually less transferring of people from one county to another— something that has been argued in the previous session of the Dáil, as being entirely irrelevant and entirely unimportant. But now the main argument put forward in favour of these two suggestions is that it involves less disturbance of the people from one county to another and from one constituency to another.
The figures, in fact, do not stand up to investigation at all. Senator FitzGerald's figures, for instance, do not include anything about the necessary transfer between Dublin city and county and do not take cognisance of the joining together, for the first time, of the counties Cavan and Monaghan and of Roscommon and an extra portion of Leitrim. Neither do they take account of the detachment of Carlow from the present constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny and its integration into a new constituency with Kildare. The figures that I gave for the transferring of people include the adjustment between the two separate administrative areas of North and South Tipperary and this has not been taken into account either. In fact, if account is taken of all the disruption and if the figures for the scheme put forward by the Government and by Senator FitzGerald are compared on the same basis, there is disruption of a greater population under Senator FitzGerald's scheme.
In so far as the Government's scheme is concerned, for instance, the Louth people who are listed as transferred to the Monaghan constituency are already there, as are the Leitrim people attached to Roscommon and Sligo and the Wexford people attached to Kilkenny and there is no disturbance at all involved there. In fact, the Government's proposal, as I said, involves less disturbance. The same applies with regard to the people of Waterford. They are already in the constituency of South Tipperary.
As well as this, I think that the scheme put forward by Senator FitzGerald takes no account whatever of having convenient constituencies, that is, constituencies that it will be possible for Deputies to represent reasonably adequately. The idea of having practically the whole of Donegal in one constituency, Cavan and Monaghan united, Carlow and Kildare and the constituency of Galway, Roscommon and Leitrim, is not, I think, very realistic.
Again, I think the suggestion as a whole demonstrates the coalition mentality in the Fine Gael Party, the inherent belief that it just is not feasible for them to aspire to attain a majority involving, as it does, a decrease in the number of three-seat constituencies and an increase in the number of larger constituencies.
With regard to Deputy Hogan's suggestion, I have not had time to check it and in any case it is not very important but I am quite sure his figures could be shown to be just as incomplete as Senator FitzGerald's.
In any case, while, as I say, we look upon the detachment of any part of one county and its attachment to another as objectionable, it is at least questionable, when part of a county must go into another, whether it would be more equitable to make this as small as possible and to make the community being transferred as insignificant as possible or whether it would be better to transfer a substantial number which will form a significant and sizeable community in their new electoral environment. For example, in the case which is most familiar to Deputy Hogan, who went to the trouble of devising this scheme of constituencies, a Deputy residing in the transferred area actually succeeded in securing election with the result that the undesirable effects of this provision of the Constitution which requires this type of thing to be done and to which Deputy Hogan and others referred at such great length, were, in so far as the people were concerned, largely mitigated. Similarly the election of Deputy Crinion undoubtedly helped to mitigate the frustration felt by the people in the parts of Meath and Westmeath which had to be attached to Kildare as a result of the Fine Gael Party's action in the courts. Deputy Hogan agreed that Leitrim was obviously a problem area which would have to be dismembered in some way. In the way we propose in regard to Leitrim, the areas to be attached to the three counties of Donegal, Sligo and Roscommon are each a sizeable area and no elected representative for either of the three constituencies will be able to ignore with impunity the interests of the people of that part of the county which would be transferred.
Similarly with regard to the part of Clare which will be involved in the Clare-Galway constituency. Fine Gael seem to be unanimous that it would be desirable to put a comparatively small part of Galway in with Clare. It must be obvious that the solution we have put forward is in fact likely to result in four Clare Deputies being elected instead of three. The area is sufficient in size for the people to return a Clare Deputy if they want to. Here again there is no question of a small area of one county being submerged and lost in another.
As I said, Deputy Hogan's efforts have been largely wasted. I have never denied that there were countless ways in which the requirements of the Constitution could be met. It is quite obvious he has put quite a considerable amount of time, effort and study into the task. He was able to go into considerable detail in regard to areas to be transferred from one county to another county. He was able to specify the parts of Deputy O'Donnell's constituency which he thought should be transferred to Leitrim. He was able to specify in detail the part of Deputy Donnellan's constituency he believes should be transferred to the County Clare. It is obvious that he did take pains to acquaint himself both with the geography and demography of these far distant places.
I must say I found it rather surprising then that when he came to an area with which one would have thought he should be reasonably well acquainted and which would not have seemed to have demanded any great study—the area of South Tipperary and Waterford —he found himself completely unable to specify the areas that should be transferred. He obviously set out with the best intentions in the world but when he came to this area he baulked at the last moment at endorsing the suggestion made by his colleague in the Seanad. Here he did not see an obvious solution in a compact area like Bundoran, Ballyshannon or Gort. He did not opt for the compact area specified by his colleague.
In regard to the area to be transferred to make up Waterford to a sufficient level to justify four seats, the portion to be transferred was not to come from Carrick-on-Suir or from Clonmel or Youghal but from "somewhere." I found it rather surprising that he had not got the same detail and it was some vague "hinterland" which was to supply the population of Waterford. He did make some vague reference to Carrickbeg but not to Carrickmore. Apparently, he ruled out Clonmel and Youghal. He might as well have admitted that his Party had decided as Senator FitzGerald had said—and for obvious reasons—that the appropriate area was Carrick-on-Suir.
The House will understand that when a Minister for Local Government has to bring in a Bill proposing a revision of constituencies he cannot deal with it in the same way as Deputy Hogan did and he cannot say that the population required to make up a constituency should come from "somewhere"; he has to specify the exact electoral divisions and townlands that have to be transferred. Much as I would have liked to avoid these things and adopted Deputy Hogan's formula of a "hinterland from somewhere", I found that this solution was not available to me. At least Deputy Hogan, and I suppose the Fine Gael Party, did put forward their own suggestions. I do not think they are as good as the Government's suggestions but I agree that that is a matter of opinion.
One thing which emerges from the suggestions they put forward is that they agree with our allocation of seats on the basis of 30 seats to the West, 38 to Dublin and 76 to the rest of the country. The Labour Party do not agree with this but, although they have a more fundamental disagreement with the proposed revision than Fine Gael, they have been much less specific. My colleague, Deputy Dunne, was the most specific of all Labour Deputies in dealing with this question. The allocation of only four extra seats in the Dublin area at the expense of rural Ireland was described by him as a savage revenge on the people of Dublin. At column 1282 of the Official Report for the 27th November Deputy Dunne said:
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.
Further on in the same column he says:
He has tried to drag the number of voters on the register into every speech he has made as if it were relevant.
After basing his whole case on this he says, of course, it is not relevant, although he is a member of one of the Parties that campaigned on the basis of one man, one vote. In the next column he says:
That means that many voters in excess of the national average are required in Dublin to secure a Dáil seat.
Even after business had been interrupted for Questions Deputy Dunne still came back with this false allegation, this completely unsubstantiated allegation that more votes are required to elect a Deputy in the Dublin area than in a rural area and to allege that this was "savage revenge on the people of Dublin". At column 1339 Deputy Dunne said—this was after he had time to consider the matter during the interval for Questions—that the upshot of this specious argument would be that "the people in Dublin City and Dublin County would have to pay a far higher price in terms of votes for Dáil representation than the rest of the country."
All quite true.
What is the position? The position is that in the Dublin area the average number of voters in accordance with this proposal is 11,589 and the national average of voters per Deputy is 11,869. For Deputy Dunne's information 11,589 is less than 11,869 by 280. The average number of voters per Deputy in the West of Ireland is 12,365 as against the national average of 11,869. That is 496 more.
(Interruptions).
Deputy Dunne is on the official records of this House, both before and after Question Time, as saying that the people of Dublin——
(Interruptions).
The Minister does not believe it himself.
He quotes the Constitution to suit his own fell purpose.
——had to produce a substantially greater number of votes to elect a Deputy. Deputy Dunne knew that was a false statement, but because it was his brief he insisted on repeating it. He conspired to stop me from replying. He got his Whips to arrange an agreement to deprive me of the right of replying because Deputy Dunne was afraid to hear the reply.
(Interruptions).
It was a conspiracy.
There was no conspiracy. The Taoiseach agreed with the arrangement and brought it before the Government meeting, but the Minister challenged it here. The Taoiseach agreed with it and the Minister repudiated his own Taoiseach.
Your blueshirtism will not work.
Would the Deputies allow the Chair to put the question?
Remember what happened to Craig.
It is even more out of date now.
The Minister is a disgrace. It is time he was removed.
The Chair ought to be listened to for a moment.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 58.
Tá
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Brady, Philip.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fahey, John.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Dublin South-Central).
- Foley, Desmond.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lynch, Celia.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moore, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Leary, John.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burton, Philip.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Clinton, Mark.
- Collins, Seán.
- Connor, Patrick.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.K.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Spring, Dan.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lindsay, Patrick J.
- Lyons, Michael D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- Mullen Michael.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Connell, John F.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Geoghegan and Mrs. Lynch; Níl: Deputies L'Estrange and Tully.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 4th February, 1969.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 12th December, 1968.