When suggesting changes in the boundaries of a particular constituency under consideration Members will be allowed to deal with changes in other constituencies with which the constituency under consideration forms a group. This would be in accordance with the normal rules of debate and, consequently, would not need to be dealt with by a special Order of the House. I understand it is proposed to postpone sections 3, 4 and 5 until consideration of the Schedule has been completed.
Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1968 — Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 postponed.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
Could the Minister do anything about this problem, possibly in this Bill or, if not, in some future Bill, where there are polling districts crossing? The result of these proposals before the House is that people living in certain areas could be voting several miles away in the heart of another constituency. This is a peculiar situation that has arisen because of the way in which the boundary map is drawn up. Could the Minister try to have constituencies or electoral areas straightened out in some way so that this will not keep on recurring?
It is provided for in section 7.
It is referred to but it is not provided for. It still continues.
We shall come to it in section 7.
We shall discuss it when we come to section 7.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister says this is dealt with here.
Section 7 provides that where a polling district is split between two or more constituencies suitable polling arrangements will be made for the voters concerned either by joining a part or parts of the divided district with an adjoining district or districts or by constituting each divided part as a separate polling district. The provision is necessary because of the time taken in the ordinary course for going through the ordinary procedure for making a polling scheme. Subsection (2) provides that any such arrangement is temporary and will have effect only until new polling schemes are made. Any such arrangement will be subject to the sanction of the Minister as are polling schemes, and will come into effect only following the dissolution of the Dáil following the passing of this Bill. Under the 1961 Act, these temporary arrangements fell to be made by the returning officers because, at that time, the returning officer was, in nearly all cases, the registration officer. The registration authority is now the county or county borough council. It is considered more appropriate that the temporary arrangements in regard to polling districts should be made as provided in subsection (3), by the appropriate officer of the registration authority, that is, the county secretary or the city manager, following consultation with the returning officer. Does that cover what the Deputy has in mind?
Unfortunately, no. I am referring to districts such as one in my constituency. People who are living, for instance, in a district known as Balreask, south of Carlanstown, County Meath, have to travel through the Monaghan constituency and have to vote miles away. A simple adjustment would have enabled these people to remain in either one constituency or the other.
They must be in one constituency or the other.
They are in Meath constituency. They have to travel through Monaghan constituency and those who are nearer the Meath area are, in fact, in Monaghan. It is one of these things which have been handed down over the years. If it can be adjusted it should be adjusted.
"Handed down over the years": there has not been any adjustment between Meath and Monaghan before now.
The polling district in which these people are situated is so spread out——
And the road happens to go through part of County Monaghan?
You made it County Monaghan.
How has it been handed down over the years, then?
The area in which these people are living is south of Carlanstown while the booth they are voting in is four miles east of it because the Minister has done a bit of carving to suit somebody around that area and he has taken this area and put it into County Monaghan.
The carving was done to suit the Constitution.
It was done to suit the Fianna Fáil Party.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
The following amendments—Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6—in the names of Deputies Seán Dunne, James Tully and Seán Treacy have been ruled out of order as not being relevant to the subject matter of the Bill as read a Second Time.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Section 8 reads as follows:
(1) The Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1961, is hereby repealed.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall come into operation on the dissolution of Dáil Éireann which next occurs after the passing of this Act.
Now, this says that, on the dissolution of the Dáil, the new Act will become operative, when passed. Could the Minister enlighten me and the House, perhaps, as to what would happen if the Dáil were dissolved before this Bill is passed? Is the 1961 Act still operative and is the 1961 Act still enforceable in law in this country? In other words, is it completely constitutional?
Yes. If the Dáil is dissolved before this Bill becomes an Act, the 1961 Electoral (Amendment) Act is still in force.
Therefore, I take it that if the Dáil were to be dissolved before this Bill, when enacted, came into operation, it would be absolutely normal to have elections under the present existing scheme of constituencies?
Yes.
(South Tipperary): I wish to oppose this section inasmuch as I believe that the creation of this constituency—what is now termed Clare-South Galway—is quite unnecessary.
This is not on section 8.
We are dealing with section 8. The particulars mentioned by the Deputy would relevantly arise——
——on the Schedule.
——on the Schedule.
(South Tipperary): Very good.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
CARLOW-KILKENNY.
Question proposed: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny stand part of the Schedule."
Does this mean we are discussing the entire constituencies on the Schedule?
On the Schedule, we are now discussing entry No. 1—Carlow-Kilkenny.
Starting at Carlow-Kilkenny, they are taken one by one?
Yes.
May I make a suggestion to the Minister at this point? I think it is a recognised fact in this House that, as far as possible, the administrative constituencies or counties should stay as they were before. I think the Minister will agree with that. I think his arguments on the Second Reading were to endeavour, as far as possible, to keep them as before. In 1961, under the original Electoral Bill, we found, in the administrative county of Wexford that quite a lot of it was taken out and put into the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny. The reason for doing that was that the population register for the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny was then insufficient to maintain five seats. The placing of this piece of Wexford in the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny enabled that constituency to be retained as a five-member constituency.
In the readjustment that is now being made, I want to make this suggestion to the Minister that he restore to County Wexford the territory of that county that was originally removed from it to build up the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency. He can do that by restoring to County Wexford from the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency that area of County Wexford which was taken out and he can still maintain the status quo with regard to the number of seats in the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency in relation to the requisite population by uniting the constituencies of Carlow and Kildare into a five-member constituency and leaving Kilkenny on its own as a three-member constituency and still leaving Wexford as a four-member constituency but at least giving the Wexford people the right to vote in their own administrative county, as heretofore. Would the Minister consider that proposition?
That would be all right if we had only Wexford and Carlow and kilkenny to consider. Actually, we have 26 counties to consider. The situation in Kildare is relevant to the situation in Meath which is relevant to to the situation in Monaghan which is relevant to the situation in Cavan. Unfortunately, I cannot approach this on the piecemeal basis which Deputy Esmonde has in mind. I have to consider all the constituencies and not just the counties immediately adjoining the county of Wexford.
I am arguing in favour of the retention of the administrative areas. Could he tell me if the suggestion I am making to him means in effect that I am asking him to reduce the number of seats in any other constituency? I maintain I am not. He says unfortunately he has to consider other areas as well.
The Deputy is making it impossible to deal in a reasonable way with the situation in Cavan-Monaghan, Louth and Meath.
Would the Minister clarify this for me? Am I taking a seat away from anybody else? I do not want to deny anybody the representation they may wish to have in Dáil Éireann.
The suggestion that Deputy Esmonde makes might be better in so far as the County Wexford is concerned but it would involve dealing with other counties as far away as Cavan and Monaghan in a more objectionable way than they are dealt with in the Bill.
That is a lot of cod.
The trouble is that Deputies like Deputy Tully and Deputy Esmonde only have to consider their own constituencies.
The Minister will have a bit of a job finding one.
To consider the Fianna Fáil Party.
I am arguing for the retention of the administrative centres as far as possible. Let us consider Carlow-Kilkenny in relation to Carlow and Kildare—to argue my point more clearly than I have been doing. Carlow and Kildare are one unit under one county manager and so what the Minister is doing by perpetuating the construction of my constituency which took place in 1961, is putting these electoral areas under three different county managers. In effect, that is what he is doing because Carlow and Kildare are one managerial unit. Carlow and Kildare are in the one diocese and it is largely in relation to diocese and parishes that the present system is compiled. There is every argument in favour of doing that. I do not know what the opinions of my colleagues from Carlow and Kildare on the matter might be. Also, to simplify the matter for the Minister, the Garda administration of Carlow and Kildare is under one chief superintendent. Therefore, it is a unit. It was originally a constituency before the Minister came to the House, and indeed before I came to the House a good many years ago. I cannot see how the Minister can say that he cannot do what I suggest because he has to consider the position all over Ireland. This is just a matter of refuting all the arguments he has ever produced here in regard to this Bill. He has said that he is trying as far as possible to maintain the boundaries as they existed before in relation to the existing conformation. I am offering him an easy way out here to rectify a situation which I consider is entirely wrong and will lead to electoral confusion and so on. He mentions vaguely Louth, Monaghan and Cavan. They are a very long way away from Wexford, even from Carlow and Kildare. He mentions disrupting the constituency situation all over. Would he clarify my mind on what he really means? I am arguing that he can do this without changing the number of seats in Dáil Éireann. Anything that will enable the Minister for Local Government, in drafting what I admit is a very difficult Bill like this, to leave the administrative boundaries as they are, can only be doing a service to the country as a whole.
I have explained to the Deputy that, unlike himself, I have to deal with other constituencies as well as County Wexford. In fact, I do not even know whether Deputy Esmonde has the agreement of his own colleagues for what he is suggesting. I do not know if it is the decision of the Fine Gael Party to recommend that Carlow should be taken away from the county of Kilkenny and added to County Kildare.
I am speaking on my own behalf.
I thought possibly the Deputy was. The fact is that I have to deal with all the counties and, although I thoroughly agree that Cavan is a considerable distance away from Wexford, it is a fact that it is a relevant consideration and that is not my fault. It is not very long since the Deputy was arguing on the opposite lines that these transfers of population from one administrative area to another were completely irrelevant and of no importance. The proposal that I have made in the Bill involves the least disruption of the existing lay-out of constituencies. I am quite satisfied on that. What the Deputy suggests would be feasible if we had only these four counties to consider, but unfortunately we have more counties to consider.
While I accept everything the Minister said I should like to point out that I did not speak on the Second Reading of this Bill. I did speak in 1961 and I strongly opposed the disruptions of my constituency.
I think the Deputy also spoke on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill which was brought in to rectify the situation that he complained so bitterly about in 1961.
I do not recollect doing so. Perhaps the Minister's memory is better than mine.
(South Tipperary): Surely this is something the Minister could consider because it is feasible under the Constitution as it stands at the moment. The Minister mentions that any alteration like that will have repercussions in other counties. Of course, it will because there is a kind of chain reaction. He mentioned Cavan and also said that he was doing this with the least disturbance of county boundaries, but if you look at what he is doing to Meath——
Disturbance of constituencies, I said.
(South Tipperary): Yes. Let us take county boundaries. In the case of Meath the Minister has simply mutilated the county and drafted much of it into Cavan and some into Monaghan. I do not think that is necessary.
Would the Deputy keep to the question before the House, the constituencies of Carlow-Kilkenny?
(South Tipperary): I think it is impossible in this matter and I think the Ceann Comhairle mentioned this himself at the beginning——
Yes, I made an announcement about the constituencies under consideration forming a group but I think the Deputy is travelling a bit too far.
On a point of order, I think it was the Minister who travelled a bit too far. He said if there was a change made in any one it involved the whole country and that to make one in Wexford you have to take Cavan into consideration. With all due respect I think it is the Minister who has widened the scope of the debate.
I do not think I said it would involve the whole country but I certainly said it would involve as far up as Cavan and Monaghan.
Might I make a suggestion to the Chair? As we seem to be anxious to discuss the situation in the Cavan-Meath area and possibly Carlow-Kilkenny has been fully dealt with, we might move on to the other one where all these points would be relevant.
(South Tipperary): The Minister himself mentioned Cavan and it has a bearing on the matter.
It follows after the particular one we are discussing at the moment.
(South Tipperary): If the Minister were prepared to consider certain population transfers and endeavours to preserve the integrity of the Counties of Monaghan and Cavan he could arrange for the transfer back to County Wexford of this area if he would consider the formation of a Carlow-Kildare constituency. Carlow's population is 33,593; the population of Kildare is 66,404—a total of 99,997. This combination meets the requirements for a five-seater and allows the return of the sequestrated 4,398 population back to Wexford. This would involve some transfers of population as between Louth and Meath but there is an easy way of doing it. It would be quite a feasible proposition ultimately if Louth and Meath were dealt with on these lines. There would be fewer transfers of population ultimately than envisaged by the Minister.
There is an infinite number of ways in which this rearrangement of the constituencies could be carried out, in view of the interpretation of the Constitution.
The Minister should tell the truth, that when Fianna Fáil were devising this rearrangement there was only one consideration. It was to keep Ministers divided. Let us come to Cavan-Monaghan as it stands.
Let us deal with the previous one first. We are discussing Carlow-Kilkenny.
We have finished it.
We were told we had finished it.
The question is that the entry relating to the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny stand part of the Schedule. Is that agreed?
Question put and agreed to.
Now we come to Cavan.
CAVAN
Question proposed: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Cavan stand part of the Schedule."
In relation to Cavan, this constituency appears to be one place where the Minister or his henchmen made an effort to disrupt everything they could. I am not talking about the Departmental officials but of the Minister's local henchmen who not only knifed me, as the Labour Deputy for Meath, and Deputy Farrelly, as the Fine Gael Deputy, but one of their own candidates in Meath who stood on the last occasion. They wanted to get rid of him and they took a good swipe around and they got rid of their own candidate. The areas of Meath, Louth, Cavan and Monaghan could be settled easily. If they were fair they could have made Cavan and Monaghan a five-seater quite easily. Do not let anybody say parts of such a constituency would be too remote from a Deputy, because at the moment one Deputy lives in Ballaghaderreen and one lives in Highfield Road, Dublin. There are three Deputies in Cavan all of whom would be able to serve that area. One of the existing Deputies lives on the Monaghan border.
If what I am suggesting were done, Meath could quite simply become a four-seater with the addition of portion of Louth, or Louth could quite simply become a four-seater with the addition of portion of Meath. In either case there would have been very little knifing. However, that would not have suited the Minister. He cut portions of North Meath in a straight line, taking in the pockets of Fianna Fáil where they were needed and putting them on their own. The map is there. It is evident for anybody to see. Having looked at the map, it is fairly easy to follow who was the architect. Having done that, the Minister sliced it down the middle and gave portion to the Monaghan-Louth constituency.
Let me be fair to Fine Gael as well. It appears to me that some of the semiquavers put on the map have been for the purpose of picking a strong Fine Gael man. They took the tips from Deputy Farrelly's boots, they took away the area where I was born and reared. A decent man, the Minister for Defence, commented to the Minister for Local Government that he had roots in the area. Perhaps people do not have roots that carry them for 100 years. The Minister for Defence was born and reared in that area and probably his grandfather was reared in it but, as I have said, people do not have roots which carry them for 100 years.
There was a deliberate attempt made by the Minister, or by those responsible for advising him, to play a political trick. It is quite possible that the Irish people, being who they are, and realising that this trick is being tried, will blow it back into the Minister's face and it may become one of the most expensive day's work ever done by a Fianna Fáil Minister. He has given us back a portion of Meath. We are very glad, but he took a portion of Kildare and spliced it on to Meath and this aggravates ordinary people.
The idea is not alone to divide the constituencies in such a way as to be advantageous to the Minister's Party; there is also the effort to get at the areas of other Parties, to get at the dangerous areas and to wipe them out with one stroke. The Minister's story is that this has become necessary because the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill was not carried in the referendum. This is nonsense. The Minister knows that when he goes to the country the people will not accept that story. They know what he intended by the referendum on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill and the people dealt with it as it should have been dealt with. When he goes to them after this gerrymander attempt they will give him the same answer.
Cavan is a typical example of the butchering and the gerrymandering that Fianna Fáil are attempting in this Bill. They have not got anything to learn from the Six Counties. As Deputy Tully has stated, it is evident that in Meath, bordering on Cavan, their idea is to ruin Deputy Farrelly and to put him out of Leinster House but, no matter what Fianna Fáil do in this Bill, Deputy Farrelly will be back in this House after the next general election.
Like Seán MacEoin.
The Minister told us they were anxious to preserve county boundaries. What did they do in Cavan to preserve the boundaries? It is plain to be seen in Westmeath what they have done. It suits me admirably but it was not done for my benefit. It was done because there had been a bargain with Deputy Sheridan that if he appealed to the people there for the straight vote in the referendum the area of Kilbeggan, which was put into Kildare in their previous gerrymander, would be handed back to Longford-Westmeath to suit him. Incidentally it suits me. The Minister should stand up here and tell the truth to the Irish people. I have here a map drawn up by Senator Garret FitzGerald.
God help us.
The map shows plainly that there was no necessity to butcher or to gerrymander the constituencies around Cavan or in any other part of the country. With six small changes, involving 40,000 electors, or less than one per cent, the Minister fairly and squarely, and in the interests of the people of the country, could have drawn up a Bill that would be acceptable to everybody here. But that would not suit the arrogant, dictatorial Minister for Local Government. He had to have 17 changes involving the taking away of 17 pieces of nine counties and over 100,000 voters. Cavan and Monaghan could have been left a five-seater constituency.
Dáil Éireann is the place in which to tell the truth. It is a well-known fact that Fianna Fáil did not want a five-seater constituency because there was a danger of a member of the Protestant Association from Cavan and Monaghan getting one seat out of the five. As I say, this is the place to tell the truth: originally it was intended that Cavan and Monaghan would be a five-seater constituency but the Fianna Fáil boys came down and said: "No. If you do that there will be a member of the Protestant Association elected, one out of five, and we cannot be certain that we will get the support. Therefore you must change it and make it two three-seater constituencies." In doing that they had to take into Cavan portion of Meath very convenient to where Deputy Farrelly is living and put it into Cavan. I claim that is gerrymandering. The Minister could have made Cavan and Monaghan a five-seater constituency. He could have made Longford-West-meath a four-seater constituency and there would have been no necessity then to know lovely Leitrim off the map because Donegal could have been made into a five-seater constituency. Again the message was carried from Donegal: "If Donegal is made a five-seater constituency the Protestant Association will get a member there, one out of five. Let us make it two three-seater constituencies in the hope that we will get two out of the three in both." We can tell them now that their hopes will be dashed. Now, had they done that, Roscommon and Leitrim——
The Deputy should be discussing Cavan at this stage.
No. There is agreement that we can take the groups surrounding the constituency we are discussing. As a matter of fact, a few moments ago, when we were discussing Wexford the Minister brought in Cavan and Monaghan.
We have not come to Wexford at all yet.
We cannot discuss one in isolation. We have to even up and, if we did not make the case, the Minister would be the first to get up and tell us we were talking through our hats. I am pointing out to the Minister that, instead of doing what he has done, Cavan and Monaghan could have been left a five-seater constituency. Likewise, Roscommon and Leitrim could have been left a five-seater constituency, Sligo a three-seater constituency and Donegal a five-seater constituency.
At this stage, there would be a discussion on each of these on the Schedule; there would not be a group.
It was agreed between the Whips last night, and the agreement was read out here at the beginning of the debate, that we would deal with the Schedule, take the constituencies and base our arguments on a group around the constituencies. Otherwise we could not make any argument.
But Donegal does not affect this and neither does Roscommon.
Those which form a group round about the constituency concerned.
Yes, but I want to point out what can be done quite easily. The Minister went further. He took parts of North Meath, beside Deputy Farrelly, and put them into Cavan to do Deputy Farrelly all the harm he could. Then he took in parts of Kildare to suit a Fianna Fáil Deputy living there. The Minister is doing everthing he can in his alleged wisdom—I think things will turn out otherwise—to ensure that Fianna Fáil will capture two seats in Meath. They have not got a hope. I want to point out there was no necessity for this gerrymandering. The Minister assured everybody in the Referendum that he was anxious to preserve county boundaries as far as possible. He could have preserved county boundaries in this particular instance with the minimum of effort and without any necessity to change something like 10,000 voters; they have been switched from one constituency to another. There is no necessity for that.
Being one of those directly concerned I suppose I should say something about this proposed revision. The Minister told us on the Referendum that he wanted to make constituencies compact and easier to work. Now, even though Fianna Fáil lost the Referendum, one would imagine the Minister would honour his word and make constituencies easier to work under this reorganisation. It would have been very simple for the Minister to make Cavan-Monaghan and Louth-Meath very convenient constituencies for those representing them. Cavan and Monaghan are not entitled to six Deputies and the obvious thing to do, therefore, would have been to combine Cavan and Monaghan and make the constituency a five-seater constituency. I remember when Meath was lined up with Westmeath. Then the population in Meath increased and Meath was made one unit again. It remained a unit for a few years until the reorganisation prior to the 1961 election. Cavan-Louth could be made another constituency. It is absurd that people living within five miles of Cavan should be represented by a Deputy from the Monaghan constituency which extends from Rathkenny down to the border of Fermanagh. Rathkenny is only four miles from the town of Cavan. Nobody with common sense would draw up a constituency like that. Louth is a small area with a big population and it should be quite simple to take in portion of Louth and make it a four-seater, leaving Meath a three-seater constituency. I read in today's paper that a further area is to be brought within the Drogheda border. I am sure the Minister was aware of this change before he revised these constituencies.
If the Minister revises the constituencies along the lines I suggest he will be doing a better job for himself and for those who are represented here. I live in North Louth within four miles of the Cavan border. I live in Kilmainhamwood. The parish is divided in two, one portion being in Cavan and the other in Monaghan and 17 miles from where I live towards the seaside is still in Monaghan. The situation the Minister proposes is ridiculous. I can assure the Minister that people do not like it and, no matter what Fianna Fáil do about it, the people will not support them if this change is made. The Minister should reconsider making Cavan and Monaghan a five-seater, Louth a four-seater and leave Meath a three-seater and there will not be any objection.
(South Tipperary): I agree with the last speaker. Deputy Tully put it very cogently when he said the solution lay in Louth, Meath and Kildare. It is around those three counties that it hangs. If Louth and Meath were four-seaters all this abnormal transfer of population from Meath and Louth into Cavan and Monaghan could be obviated and Cavan and Monaghan could remain as a five-seater entity, two counties naturally grouped together. I do not want to anticipate the order of the Schedule. If Louth is treated as a four-seater Meath becomes a three-seater, and Kildare being, so to speak, a three-and-a-half seater would join Carlow, forming a five-seater.
The Minister proposes to make Cavan a three-seater. We feel it should be joined with Meath and made a five-seater. The transfers are 3,829 in one place, 1,827 in another place, 3,950 in another place, 5,796 in another place and 1,837, I think, in another place. This huge transfer of population from Meath and Louth into Cavan and Monaghan could be obviated quite easily if the Minister would consider treating Louth, Meath and Kildare on the lines we suggest. I will deal with it in more detail when we come to those areas.
I do not know what Deputies are driving at. They have complained that someone from Monaghan will be representing portion of County Meath. I understood from what I heard at Question Time that all those Deputies have moved in and are residing in Dublin.
Hear, hear.
I understood that from the way they "went after" Dublin Corporation. We endeavoured to prevent all this by having each square of the country marked out into single seaters. The Deputies who are now annoyed should have helped with that proposal. I know we will not see a trace of Deputy L'Estrange from tomorrow morning until after 20th February.
Why?
Because he will be above with Paisley. That is where the Deputy will be. The Deputy has deliberately alleged that this Government, this Republican Government——
God forgive the Deputy.
——are deliberately endeavouring to keep Protestants out of this Parliament.
Certainly.
That is the allegation which the Deputy has made. It is only natural that he should go up to help out Paisley for the next fortnight in elaborating on the corruption down here. I admit that is his natural instinct. I do not blame him for it but I think it is disgraceful for any Deputy to use that type of politics——
It is true.
——which he knows is not true.
I know it is quite true.
He knows it is not true.
It is quite true.
Not a bit. He was shouting about gerrymandering. Those people had an opportunity of having single-seat constituencies represented by one Deputy but they were not satisfied. They wanted five-seat constituencies or anything up to 15-seat constituencies. One Deputy says: "Look, this is the constituency now. If you turned it that way it would be handier. If you took a bit off and put a bit on it would be handier still." No one knows who prepared the map. If I were to look at my constituency as it stands at the moment, and as it stood a couple of months ago, I would say it was prepared by Deputy Fitzpatrick.
We must endeavour, as has been done here, to mark out the areas as fairly as possible, and to mark them out so that they will cause the least amount of annoyance to Deputies. The constituency I got in 1961 was like something drawn by a man who had been in delirium tremens for two months. I found myself with a constituency stretching from Youghal town to Loughchapel. Thank God the Minister has taken one slice from me, but there is another slice which he took from me about which I will be talking later on.
I think Deputy L'Estrange should apologise here and now in this Republican Parliament of ours which has prided itself at all times on having no religious discrimination. His attitude was a disgrace.
It is quite true and I stand over it.
The Deputy would stand over anything.
I stand over the truth.
He falls over everything.
I have not the Deputy's habits.
The Deputy should have the decency to say he is withdrawing his allegation and that he is sorry, or else he should pack his bags and go up to Paisley and stay with him. The two of them would be well matched.
This has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
He would suit Paisley down to the ground. He has the Protestant association.
The question is that the entry relating to the constituency of Cavan stand part of the Schedule. Agreed?
I wanted to say a word on this before we finish with it. On many occasions the Minister and members of the Minister's Party in the course of the referendum campaign said that the one thing they did not want to do was to interfere with county boundaries. That was something which was sacred and as far as possible the minimum disturbance should take place. Meath is now nearly like Leitrim. It is really non-existent. Part of it has been chopped up and put into Monaghan, part of it has been put into Cavan and part of it is being put into Kildare, while at the same time, as Deputy Farrelly says, quite an area is being taken into it for the enlargement of Drogheda. Surely it should be possible, if we are making any sensible re-adjustment, to ensure that it is not necessary to take bits of any one county in this way.
It is fair to say that it is not altogether a coincidence that it is the area in which Deputy Denis Farrelly has the greatest influence—indeed the area where he was born—that has been chopped up and part put into Monaghan and Cavan and it is not a coincidence that there is no strong Fianna Fáil force in that particular part of the county. It is an area of County Meath which I know very well. I know how much the people in the area that is cut away will resent being put in either Cavan or Monaghan because there has always been as much rivalry between Meath and Cavan and Meath and Monaghan as there is on the border between the 26 Counties and the Six Counties. I know how they will feel about it and they will show their resentment in no uncertain way.
Certainly, if Deputy Farrelly should lose on that end he will gain through sympathy in what is left and the Fine Gael organisation in the other two counties will benefit as a result. It is anything but a sensible chop-up and it makes a complete farce of the pious sentiments expressed during the referendum campaign about how sacred county boundaries were and how important it was not to chop them up unnecessarily.
On this matter the Opposition are displaying the limit in hypocrisy and effrontery in shedding crocodile tears for what they now describe as the breaching of county boundaries and which they described in the same way in 1961, despite the fact that it is only a couple of months since they expressed exactly the opposite sentiments, when they spent days and weeks here arguing that these were things that were of no practical consideration whatever and that they were entirely irrelevant. Now we have them singing the exact opposite tune.
On the other hand, the Fianna Fáil Party and myself have been consistent in this regard. In 1961, when the Fine Gael manoeuvre in the High Court required this to be done for the first time, we fought that case in the courts and reluctantly complied with the decision of the courts. At that time we were assailed by the Opposition Party for not giving the people the opportunity to remove what the former Taoiseach, Deputy J.A. Costello, described as this "constitutional infirmity". When again in response to the demands of the Opposition it became obvious that this practice would have to be necessary again and that those areas that were disturbed in 1961 were not sufficient and that this would have to be repeated, we did everything possible to avoid this. Our efforts to arrive at a situation in which it would be permissible to take practical things into consideration in drawing up constituencies were frustrated. We are now in the position that not alone have we the decision of the courts but the decision of the people that these are not relevant matters to be taken into consideration and we cannot take them into consideration.
However, at the same time, when it comes to drawing up a scheme of constituencies the duty devolves on the Government to try to have reasonable constituencies. It is a fact that these five counties of Kildare, Meath, Cavan and Monaghan have, generally speaking, formed constituencies of their own. There was, it is true, a short period when Meath and Westmeath were combined, but apart from that there have been Kildare, Louth, Cavan, Meath and Monaghan constituencies. That is the position at present. What we are proposing is to retain a Kildare constituency, a Louth constituency, a Meath constituency, a Cavan constituency and a Monaghan constituency. It is a fact that, in accordance with the position that has been cemented on us through the action of the Opposition Party, namely through the manoeuvre in the High Court of the Fine Gael Party, none of these five can form a constituency on their own, in a single county. In Kildare the population is 66,404 which is too much for a three-seat constituency and too little for a four-seat constituency. In Louth the population is 69,519 which is too much for a three-seat constituency and too little for a four-seat constituency. In Meath the population is 67,323 which is too much for a three-seat constituency and too little for a four-seat constituency. In Cavan the population is 54,022 which is too small for a three-seat constituency and in Monaghan, where the population is 45,732, it is again too small for a three-seat constituency.
As I have said, there are many different ways in which this totally unnecessary problem can be solved. If, on the other hand, our proposals had been accepted and it was permissible to take account of administrative boundaries, this complexity would not arise and a simple and an equitable solution would be possible. The solution as proposed involves the least disturbance and the least distortion of the present representation of these different areas. We are proposing that there should continue to be a constituency based in the main on each of these five counties and we have considered the possibility of joining the two counties of Cavan and Monaghan. In our opinion the creation of a constituency like that would be little less than a monstrosity constituency stretching along half of the boundary with the Six-County boundary, stretching in a U-shape so that we could not even go in a rational way from one part of the constituency to the other.
I am satisfied that the people in those two counties appreciate that a constituency of Cavan and Monaghan would in fact be what I described as a monstrosity and would not be convenient either for the electorate or their representatives. As I say, it is only a couple of months since every member of the Opposition Parties was arguing that administrative areas were completely irrelevant but now apparently, not alone am I expected to take account of county boundaries, but also expected to arrange the constituencies to be coterminous with county boundaries and parish and diocesan boundaries. That would be an impossible task particularly in view of the restrictions contained in the Constitution.
Deputies are complaining about the fact that the deficiency in population for three seats in Cavan has been made up from North Meath. It is quite obvious that that is the only rational place from which it could be made up. Monaghan borders Cavan but has no population to spare and neither has any of the other constituencies surrounding Cavan, except County Meath. The transfer must come from north County Meath and could not be taken from the other county in the area which has a surplus population—Kildare—or from Louth. It has to come from Meath and if it has to come from Meath it has to come from north County Meath. I am satisfied that the only area that it would be feasible to add to the County of Cavan in order to make up the deficiency in population is in north County Meath and the fact that Deputy Tully's forebears happen to have come from that area has nothing to do with it any more than the fact that the forebears of the Minister for Defence came from the same area. Neither has the fact that Deputy Farrelly happens to reside in the area. That is a fact. It is just an accident that apparently these three individuals happen to be associated with this part of north County Meath. There was nowhere else that this adjustment with Cavan could reasonably be made. Cavan has always been a constituency on its own. I think it would be a wrong step to combine it with County Monaghan particularly in view of the fact that, on the basis of the national average of voters per Deputy, Cavan would be fully entitled to three seats without any adjustment whatsoever.
It is of course questionable, when a transfer of population from one county to another is inevitable, whether it is the most desirable thing to minimise that transfer or to transfer a sizeable proportion so that the transferred population would form a fairly considerable element in the new constituency, or whether they should be, as has been argued by Deputy Hogan and others, made as few as possible in which case they would form an insignificant part of the new constituency.
The peculiar thing about the Opposition is that they argue from directly opposite points of view on the same subject. On the one hand, I am accused of having carried out a particularly skilful gerrymander to weaken the Fine Gael and Labour candidates in Meath and to strengthen the Fianna Fáil Deputy and potential Deputies in Cavan. On the other hand Deputy Clinton, who I agree has displayed a greater acquaintanceship with County Meath than with County Dublin——
He has a fair acquaintanceship with County Dublin and the Minister knows it.
Deputy Clinton tells me this will all rebound to the benefit of the Fine Gael Party in all these counties. Well, whatever that can be described as if it is a fact I do not think it can be described as a skilful gerrymander on my part because I can assure Deputy Clinton that although he may think to the contrary the last thing that is present to my mind is to benefit the Fine Gael Party in any way.
I agree with that last statement.
The Minister states that his solution here involves the least disruption. He talks about displaying the limits of hypocrisy and fraud. As far as his Party are concerned——
Fianna Fáil have been consistent in this regard.
Surely the Minister knows that Fianna Fáil were split down the middle and that one Minister on television admitted that he had warned them that they would be beaten by 100,000 votes? The Minister stands up and accuses the Opposition and says it was cemented by the Opposition. It was cemented on you by the people of this country and you suffered an overwhelming defeat and you were beaten by over 240,000 votes. The plan that we have suggested to you would mean transfers of only one portion of voters, 8,568 voters from Meath into Louth. By doing that you could have Louth a four-seater, Meath a three-seater and Cavan and Monaghan a five-seater. Instead of that, your proposal transfers from one electoral area in Louth 8,374; another 5,780, roughly, from Louth into Monaghan; from Meath into Monaghan, 3,900 odd; from Meath into Cavan 1,827; from another electoral area of Meath into Cavan, 3,829 and from Kildare into Meath, 5,441 voters. You propose these transfers from four different counties and then you have the hypocrisy and the effrontery and the arrogance to get up here and to tell us that your——
The Minister's.
——that the Minister's change involves the least disruption. If the Minister tells us that, words must have lost their meaning and we would want to go back to the old Oxford dictionary for the meaning of the words "least disruption" as the Minister seems to understand them.
It all depends on what the Deputy means. Disruption of what? Is it disruption of county boundaries, which his Party have been arguing over the past few months is completely irrelevant, or disruption of the existing situation?
As far as the existing situation is concerned you are on the way out.
According to Deputy L'Estrange now in February, 1969, county boundaries should be treated as sacrosanct although in October, 1968, we got a decision from the people that these things were irrelevant.
You got no such decision.
Apparently I am to ignore all other considerations, to ignore the existing pattern of representation and to create such ridiculous constituencies as the unit of Cavan and Monaghan for the sake of adhering to county boundaries which were held by the Opposition Parties to be completely irrelevant during the debate on the referendum. I will just give one quotation to show that this is so. In Volume 235 No. 1 of the Official Report for Tuesday, 28th May, 1968, at column 145, Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) who at that time was the official Fine Gael spokes man on local government matters—apparently he is not any longer, but in May he was— said:
The Minister seems to think that county boundaries are sacred and that the counties and constituencies should coincide identically. I do not think that there is anything sacred about county boundaries. For example, for years back, we have had county managers managing two counties.
He went on to say at column 146:
Therefore, there is nothing sacred about county boundaries—there never has been—but if I understand the case the Minister is making correctly, he seems to be saying that constituencies should coincide with county boundaries and that each county should be a constituency.
Fine Gael can change their feet from month to month, from week to week and even, in fact, Fine Gael Deputies change their feet in the same speech on this subject. We have been consistent all along but we have had a decision both from the courts and from the people that the county boundaries are not the important thing and I am satisfied that the scheme of constituencies for this area which I have proposed is the most reasonable one and is the scheme which will cause the least disruption to the present pattern of representation in the area, that we will continue with a Cavan constituency, with a Monaghan constituency, a Louth constituency, a Meath constituency and a Kildare constituency. If as Fine Gael represent this will benefit Fianna Fáil and also benefit Fine Gael then it appears to me that it is only the single seat that the Labour Party have in those five constituencies that is involved and they seem to be making the least complaint about it.
In reply to the Minister he need not talk about Fianna Fáil being consistent or about Fine Gael's consistency. As far as Fine Gael are concerned they are always consistent in observing the wishes of the Irish people and as far as this Bill is concerned the Fianna Fáil Party certainly are not consistent because the people spoke out loudly and defeated their proposal by over 240,000 votes. I want to put that on the record of the House. When the Minister speaks about Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick not being the spokesman I want to say to him that he had to go to a funeral.
It is as well to know that.
We want to know how you stand with your Taoiseach when you go out and make a speech that Fianna Fáil are going back to their policy of doing away with restoring the Irish language. That is what you said recently. You stated also some minutes ago that there was a decision given by the Irish people on October 16th that the constituencies were irrelevant. There was no such decision given. There was a decision given by the Irish people that they would not trust the Fianna Fáil Government, that they did not stand for their arrogance and their dictatorial methods. There was a decision given by the Irish people that as far as they were concerned they were in favour of the retention of proportional representation. That is the decision that was given on the 16th October by the Irish people. The Irish people gave their decision in that huge anti-Government vote on that date.
(South Tipperary): The Minister has said that this arrangement which he has suggested for the people in his proposal will cause less disturbance with regard to the shift in population. That is an extraordinary statement. In order to preserve Cavan as a three-seater, in order to preserve Monaghan as a three-seater, he has made substantial movements of population from other countries. For example, from Monaghan to Cavan the transfer is 5,656; from Monaghan to Meath the transfer is 6,426; from Louth to Meath the transfer is 7,532 and from Kildare to Meath the transfer is 5,041. That is a total transfer of 24,655 people from outside their county. The total transfer of population under the Minister's scheme for the whole country is 101,000. Deputy L'Estrange has said it could be done, and provide reasonable constituencies, with a transfer of population of 40,000. As a matter of fact it can be done with a figure a little over 20,000. The amount of transfer he is doing in order to preserve Cavan and Monaghan as two three-seaters would suffice to provide reasonable constituencies for the entire country. Instead of having a transfer of 101,000 of population it could be something a little over 20,000. The Minister has been consistent. He did threaten before the referendum that if his proposal was not carried he would butcher each constituency in the country and bedad he has done it.
Deputy Hogan, of course, knows it is not merely in order to make up the deficiency in the Cavan or Monaghan population that there has to be a transfer from Meath, Louth and Kildare. He is well aware of the fact that County Kildare with a population of 66,404 has too great a population for three seats, that the same applies with regard to Louth and Meath and that the interpretation of the Constitution, which his Party procured by their action in the court, requires those counties to be adjusted quite apart altogether from the situation in Cavan and Monaghan. As I said, there are innumerable ways in which this arrangement can be carried out and it is a matter of opinion which of the many ways is preferable. I think the least desirable thing to do would be to create such an unnatural and unreasonable constituency as Cavan and Monaghan. In his reference to disturbance of population Deputy Hogan has conveniently ignored the fact that his solution involves the addition of 45,702 Monaghan people to Cavan.
The Minister is most unreasonable in this argument. Does the Minister realise the distance from Crossakeel to Dowra and Rathkenny to the Fermanagh border? It is absolutely ridiculous to expect any Deputy in a constituency like that to look after the interests of the people. Would the Minister have common sense and rectify this? The referendum and the speeches during the campaign have nothing to do with the revision of the constituencies. I would appeal to the Minister even at this stage to look at this again and change this.
The Deputies opposite made the exact opposite arguments some months ago. Distances were of no relevance then. At least in opting so far as possible for three-seat constituencies we have reduced the distance to be covered to the minimum because three-seat constituencies are the smallest constituencies which are permissible under the Constitution.
You have enlarged both Monaghan and Cavan.
I am not quite clear in relation to what is happening with Monaghan and Cavan whether I can raise questions relating to parts of Kildare that are being put into Meath. I do not mind in the slightest whether I do it now or later on when the amendments are reached numerically. It is entirely a matter for the Chair and I am quite happy to deal with it to suit the Chair or anybody's convenience but I do not want to be caught afterwards by not raising it at this point and being precluded from raising it later on.
If the Deputy would wait until he comes to his own amendment it would be better.
Fair enough. As long as I shall not be ruled out then for not having spoken now.
Question put and agreed to.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, have we dealt with the portion of Meath that is going into Monaghan?
The portion as related in the Schedule has now been disposed of. In relation to the constituency of Clare there is an amendment by the Minister. In regard to amendments Nos. 7 and 8, amendment No. 7 is consequential on amendment No. 8 and amendments Nos. 19 and 27 are also consequential on amendment No. 8. It is suggested that amendments Nos. 7, 8, 19, and 27 be taken together.
CLARE.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, in the second column of the entry relating to Clare, to delete "Clare-Galway" and to substitute "Clare-South Galway".
The sole purpose of this amendment is to change the name of the constituency of Clare-Galway to Clare-South Galway in order to avoid confusion between the name of the constituency and the well-known Claregalway area which is in the constituency of West Galway.
(South Tipperary): This is merely a subterfuge to appease the people of Clare who have been transferred into County Galway. The Minister proposes to establish a new constituency here by the transfer of a substantial amount of population from Clare. In fact, the transfer amounts to 14,765 people from Clare to Clare-Galway. This is a substantial transfer of population of County Clare and reduces Clare constituency to a three-seater. If the Minister is concerned with cutting down the number of people being transferred from outside the counties into other counties he could solve the matter more simply by transferring some population from East Galway into Clare and leave Clare as a four-seater. A transfer of 2,805 people from Galway would leave Clare with sufficient population for a four-seater. It does not matter an awful lot where these areas might be but a transfer from the region of Gort and Kilbeachy into Clare would allow Clare to remain a four-seater and you could still have West Galway as a three-seater and East Galway as a four-seater.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, tuigim go bhfuil sé de dhualgas ar an Teachtá Ó hÓgáin labhairt i dtaobh dáilceantair Cláir. Ní ar an Rialtas atá an locht ach ar na daoine a thug a votaí in aghaidh an reifrinn agus an chuir iachall ar an Aire agus ar an Rialtas de réir an Bhunreachta athrú a dhéanamh. Chomh fada is a bhaineann an cheist liomsa, ní raibh Contae an Chláir mar ainm ar an dúthaigh go dtí gur chuir Éibhlis féin an bhainríon iachall ar Shiarriam Chontae an Chláir a ghairm de na sean dúithchi Corca Baiscinn, Corca Rua agus Dal gCais. B'shin iad na seanteora. D'imigh an lá sin agus tháinig an lá seo. Roint bhlian ó shin cuireadh cuid d'oirthear Contae na Gaillimhe isteach le Contae an Chláir. Ní rabhadar ró-shásta bheith ag teacht isteach linne. Is mór é an meas atá ag an dá mhuintir sin ar a chéile.
Tá muintir Chontae an Chláir lántsásta roinnt a dhéanamh de réir an dlí agus de réir an Bhunreachta. Is cuimhin liomsa breis is 50 bliain ó shin in aimsir na trioblóide na daoine a bhí ag troid ag dul sall is anall thar na teora. Bhí fáilte rompu i ngach áit. Tá súil agam go mbeidh an fháilte chéanna rompu fhaid a bheidh Éire beo.
Pé roinnt a dhéanfaidh an tAire i láthair na huaire beidh sé de réir an Bhunreachta.
Mar adeir an Teachta Ó Ceallaigh, ní orainn-se atá an locht go bhfuil an t-athrú seo le déanamh, go mór mhór o thárla go raibh a fhios agam go raibh níos mó ná an neart de votóirí i gCláir le haghaidh na ceithre suiocháin atá ann fé lathair. Theastaigh uainn gan aon cur isteach a dhéanamh ar an gcontae sin. Ach sé a mhalairt ar fad de scéal a bhí ag an bhFreasúra. Dheineadar airgóint anseo ar feadh míosa agus sa tSeanad ag iarraidh an taobh eile den scéal a chur i bhfeidhm orainn. Rinneadar an rud céanna i dtaobh an reifrinn. De thoradh an reifrinn tá sé orainn an cineál seo d'athrú a dhéanamh anois. Deir an Teachta Ó hÓgáin anois gur cóir dúinn a laghad agus is féidir de dhaoine a athrú as chontae amháin go chontae eile. Ach a mhalairt de phort a bhí aige i rith na díospóireachta anseo nuair a bhí seans againn an scéal sin a chur faoi réir agus athrú oiriúnach a dhéanamh ar an mBunreacht. Is de bharr toradh an reifrinn anois go gcaithfear a leithéid seo a dhéanamh. Deirtear anois gur cóir dúinn an méid is lua is féidir a athrú. Sa slí seo, i gContae an Chláir, tá 14,765 daoine ag dul isteach sa dáilcheantar nua. Mar a fheicim an scéal, is féidir le muintir an Chláir atá ag dul isteach sa dáilcheantar nua Teachta a thogha. Sa slí seo beidh ceathrar Teachtaí ag Contae an Chláir mar atá siad i dteideal a bheith d'ainneoin an caoi ina bhfuil an Bunreacht.
I think that Deputy Hogan's attitude today is in very marked contrast with his attitude and the attitude of his Party during the time when it was possible to do something with regard to what is being forced on me now in regard to this Electoral Bill.
Apparently, his attitude now is to try and have the least possible number of people transferred from one county to another in so far as actual Dáil representation is concerned. After arguing for months here in this House and in the Seanad and throughout the country that this whole question of county boundaries was completely irrelevant, now apparently the whole objective, we are told, should be to minimise the total percentage of the population which will be required to be represented by Deputies from other counties over the country as a whole.
It is much more realistic to consider each individual problem that arises on its merits and in so far as this particular adjustment that is required by the Constitution between Clare and Galway is concerned, it is quiet a relevant factor that in County Clare at present the number of electors per Deputy is actually higher than the national average and here we are transferring a substantial portion of the County of Clare to this new constituency which has to be created and in that constituency they will form a significant portion of the population. In fact, the part of Clare that is being transferred to the proposed constituency of Clare-South Galway will be sufficient to elect a Deputy from Clare in that constituency so that it is quite possible that as a result of this, Clare will in fact have the four seats to which it would be entitled if it were permissible to arrange the constituency on the basis of one man, one vote.
Deputy Hogan adopts the opposite attitude. He thinks that we should put a portion of Galway into the constitutency of Clare or into the county of Clare where it would form an insignificant part of the total population. It is just a question of approach and something that would not arise if it were permissible to take cognisance of administrative boundaries, but the Deputy and his Party have already seen to it that that will not be permissible.
(South Tipperary): I do not understand the Minister when he asserts that we on this side of the House regard county boundaries as of no significance. I remember stating here that I regarded the county boundaries as of significance, not from the emotional aspect or the sentimental aspect but from the present administrative viewpoint. I cited at that time the question in my own constituency of having to travel into West Waterford where there were approximately 11,000 people and where I was not a local representative. I was a county councillor for South Tipperary but I was not a county councillor in the other constituency. I found it a handicap in so far as that half the problems one gets from constituents are local authority problems. It is not the emotional or the sentimental aspect of it that I am dealing with but the fact that I think central representation and local representation should be, in so far as is possible, coterminous. That is the reason why I have been advocating the transfer of people from outside the county boundaries. In nearly all cases the counties are in the local administrative areas, with the exception of Tipperary where the county boundary embraces two administrative areas, two Ridings, North and South. I have given the Minister here the figures he has arranged for a very large transfer from Clare into Galway. I would be inclined to call it almost a take-over bid and I would suggest that a smaller transfer from Galway to Clare and areas other than the ones I am mentioning could be worked out but a smaller transfer would suffice.
Galway has a population of 148,340 after transfers but the area I would mention for a transfer from Clare would be the district electoral division of Ardmullivan, which has a population of 512, Gort electoral division of 1,189, Beesh electoral division of 496, Kilbeacanty electoral division of 319, Ballycardon electoral division of 289. That is a total transfer of 2,805. That is a very much smaller figure than the Minister's proposal to transfer 14,765. That is a huge transfer of people from Clare into Galway and quite unnecessary when by a relatively small transfer, Clare could be kept a four-seater.
The Minister mentions that there is a higher electoral percentage in Clare than the national average and that is all the more reason why they should be entitled to retain their four seats and preserve Clare as a traditional county and a traditional constituency. I find that most of these people who are transferred are dissatisfied, certainly those in West Waterford are dissatisfied by being transferred. The Minister now would like to put the notion across that a big bulk of transfer of population is quite all right, that they will bring, so to speak, their own civilisation into the new county and their own interests and their own voting power and their own strength. But, in point of fact, unless one county is joined up with another, with transfers of population up to 9,000, 10,000 or 12,000, all one does is to create dissatisfied pockets.
I believe that if a gallup poll were taken among all these people whom it is proposed to transfer from Clare into Galway, it would probably be found that these people would opt to remain in Clare and there is no point in putting a fancy name on the constituency, like Clare-Galway, Galway-Clare or anything else. They will still be transferred out of their administrative county of Clare into a new constituency to meet the political notions of the present Minister.
Táim fíor-bhuíoch den Teachta Ó hÓgáin as ucht na spéise atá aige i muintir an Chláir. Ní hiad muintir an Chláir atá i gceist in aon chor san rud san.
Dá mbéimís uilig macánta déarfaimis nach bhfuil i gceist ach cúrsaí polaitíochta agus nach bhfuil leas an phobail i gceist ach chomh fada agus a bhaineann sé le toghcháin. Bhí an Teachta Ó hÓgáin agus Teachtaí nach é thíos linn deich mí ó shin agus ní mar a chéile an port atá acu inniu agus a bhí acu an uair sin. Tuigeann sé go maith nach bhfuil aon ghuth aige anseo ar son muintir an Chláir. Níl aon Teachta ag Fine Gael i gContae an Chláir i láthair na huaire. Tuigeann sé go bhfuil sé de dhualgas air nó ar dhuine éigin, ós rud é nach bhfuil aon Teachta acu i gContae an Chláir, an chúis sin a phlé chomh maith agus chomh géar agus is féidir leis. Sin a bhfuil le rá agam i dtaobh na ceiste.
Bhí an ceart ag an Teachta Ó Ceallaigh nuair a dúirt sé nach iad muintir an Chláir atá i gceist ag an Teachta Ó hÓgáin, ach go gceapann sé go mbeadh seans níos fearr ag a Pháirtí féin i ndáilcheantar le ceithre suíocháin seachas dáilceanntar le trí suíocháin.
It may be true, as Deputy Hogan says, that county boundaries were important. I am well aware of the fact that one can get exactly diametrically opposed quotations on this subject from practically every Fine Gael Deputy who has spoken on the matter but if Deputy Hogan adverted to the importance of county boundaries I think he will agree that it was on this particular Bill or, possibly on the 1961 Bill, that this happened. At the time when it was possible to do something about it the attitude of Fine Gael was entirely different. At the time when it was proposed to make it permissible to take account of established administrative boundaries, the Deputy and his Party adopted a completely different attitude, that these were matters which were of no importance whatever. Now that that issue has been decided, and we have both the High Court decision on it, which the Deputy's Party obtained, and the decision of the people — which they were responsible for ensuring — that these things are not relevant, they suddenly become of the highest possible relevance to the Fine Gael Party. We have been pressed to do something, which they have already ensured that we will not be permitted to do in accordance with the Constitution.
The arguments which have been put forward here section after section are completely bogus and hypocritical and show the insincerity of the Fine Gael Party on this question. Deputy Hogan in conjunction with the rest of his colleagues campaigned against a proposal to permit administrative boundaries to be taken into consideration. With regard to his argument that it would be more desirable to have a small transfer into County Galway of County Clare rather than have a significant portion of County Clare combined with a not much greater portion of County Galway, that is a matter of opinion. He would appear to think that it would be preferable to transfer a small population from Galway into a county in which they would be completely submerged, and in which they would be of no significance as a community, rather than the transfer which we propose of a significant area of County Clare being put with a portion of County Galway which will form an entity capable of electing a Clare Deputy to this new constituency. I believe under the Deputy's suggestion the people would consider themselves to be virtually disenfranchised.
A few months after a referendum on this very subject has been held, the Deputy suggests that if a gallup poll were to be held the result of that poll would be an indication that this type of transfer of constituencies would be undesirable. However, we have had something more reliable than a gallup poll; we have had a referendum on the subject and the people decided, in the light of the urgings of Deputy Hogan and his colleagues, that these are matters of no importance whatsoever and the very small amount of scope in order to take account of these things which we regard as practicable should not be allowed and the amount of scope which was suggested was smaller than exists in any democracy that we know of. The people in agreement with Deputy Hogan and his colleagues have decided that this should not be available but that the type of mutilation of county boundaries which is being provided for in this Bill must be proceeded with and proceeded with after every census of population is published.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Question: "That the entry, as amended relating to the constituency of Clare stand part of the Schedule" put and declared carried.
CLARE-GALWAY.
I move amendment No. 8:
In pages 4 and 5, in the first column, to delete "Clare-Galway" in both places where it occurs and to substitute "Clare-South Galway" in both such places.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the entry as amended relating to the constituency of Clare-Galway stand part of the Schedule."
(South Tipperary): I have already intimated some objections to this question of the creation of a new constituency of Clare-Galway and I have briefly given my reasons to the effect that to transfer a small area from Galway into Clare would still leave sufficient population in Galway to form a three-seater in West Galway and a four-seater in East Galway. In fact, not alone could that be done but the transfer of a small population from Galway to Roscommon can also be effected and still leave West Galway a three-seater and East Galway a four-seater. The suggestion I am making is that we can deal with Galway after the proposed transfer which I mentioned to Clare and which I have itemised giving the district electoral divisions and by a further transfer to Roscommon to allow Roscommon to remain as a county entity and as a three-seater.
The Deputy may be under a misapprehension. At the moment we are dealing with the constituency of Clare-South Galway. The amendments have just been dealt with.
(South Tipperary): I am debating the necessity for creating such a consituency as Clare-South Galway and in doing that I have to try to outline how Galway should be preserved as a county, Clare as a county and Roscommon as a county, with minor transfers of population, and that it is unnecessary to create this new hybrid constituency of Clare-Galway. In that respect I have to mention the transfers that must be made out of County Galway so as to leave it in such a position that it can form a three-seater and a four-seater. In that respect I am anticipating what is later on in the Schedule. I can deal with it later on if necessary but I thought it desirable to raise it now to show my reasons for opposing the formation of a new constituency entitled Clare-Galway. If it suits the House better, I can speak about that at a later stage because the Minister tells me—and I think he is correct—that West Galway, North-East Galway, is coming up at a later stage, so I can deal with it then or now.
The Deputy would be entitled to deal with it later.
(South Tipperary): Very good.
Question put and declared carried.
CORK CITY (NORTH).
No Corkman present.
Together with No. 10, No. 9 would form a composite proposal.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page, 5 to delete the entry relating to Cork City (North) and to substitute the following:
|
Name |
Area |
Number of Members |
|
Cork City (North-West) |
That part of the county borough of Cork lying north-west of a line drawn as follows: |
Three |
|
commencing at the junction of the western boundary of the townland of Farrandahadore More with the county borough boundary, thence in a northerly direction along the said townland boundary to its junction with Wilton Road, thence commencing in a north-easterly direction and proceeding along Wilton Road and Victoria Cross Road to its junction with Western Road, thence commencing in an easterly direction and proceeding along Western Road, Lancaster Quay, Washington Street West and Washington Street to its junction with Grand Parade, thence in a north-westerly direction along Grand Parade to its junction with St. Patrick's Street, thence commencing in an easterly direction and proceeding along St. Patrick's Street and St. Patrick's Bridge to its intersection by the River Lee (North Channel), thence commencing in a south-easterly direction and proceeding along the River Lee (North Channel), and the River Lee to its intersection by the county borough boundary. |
The purpose of these amendments is to change the dividing line between the two Cork city constituencies from along Model Farm Road, Magazine Road, Bandon Road, Barrack Street, Vicar Street, Dean Street, Saint Finbar's Place, Proby's Quay, French's Quay, South Gate Bridge and the southern branch of the Lee (as set out in the Bill as read a Second Time) to along the western boundary of Farrandahadore More townland which is immediately west of Saint Joseph's College, Wilton, Wilton Road, Victoria Cross Road, Western Road, Lancaster Quay, Washington Street, Grand Parade, Saint Patrick's Street, Saint Patrick's Bridge and the northern channel of the Lee. This, I think, would result in a more natural division of the city. As the new line runs from the south-west to the north-east of the city, it is also proposed to change the names of the constituencies from Cork City (North) and Cork City (South) to Cork City (North-West) and Cork City (South-East). The amendments do not propose any change in the proposed overall representation of the city —each of the two constituencies will return three Members. The proposed constituency of Cork City (North-West) would have a population of 60,989 which is an average per Deputy of 20,330 and Cork City (South-West) will have a population of 61,157 which is an average per Deputy of 20,386.
Amendment agreed to.
Entry, as amended, agreed to.
CORK CITY (SOUTH).
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 5, to delete the entry relating to Cork City (South) and to substitute the following:
|
Name |
Area |
Number of Members |
|
Cork City (South-East) |
The county borough of Cork, except the part thereof which is comprised in the constituency of Cork City (North-West). |
Three |
That is covered by the decision on the previous amendment which affects the rearrangement of these two constituencies.
Amendment agreed to.
Entry, as amended, agreed to.
MID-CORK.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Mid-Cork stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
NORTH-EAST CORK.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 6, in the second column of the entry relating to North-East Cork to delete "Imphrick" and to substitute "Kilmaclenine" and to delete "Streamhill,".
The purpose of this amendment is to transfer the district electoral division of Kilmaclenine, a former rural district of Mallow, from Mid-Cork to North-East Cork in exchange for the district electoral divisions of Imphrick and Streamhill, also former rural district of Mallow. Kilmaclenine forms part of the immediate hinterland of Mallow and should be included with Mallow in the North-East Cork constituency. The transfer of Kilmaclenine to North-East Cork would bring the population of Mid-Cork below the minimum required for four seats and it is proposed to transfer the district electoral divisions of Imphrick and Streamhill to Mid-Cork from North-East Cork to make up the required population. The result of the change will be to increase the population of Mid-Cork from 76,318 which was an average per Deputy of 19,079 to 76,352 which is an average per Deputy of 19,088 and to reduce the population of North-East Cork from 79,845 which was an average per Deputy of 19,961 to 79,811 which is an average per Deputy of 19,953.
Amendment agreed to.
Question: "That the entry as amended relating to the constituency of North-East Cork stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
SOUTH-WEST CORK.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of South-West Cork stand part of the Bill" put and agreed to.
NORTH-EAST DONEGAL.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 6, in the second column of the entry, relating to North-East Donegal, to delete "South-West Donegal" and to substitute "Donegal-Leitrim".
Amendment No. 12 is consequential on amendment No. 13 and, perhaps, by agreement, we could take amendments Nos. 1, 12, 13 and 29 together and, by agreement, 21, 26, 28 and 30 together——
We are taking——
——also dealing with a change of names of constituencies involving County Leitrim could conveniently be taken in this group.
County Leitrim is divided between the proposed constituencies of South-West Donegal, Sligo and Roscommon. It was argued here on the Second Stage that the name "Leitrim" should be included in these constituencies and I am accepting that suggestion. The purpose of these amendments is to include Leitrim in the name of these constituencies. If the amendments are accepted they will be renamed Donegal-Leitrim, Sligo-Leitrim and Roscommon-Leitrim.
This is a political device by Fianna Fáil to put Leitrim back on the map. Again, the Minister could not tell the truth. He told us that the Opposition sought this. It is a wellknown fact that all the Fianna Fáil county councillors came up to Dáil Éireann—we all met them—and they argued to have Leitrim returned to a constituency on its own. Fianna Fáil met them here and despite the fact that they were giving advice from the grass-roots the Minister refused to agree to their request. Leitrim is being knocked off the map. It is not sufficient for Fianna Fáil to have driven 60,000 or 70,000 people from the west out of the country in the past 20 years. That is why this measure is necessary. If we had good government the people would be still in the west and there would be no need for Fianna Fáil or any other Party to give extra seats to Dublin and take them away from the people in the west. Due to maladministration and the fact that Fianna Fáil have driven over 60,000 people from the west of Ireland in the past ten or 15 years we now find that seats must be taken from them.
The Bill shows that the political knife has been used to do much unnecessary surgery, indeed butchering. It is a typical example of Fianna Fáil gerrymandering and shows how far they are prepared to go in a bid to keep their seats and maintain themselves in office. We know that on the west coast where they think there is a chance that the people will still support them they have three-seat constituencies in the hope that they will get two seats, with Fine Gael getting one and that no other Party will have a chance. In Dublin City where they know they are about to be annihilated they have four-seat constituencies hoping that by some miracle they can hold on to two seats out of four.
Coming back to Donegal, I want to make the same charge as I made before. I do so with full deliberation because we know it is quite true. Donegal could have been left as a five-seat constituency by transferring 7,294 voters into Sligo and making Sligo a three-seat constituency and having Roscommon and Leitrim a five-seat constituency. By doing that there would be only one change and a very minor disruption but Fianna Fáil were not satisfied with that. Despite the fact that in the referendum on 16th October last the people spoke out clearly in favour of retaining proportional representation and despite the fact that the Minister understands well that PR works better in large constituencies of four, five, six or seven seats, he has wiped Leitrim off the map and has drafted 11,072 people from Leitrim into Roscommon to make it a three-seater; transferred 11,533 people from Leitrim to Sligo to make Sligo a three-seater and transferred 7,947 people from North Leitrim into Donegal to make the constituency of South-West Donegal a three-seat constituency. Instead of having one change and disturbing 7,294 voters we now have three changes involving over 30,000 voters.
The Minister will tell us that he is doing this so that we shall have the least possible disruption of population in the area. He will stand up here in his usual hypocritical way and with the usual effrontery that he displays in this House and tell us that before we finish. The ideal solution would have been to make Donegal a five-seat constituency. Again the grass-roots boys said: "If you do that the Protestant Association in Donegal will get one seat out of five and we cannot trust the man elected as he would not come under the Party Whip and could not be made toe the line and vote with the Fianna Fáil Party."
Therefore, despite all the Fianna Fáil preaching about the 1916 Proclamation to cherish all the children of the nation equally, this is a deliberate attempt to make certain that those people who pay rent and rates and who are entitled to representation here will not get a representative from Donegal in the Dáil. So instead we have the transfer of 7,947 people from Leitrim into South-West Donegal and we have Donegal divided in two to make two three-seat constituencies. Fianna Fáil are hoping that by some piece of luck they might get two cut of three seats. We can be assured they will fail in this but we object to the gerrymandering and the methods used here by the Minister in trying to perpetuate himself and his Party in office.
The Deputy can go up to Paisley now.
He is about 100 years behind the times.
Deputy L'Estrange is fighting a pitched battle when all the other troops that were on that side have deserted him and it means that he now has available to himself more muck to throw than he had previously. He is certainly doing it. It is very mischievous and dishonest on his part to suggest, in addition to the other suggestions he made about gerrymandering, that there is any discrimination against the religious minority in the constituencies under discussion in this section.
There certainly is.
That is quite untrue. At the moment in Donegal County Council we have religious minorities there in the various Parties. This is something that has taken place only in recent years and it is good that these people are playing their part in all political Parties, so much so that at the moment, outside of the major political Parties, there is only one county councillor of the religious minority in Donegal County Council. Indeed, it could not be said that he is there as such. It is very low politics to suggest that what we are now discussing, the divisions which have been made, have been done with this object in view. It is untrue. Thank God, the religious minority are playing their part in all political Parties not only in Donegal but everywhere else.
What is the reason for doing it then?
Order.
Let us take the Opposition's alternative. Deputy L'Estrange suggested taking a strip from Donegal town, though Leitrim——
I did not say that.
He said even this would not be enough. If you could do it by taking a certain number of the population from Donegal and putting them into Leitrim, then you would have a case. However, the suggestion is this: put 7,000 people from Donegal into a constituency which then would run from Donegal town right through Bundoran and, on the other hand, from Glenfarn or Blackline on the Cavan-Leitrim border, down to the most southerly tip not of Leitrim but of Roscommon. That is the suggestion Deputy L'Estrange has made. It is that we should take pieces of Donegal and add them to pieces of two other counties to make a five-seat constituency. What a ridiculous, serpentine constituency that would be.
What is it now? It runs from Manorhamilton to Tory Island.
The suggestion is to form a five-seat constituency by taking portions of Donegal, from Donegal Bay in a lengthy strip to the southern side of Bundoran, then to take a portion from Blackline or Glenfarn in Leitrim and to go right through to Carrick-on-Shannon and into Roscommon and through Roscommon to the southern tip of that county. Surely that is the most ridiculous suggestion we have had from the Opposition.
Would the Deputy like to see the map?
I should not like to see that map. The Deputy can keep that kind of a map—I do not want it.
That is what the Minister is proposing.
The other suggestion is to make Donegal a five-seat constituency. Let us examine that, having looked at the type of five-seater Deputy L'Estrange proposes—running from Donegal town right down to the most southerly tip of Roscommon. The Deputy would also have a five-seat constituency in Donegal. The distance from Malin Head to Bundoran is 100 miles. Cut off at Donegal town, it is still 80 miles.
Donegal South West is now 109 miles long.
I do not believe what the Deputy is saying. That is the kind of set-up he would impose on the people of Donegal, having first shoved a number of them into Leitrim. If this man were Minister for Local Government and if he were allowed to do this sort of thing throughout the country, one could only term it unreasonable and illogical because it is just an excuse to get across the point of gerrymandering and of religious discrimination. There is no reason in it, there is no logic or geography in it. However, he is prepared to do it.
(South Tipperary): On this question of Donegal, the Minister's proposal to establish two constituencies there——
To retain them.
(South Tipperary): To do so he has drawn too heavily on Leitrim. It is not necessary to transfer the large amount of population he proposes from North Leitrim to Donegal. The figure I have is 8,997. Even conceding the Minister's idea of retaining two three-seat constituencies in Donegal, the county needs 5,619 extra population to form two three-seaters, and Sligo-Leitrim can spare, at most, 5,723 to remain a four-seater. A transfer of 5,641 may be made from North Leitrim to South Donegal by the addition of the following: Tullaghan, Gubacreeny, Kinlough, Aghavoghill, Aghanlish, Aghalateeve, Melvin, Glencar, Glenaide, Ballaghameehan, Manorhamilton, Kiltyclogher, Glenfarn and Glenboy, a total population of 5,642. This transfer would reduce Sligo-Leitrim to 76,193 and would increase Donegal to 114,191. Both suffice respectively for a four-seater and a six-seater. South Donegal, as a three-seater, can be made up of Bundoran Urban District, Ballyshannon Rural District, Donegal Rural District, Glenties Rural District, Stranorlar Rural District, involving 16,632, plus 5,642 from Sligo-Leitrim.
North Donegal would then consist of Letterkenny, Milford, Dunfanaghy and Inishowen, and the district electoral divisions of Meencargagh, Lettermore and St. Johnstown, which would give a population of 57,097. By having a lesser transfer from Leitrim, you could allow sufficient population to form a four-seater for Sligo-Leitrim and you could have two three-seaters in Donegal. By working on these lines there would be a much lesser transfer of population and a much better effort to retain existing county boundaries than through the Minister's suggestion. He introduces Leitrim as a mere sop to the people there, having obliterated their county. He is transferring a considerable number of the population from North Leitrim to South Donegal, from mid-Leitrim to Sligo and from South Leitrim to Roscommon, though with a transfer of 5,642 from Leitrim to Donegal he could have constituted two reasonable three-seaters in Donegal and a four-seater in Sligo-Leitrim. The greater part of Leitrim will remain as an entity and Roscommon can remain as a constituency on its own by the transfer of the two small areas I have mentioned and there will then be no need to bring the urban area of Athlone into the western counties.
I have different views on this matter of the re-alignment of constituencies from those of my colleague, Deputy L'Estrange. While it is true to say that this is being done with a view to keeping the Fianna Fáil Party in power, it is not true to say that it is being done to keep a minority religious Party out in the wilderness. We must be realistic. If Donegal were one constituency the Ceann Comhairle would be returned unopposed and that would leave only four seats; in that situation it would be utterly impossible for any minority Party to gain any of those four seats. The only purpose behind this is to consolidate the present Fianna Fáil strength in Donegal. The Minister came to the Fianna Fáil Convention in Letterkenny. That Convention was pretty well reported, better reported than it was attended.
The hall would not hold any more.
The Fine Gael Convention was held on the same night and the people left that Convention, having swamped the local hotel and eaten all the food available there, and, when they landed up at the Fianna Fáil Convention Restaurant, they found there was plenty there to eat and drink. Despite the Minister's presence it was not such a success at all. Indeed, it gave a fair indication of what the result of the referendum was going to be in that part of the country.
I see nothing in these proposals except gerrymandering. I see no reason why Donegal should not be one constituency with five seats. We can forget about the cat-calls of the Minister when he speaks to his converted brethren and tells them what Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Harte would like. That was the burden of his speech in the latter part of 1968 in Letterkenny. Indeed, I thank him for the publicity he gave me; he talked about little except what Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Harte had in mind, as if what we had in mind would influence the Minister for Local Government.
What I have in mind are natural geographical boundaries — mountain ridges, rivers, lakes and so on. There will be an election before the end of this year and, if this Party is given a mandate to form a Government, I will use my influence to ensure that natural boundaries are preserved. I suggest we give the Government this Bill and let the people decide whether or not this is gerrymandering. If the people are made to understand the far-reaching effects this type of thing can have, I believe the decision in the election will not be complimentary to the present Government. The people will tell the Minister, as they told him in the referendum, how far removed he is from reality.
This seems to be a Second Reading speech. We are discussing the constituency of Donegal.
We start with Donegal but what happens there has an effect on Leitrim, Sligo, Roscommon, Cavan, Mayo and, in fact, all over the country right down to Wexford. Donegal should be one constituency. There is no reason why it should not be a five-seat constituency. In round figures the population is 108,000. In 1961 it was 113,000. The average decline in population over the last 30 years was 1,111. We can take it then that in the last three years approximately 3,000 people left Donegal and the population at the moment, therefore, would be 105,000. If the five per cent tolerance is applied, which the Minister can legally apply under the Constitution, then no people would have to be transferred from Donegal to any other constituency. Donegal should be preserved with its ancient boundaries and no one should be transferred from Ballyshannon and Bundoran to Leitrim or to Sligo. The only realistic boundary is the natural boundary and I forecast that Donegal will have to be adjusted back again in the future because the population will fall to such a degree. The population will also fall in Leitrim and Sligo. Of course, if Donegal were one unit then the last Fianna Fáil speaker, Deputy Cunningham, would not be here at all. Mark you, that is the only reason why the Minister has revised the boundaries in this particular fashion. Deputy Cunningham talked about the unwieldy proposition of Deputy L'Estrange. When one thinks of people in Dromahair and Manorhamilton in Leitrim, now deemed to be identical with the inhabitants of Tory Island, one wonders which proposition is the most unwieldy. I have never been to Tory Island, though I am a native of Donegal. I would suggest that less than three per cent of the people of Donegal have visited Tory Island. Yet, the Minister has the audacity to tell us that these people are the same as those living in Dromahair and Manorhamilton, with the same problems and the same kind of thinking.
I never suggested that.
But that is what the Minister has done.
That is what the Constitution makes me do.
It does not make the Minister do it. Under the Constitution, with a five per cent tolerance, Donegal could be one five-seat constituency. That is not too much to ask when one remembers that we celebrated last week the 50th anniversary of the First Dáil and in that First Dáil there were four Deputies elected from Donegal—Deputy Joseph Ward, Deputy Joseph Sweeney, Deputy Joseph Doherty and Deputy Edward Kelly. These four represented 168,000 people. That was the population of Donegal in 1918, 60,000 more than the present population. Yet the Minister for Local Government tells the House that he is forced under the Constitution to bring in the people living in Leitrim to keep two three-seat constituencies in Donegal. Is this one of the reasons why Senator Sheehy Skeffington was forced to withdraw certain remarks during the debates in the Mansion House?
That has nothing to do with the question before the House.
It is very relevant. In 1918 there were four men——
According to the Deputy anything he says here is relevant. It is not relevant.
The relevancy is this. A fortnight ago Members of both Houses were summoned to a meeting in the Mansion House to commemorate the meeting of the First Dáil on 21st January, 1919, and the survivors of that Dáil were on the platform. Two of the people I have named were on the platform. One is on an extended visit to the United States of America and one has passed on to his just reward. I am pointing out that these four men——
The Deputy is now discussing two constituencies. At the moment we are discussing the constituency of North-East Donegal.
(Cavan): On a point of order.
I do not see how it arises.
(Cavan): I want to submit that Deputy Harte is in order. He is dealing with the history of this constituency and showing that it has always been one constituency even in 1918. It is more relevant because it is a good reason why it should be retained as one constituency. That is the point Deputy Harte is developing.
I would point out that it was not one constituency. It was two constituencies.
Deputy Fitzpatrick is doing Deputy Harte an injustice. I am sure Deputy Harte is not suggesting Donegal was one constituency in 1918.
I am not suggesting it was one constituency.
Deputy Fitzpatrick says the Deputy is. It shows the attention he is paying.
Deputy Fitzpatrick is making the point that I am talking about North-East Donegal.
Deputy Fitzpatrick said Deputy Harte said it was one constituency. He said it was one constituency in 1918.
(Cavan): When history comes to be written the Minister and the referendum will not figure well in it.
The Deputy said it was one constituency in 1918. At least he said that was what Deputy Harte said.
I know it is difficult to follow the reasoning of the Minister.
I am listening and Deputy Fitzpatrick is not.
I would suggest with respect that if the Minister wants to convey his feelings to me through the Chair he should confine himself to his own feelings. He will get into a terrible muddle if he tries to say what Deputy Fitzpatrick is thinking. The Minister has blackguarded Deputy O'Donnell and myself for making statements which we did not make at all. I want to bring out in this debate—because he and other Members of the Cabinet declined to debate it in public during the referendum—what could be an alternative Electoral Bill.
The Electoral Bill before the House to me suggests gerrymandering of the first degree because it is there to consolidate the Fianna Fáil position in County Donegal. Some people may think my argument unreasonable, but I am telling the House that in 1918 four Members were elected to represent County Donegal, and they had fewer privileges than the six Members who represent it today. Their remuneration was much less if, indeed, they had any at all.
This has nothing to do with the question before the House.
I want your guidance. I am talking about the present constituency of North-East Donegal and I think I am entitled to make an alternative proposal. Is not that so?
Relating to what?
If I do not accept the Minister's proposal for North-East Donegal, surely I am entitled to make the argument, if I am objecting to it, that there must be an alternative. Is not that so?
The question of remuneration does not arise.
The situation in 1918 is not an alternative.
Am I entitled to make the argument that there is an alternative to the Minister's proposal?
I am pointing out that the situation in 1918 is not an altertive.
I am addressing my question to the Chair.
The Deputy mentioned remuneration which would not arise at this stage.
Only in passing. If I am out of order I will withdraw because I want to respect the rulings of the Chair. My argument is that I do not accept the Minister's proposal for North-East Donegal and I am offering an alternative. If I offer an alternative, how can I move away from North-East Donegal without being involved in South-West Donegal which takes in the boundaries of the entire county?
That would be in order as I have already announced.
Thank you. Therefore the argument I put forward is that Donegal should not have two constituencies but one. The one constituency I propose is within the boundaries of Donegal. The population at the moment is 108,000 as laid down by the 1966 census. The population is declining at the rate of 1,111 per annum. This would perhaps suggest that the population is 105,000 and when you apply the five per cent tolerance of 20,000 per head of population per Deputy that would give you 105,000. Therefore, I can prove without any great drama that there is gerrymandering in this Bill to preserve Deputy Cunningham's seat. That is the elementary deduction from the political situation in Donegal. To support that argument I go back to 1918 to the First Dáil and say that four Members were elected. They had no travelling expenses. I do not know what remuneration they had. Probably it was very little. They had no free postage, no free telephones, and little or nothing to compensate them for coming from Donegal to Leinster House, as against the privileges we have today.
They did not come to Leinster House.
In North-East Donegal we have a Fianna Fáil Deputy with £2,500 and expenses, a Fianna Fáil Minister with £6,000, a State car, a private secretary and all expenses laid on.
I do not see how this arises on the section we are dealing with at the moment which deals with townlands and areas. The question of remuneration or cars does not arise.
The townlands and areas I am talking about comprise the ancient county of Donegal. I do not want to go into the question of whether Urney West is in North-East Donegal or South-West Donegal. I know and anyone with any knowledge of geography knows that Urney West is in East Donegal. The former Minister for Local Government, either by getting his compass confused or something going wrong, described it as South-West Donegal. I am saying Urney West is in Donegal. Geographically it is in East Donegal.
I want Donegal to be one constituency with five Deputies. I am pointing out to the House that this would be no great disadvantage or no burden on any Deputy elected there. As Deputy Cunningham knows, if that were the position—I do not mean this as a personal slight: I respect Deputy Cunningham as one man respects another—it would be tough luck on Deputy Cunningham that he is in the part of Donegal that could not elect a Deputy. That is my summing up. Is not this correct? If Deputy Cunningham is to remain as a Fianna Fáil Deputy it might be Deputy Blaney who would go. That might suit me better.
It might be the Deputy himself.
Quite right, but I would lay odds on that.
The Deputy came at the bottom on the last occasion.
The position as I see it is that in County Donegal you have six TDs and you have two Fianna Fáil Senators and another Senator who is the Taoiseach's nominee. Yet the Minister has the audacity to tell us that Donegal would be without adequate representation if he allowed County Donegal to be one constituency with five seats. I am telling the House, lest it should go unnoticed in the country, that County Donegal should be one constituency with five TDs, four seats would be contested and you would have two Government Deputies and two Opposition Deputies. Unfortunately Deputy Cunningham would not be a Member of the House, or it might be that Deputy Cunningham might be elected and in that event it could be Deputy Blaney, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, who would go; or perhaps Deputy Blaney would be elected a Member and in that case it would be Deputy Joe Brennan, the Minister for Social Welfare, who would go. I do not know what the permutations would be but I am quite satisfied whoever was left out would be a Member from that side of the House. Of course, they would be sitting on this side of the House after the election.
In support of my argument I was telling the House that the four elected Members had no privileges whatsoever. They were representing 60,000 people more than the six Deputies are representing today. In my constituency there are a Government Deputy and a Minister of State and the Government Deputy has the same privileges, the same remuneration and the same travelling expenses as I have and I am quite satisfied. If I indicated that I was not going to contest another election there would be many members in my Party who would be anxious to get the nomination. The Minister has a total remuneration of £6,000 plus a private car, plus a private secretary, plus an all-in expense account and he has a Member of the other House to support him. There is a similar situation in the south-west. This is the type of representation that the Minister for Local Government maintains is not adequate to serve the people in North-West Donegal. If it is not, how does he explain the inadequacies of the 1918 general election when these four men—whose names will be written into history and will be remembered for more noble things than the present Minister for Local Government will be, if his name will ever be mentioned in history— were elected?
We could talk for the next hour about this matter and I would love to debate it for the next hour with Deputy Cunningham but if it were pushed to a division the Minister for Local Government would say: "We are sticking to our guns and Leitrim will disappear from the political map of the 26 Counties and we will have two constituencies in Donegal, not to preserve the status quo but to keep Deputy Cunningham in the House.” The Minister would push that through the Division Lobbies and it would become an accomplished fact. For that reason, I would not even oppose the Minister's proposal. I strongly object to it and will continue to do so. I am prepared to debate the matter with him outside any chapel gate—that is if he is allowed near any chapel gate after his attack on the clergy. I will debate in any part of Donegal, in Bundoran or Ballyshannon, the contents of this Electoral Bill and how it will affect the people. If he puts his arguments to them and I put mine, the people will adjudicate at a general election and I am satisfied that the answer they will give to the Minister is: “It is time you got out.” People in other parts of this country have been branded as gerrymanderers and if we were doing our duty we could give the Minister a formal transfer because they are looking for some type of leadership up there and we could do without him.
The Bill which has been introduced by the Minister should have been introduced in 1961. The census of population in 1961 allowed Donegal as a unit with 113,000 people. In spite of this the boundaries of Donegal were preserved; a division line was drawn somewhere across the centre of the county and one part was described as North-East and another as South. There were six TDs elected and this was unconstitutional. The census of population figures were delayed until after the introduction of the 1961 Electoral Act. Prior to 1961 the constituency of County Donegal had seven TDs. The old constituency of East Donegal had four and the old constituency of West Donegal had three. The 1956 figures brought the population up to 118,000, 2,000 less than the required figure to keep six TDs there but, as I say, the census of population figures for 1961 were delayed. I say that deliberately. The figures usually come out at a certain time but they did not come out at that time in 1961. Unless my information is wrong, they were delayed for the sole purpose of allowing the Fianna Fáil Party to introduce the 1961 Electoral Act and allowing Donegal to keep six Deputies when there should have been five Deputies.
For this reason I oppose this Bill and I will continue to do so. I want to put on record that if it is ever my lot to be part of a Government at any future date not alone will I recognise the boundaries of County Donegal but I will listen sympathetically to any similar proposal from any part of Ireland.
There is no reason, as Deputy Hogan of South Tipperary said, why the entire Electoral Act could not have been introduced in a form acceptable to all Parties, if the Minister for Local Government had done what Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick wanted him to do, and that is to have a commission to set the boundaries. That, however, would not satisfy the greed, the political thirst of the Minister, Deputy Boland. He had other things in mind. If there is a change of Government, and I hope there will be, County Donegal will be one constituency at any general election after 1970. I am satisfied that the people of Leitrim will be enabled then to select and elect a Leitrim candidate to represent them in this House, something Fianna Fáil have deprived them of by introducing this Bill.
Deputy Harte said that he would guarantee that the boundaries of Donegal would be sacrosanct but he is opposing the Minister's proposal. He is suggesting that Donegal should be a five-seat constituency and this could mean having Donegal carved up and a slice of Donegal going into another county or counties. So his anxiety about preserving the Donegal boundary is not a genuine one because he would have 7,000 to 8,000 people going from Donegal, as a five-seater, into Sligo-Leitrim or both. He has issued a challenge that he can bring the Minister to any area of County Donegal and get an indication from the people there that they would be happy with a five-seat constituency. He admits that it will mean a four Deputy representation in the light of the Ceann Comhairle being a representative from that area.
I do not wish to interrupt but that is not true. There would be four seats contested but there would be five TDs, one being the Ceann Comhairle. The Ceann Comhairle still represents County Donegal. That would be five TDs.
Yes, not politically of course.
As a TD.
As a politician.
I did not say that; you said that.
The gist of his contention is that the people of Donegal, if they were tested tomorrow, would indicate that they would be quite happy with a five-seat constituency and he indicates that that would be a contest for four seats. The people of Donegal at the referendum accepted the proposal that was put to them by the present Minister. That proposal was that there should be six TDs in Donegal, that there should be six single-seat constituencies. They accepted that which gives the lie to the suggestion made by Deputy Harte. I find it very difficult to understand the logic of his argument in a county where the people no later than the 16th of October indicated that they wanted six TDs in Donegal. Yet, by bringing the Minister tomorrow, as he said, to any part of East or West Donegal he will prove to him—I do not know how, but he will—that they are happy that at the next election there will be four TDs fighting for four seats. This is the gist of his argument.
In regard to the argument about which area should be in according to the Minister's proposal, if one looks at the map one finds that the line is pretty straight. It is drawn right across the county with equal areas on both sides and I think there should be no quarrel there except that I do know that if the place Deputy Harte mentioned—Urney —were brought in it would be chocolate to Deputy Harte because it is right beside him. It would suit him nicely to have that done. This sort of thinking is an indication that if he were in the Minister's position and doing a constituency re-alignment job he would look after himself.
A very noble pastime.
Even now he has the neck to ask the Minister to look after him by giving him Urney chocolates. The district of Urney, surely, if it were shifted into North-East Donegal would be a nice bonus for Deputy Harte but I presume the Minister's job is not to give bonuses to Deputy Harte——
(Cavan): Or to Fianna Fáil.
——but to conform strictly to the limits laid down by the Constitution unamended, and Mr. Justice Budd's decision. So, Deputy, you have to take it that that is the criterion on which the Minister had to operate.
Deputy Cunningham's point is that the people of Donegal gave the Minister a mandate in the referendum. Harold Wilson in Great Britain had a lesser swing in the first election as an outgoing Prime Minister than the swing against Fianna Fáil in County Donegal in the referendum. We wanted 16½ per cent of a swing in Donegal to retain the position. We got a 16 per cent swing. I am quite certain that if the conversion continues Deputy Cunningham will be sadly disappointed and disillusioned.
In regard to Deputy Cunningham's argument—I think I made this point abundantly but maybe Deputy Cunningham was not listening—if the Donegal county boundaries were to be preserved and the boundaries were to be, as he said, sacrosanct, Donegal would not have only four TDs; it would have five TDs, four seats being contested. I submit to the House that if four seats were to be contested Fianna Fáil could not get three out of four. Therefore, the bonuses Deputy Cunningham refers to as being given out by the Minister for Local Government would in no way come across the floor of the House but must land up around Bridgend where Deputy Cunningham's home is situated.
What I was telling the House before Deputy Cunningham came in was that in 1918 the First Dáil elected to meet in the Mansion House had only four TDs representing 168,000 people, 60,000 people more than the present population of Donegal would have six TDs. I do not want to go over again the remuneration which Members of this House have for representing the people of Donegal. I am quite satisfied with what I am getting and I am sure the two Ministers who have the privilege of serving in the Government and representing Donegal for the Government Party are quite satisfied with their remuneration and privileges. The four TDs who represented the people of Donegal in that Dáil and demonstrated in a democratic way and asserted to the world that the people of Ireland wanted freedom, who came here under duress, who could not go into a hotel and openly book there for the night but probably had to steal into the city and stay with friends, were asked by the people of Donegal to represent them—four TDs to represent 168,000 people. Now the Minister for Local Government is not satisfied with five representing 108,000. We will not talk about the disparities in privileges and remuneration.
This is the type of thinking which has muddled Government approaches. Indeed, it is very akin to the type of thinking that there used to be in other parts of the country.
When I suggest that the Minister should be transferred to Stormont, I am quite satisfied that certain steps taken by former administrators in that part of the world have influenced the present thinking of the Minister for Local Government, that all he was interested in was keeping Fianna Fáil in office. By bringing part of Leitrim in with South-West Donegal and preserving the boundary line as far as possible he could keep North-East Donegal as we know it at the moment but his proposals are to change it. This type of thinking was purely for the purpose of keeping the Fianna Fáil Party in office, of designing every constituency so that every backbench member of the Fianna Fáil Party was able to sit down with the Minister and discuss with him the far-reaching effects that this Bill generally speaking would have on the future of that particular member.
That is not correct.
I am not at all satisfied that Deputy Cunningham was not in on those talks.
I certainly was not.
I accept the Deputy's word but I give full credit to the Minister for Local Government for interpreting the type of thinking the Deputy would have expressed if he had been in on the talks. In private conversation Deputy Cunningham has told me he knew nothing of the Bill. I accept that and I accept it without reservation.
It did not prevent the Deputy from saying it.
What the Deputy told me was that he never informed the Minister for Local Government of his precarious position.
It is not.
Maybe not. You told me you were not speaking to the Minister about it nor did you ask him to give you any concession but that does not say that you did not know something about it long before I did. I want to state here and now that at least Deputy Cunningham has got the message that I am quite prepared to debate with the Minister for Local Government or either of his two colleagues, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries or the Minister for Social Welfare, the present position of County Donegal and the proposals that would be fair thinking and reasonable to the people in County Donegal. I forecast if it was put to the people they would reject the present proposal because they know it to be gerrymandering. They know the people of Manorhamilton and Dromahair have nothing in common with the people of Tory Island. Deputy Cunningham comes from the constituency where Tory Island is but he has never been on it. I have never been on it either. How can the Minister coming from a Party of reality tell the people he is being realistic in proposing that the people from Manorhamilton and Dromahair should be asked to sit down and talk out their problems with the people from Tory Island, some 107 miles away with a completely different background and heritage? This is ridiculous and the Minister knows it but he does not care about those things.
The only prerequisite the Minister is concerned about is what keeps Fianna Fáil in power. This Electoral Bill is the best piece of butchering any Minister for Local Government has ever performed. He is bisecting every constituency to suit the pattern of the Fianna Fáil political machine, to ensure maximum return. If I had complete control of the political thinking of the House I would say to the Minister: "Here, take every section with you, pass it and have a general election and let the people adjudicate on it". The people would then adjudicate on it and give the Minister the same answer he got in the referendum, that is, they would not allow this gerrymandering to take place to keep Fianna Fáil in power. They would put Fianna Fáil out. If that happended we would give the people an Electoral Act whereby their wishes would be respected by county boundaries and constituencies where county boundaries do not exist.
(Cavan): I understand in my absence that the Minister for Local Government had a few things to say about me including that I was not prepared to come in here and stand over statements I made on other issues in this House dealing with electoral reform.
I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but the only problem in question before the House at this moment relates to the constituency of North-East Donegal.
(Cavan): I respectfully agree and I would assume it was that sort of problem which was before the House all day. Nevertheless, I think I am entitled briefly to put the record right as far as my absence from this House is concerned. I understand the Minister also alleged I had ceased to be the Fine Gael spokesman on Local Government. I want to say I was absent from this House discharging my duty as a public representative in my constituency in Cavan and that I am still the spokesman for Fine Gael on Local Government. I do not intend to take up the time of the House much on this. I can understand changes and sackings being uppermost in the Minister's mind or indeed in the mind of any Minister of the Fianna Fáil Cabinet at the present time. If anybody was to be removed from his portfolio following the referendum I would suggest to the Minister to look around him and it would not be me. It would be more appropriate that the Minister for Local Government who led his Party to such a disastrous defeat in the referendum should pay the price of being removed from office rather than that I should be reduced after my helping to lead the victorious side in the referendum.
He misled them.
(Cavan): That is all I want to say about it beyond saying I can understand, as I say, the Minister thinking in terms of sackings and changes in the Cabinet and changes in the Opposition because that has been running right through his mind and that of his colleagues ever since the referendum. We are dealing here with the constituency of North East Donegal and we are dealing with County Leitrim in so far as the constituency of North-East Donegal affects County Leitrim. I want to suggest to the House that in drafting the constituency of North-East Donegal, and in dispossessing County Leitrim as he did, the Minister for Local Government was not motivated by an effort to provide a fair representation for Donegal and County Leitrim. He was motivated by other things. He was influenced by an effort to provide six seats in Donegal just as he increased the representation of Galway from eight to nine. He was influenced by an effort to remove the county of Leitrim from the political map.
The Minister for Local Government, in setting out to draft this entire Bill, set out not to make the constituencies as reasonable as he could but to make them as absurd as he could. Indeed, I suppose he could not be blamed because he was committed by his speeches in this House over the last year to the proposal that it was impossible to arrange constituencies in a reasonable manner. The Taoiseach committed him at Drumshambo to the proposition that Leitrim would cease to figure in the map of Ireland. It was in pursuance of that speech made by the Taoiseach at Drumshambo when launching the referendum campaign in Leitrim, a speech to the effect that if the people did not vote "Yes" Leitrim would disappear, that he did this. That is what the Minister set out to do here. He set out to completely destroy Leitrim, to remove it from the political map of this country and at the same time to ensure that there would be six seats retained in Donegal in the hope that he would get four of them. That is only wishful thinking. The Minister thought he would win the referendum but he was incorrect there to the tune of a quarter of a million votes. If the Minister puts this through, he will not get the four seats he thinks he will get in Donegal.
I am concerned here with the destruction and the annihilation of Leitrim. It is a vicious and unnecessary attack on a county that has been neglected economically, industrially and agriculturally by the Fianna Fáil Government for the last 30 years. The Fianna Fáil Party are now determined to destroy it politically because down through the years it has refused to toe the Fianna Fáil line. What the Minister is doing here in this amendment which we are taking in conjunction with this constituency of North-East Donegal, and rechristening North-East Donegal as Donegal-Leitrim, is an insult to the people of Leitrim and can only be accepted by them as such.
The Bill as it appeared on 23rd October—although it had been promised by the Taoiseach on 5th October —and as it came into the hands of the Deputies first made no mention of Leitrim. To be accurate, it made no mention whatever of County Leitrim in the title of any constituency. That was done with the knowledge, approval and consent of the leaders of the Fianna Fáil organisation in County Leitrim. With their full knowledge, approval and consent, as evidenced by their visit to Leinster House, this was done. Apparently when the people of Leitrim got down to thinking about this and realised that the title of Roscommon-South Leitrim and Sligo-Leitrim had been altered and that Leitrim had been dropped from Roscommon-South Leitrim and that it was being dropped from Sligo-Leitrim and that in the new constituency of North-East Donegal which proposed to include 8,000 voters from Leitrim the name Leitrim was not mentioned in its title they revolted against that. They were not revolting about the fact that the name of Leitrim was not appearing in the title of a consituency; they were revolting about the unnecessary carving up of the county of Leitrim into three in order to justify and vindicate the bullying threats of the Taoiseach in Drumshambo and to prove that what the Taoiseach then said was right.
The people did not accept the Taoiseach's warning. They were not impressed by his prophecies. They voted in no uncertain way against the Taoiseach's proposals and the proposals of his Minister. Now, for no other reason than to punish this gallant little county of Leitrim and to neutralise the independence of the voters of that county they are, to use the Minister's favourite expression, being butchered. It was his pet expression last year. I do not know whether he is adopting it in this debate or not. They are being butchered into three parts quite unnecessarily.
There has been a long tradition and a long alliance between Sligo and Leitrim. They are joined together for administrative purposes and for local government. They have a joint hospital. They have been linked together in one way or another down through the years for election purposes. The Minister could not tolerate that. The Minister knows that Sligo is a county that never tolerated the Minister and Leitrim has shown its independence. There does not appear to me to be any reason why Sligo-Leitrim could not be put together in a reasonable fourmember constituency. I have no doubt at all that if we were to talk here for weeks the Minister would come out on top. The Minister will get his way. The Minister will steamroll his proposals through this House just as, as he has been reminded, he steamrolled the referendum proposals through the House. The Minister laughed at the arguments that were put forward against him and the Fianna Fáil Party laughed at the warnings they received from independent thought in this country. They ridiculed the warnings given to the Minister by the non-committed newspapers in this country and by the other mass media of communication.
One would have thought that as a result of that operation the Minister would have learned that he is not infallible. While he might still think he is infallible in these proposals for North-East Donegal and Leitrim he should have learned that the people do not accept him as infallible. The Minister should realise that the day is gone when the people of this country can be bamboozled or bulldozed into accepting what the Minister for Local Government says or what any political Party in this country say. People can react very violently if they believe that proposals put before them are not bona fide proposals for the interest of the people in general. If they believe that the proposals are really put forward in the interests of a political Party for political Party purposes— and that is what these proposals are in the drafting of the constituency of North-East Donegal to be renamed Donegal-Leitrim—the people will react to these proposals just as they reacted to the Minister's proposals last year. I only wish to refer to the constituency of Galway in so far as it is relevant to Donegal. The point I am making is that we were warned in the referendum debate that Galway would lose seats if the referendum proposals were carried; but we know that Galway has, in fact, gained a seat contrary to what the Minister and his colleagues said. We know what the purpose of this is— the purpose of unnecessarily bolstering up Donegal by robbing Leitrim of almost 9,000 people in an effort to retain six seats in Donegal.
Deputy Harte suggests that Donegal should be a five-seater. That could be done and Leitrim could still be retained as a county without being divided up into three or, indeed, Donegal could be retained as a six-seater with less votes from Leitrim if the Minister wants to have his own selfish way. Half of the people who are being taken from Leitrim could be put in with that county's ancient colleague and neighbour, Sligo, to remain a four-seater. However, that would not suit the Minister because the Minister wants to neutralise, destroy and render ineffective the Leitrim vote. I do not know whether the Minister is in a hurry with this Bill——
No, I am not.
(Cavan):——but I say that the sooner it goes through the House and the Seanad and the sooner there is a general election the sooner will the Minister get the very same answer as he got on the 16th of October last.
(South Tipperary): To anybody who looks at the amendments put in by the Minister to this Bill there is a rather interesting feature. He has put in about half a dozen amendments in which he tries to placate counties which he has dismembered; in particular, he has gone to a considerable amount of trouble to placate Leitrim. That county had originally disappeared from the electoral map. We now find one of his amendments, No. 21, reading:
In page 11, in the second column of the entry relating to Longford-Westmeath, to delete "Roscommon" and to substitute "Roscommon-Leitrim".
In amendment No. 26 he has put down:
In page 13, in the first column, to delete "Roscommon" and to insert "Roscommon-Leitrim".
Again, in amendment No. 28 he has:
In page 13, in the first column, to delete "Sligo" and to substitute "Sligo-Leitrim".
In amendment No. 29:
In page 13, in the second column of the entry relating to Sligo, to delete "South-West Donegal" and to substitute "Donegal-Leitrim".
In amendment No. 30:
In page 13, in the second column of the entry relating to Sligo, to delete "Roscommon" and to substitute "Roscommon-Leitrim".
He has divided the small county of Leitrim into three parts of almost equal size. Out of a population of approximately 30,000 people, one-third will go to Donegal, one-third to Sligo and one-third to Roscommon in order to placate these people, allowing their names to appear in the registers of Sligo-Leitrim, Roscommon-Leitrim and Donegal-Leitrim. This is the sop which the little county of Leitrim is now receiving.
I have suggested to the Minister here that the difficulties of altering these constituencies could be overcome with the transfer of a lot fewer of the population into Donegal than he proposes. I gave him a minimum figure of 5,642. That would cause less disruption and it would leave about 25,000 people still in Leitrim which, when joined with Sligo, would be able to maintain its own interests and would be sufficient to form a reasonable joint constituency. Sligo would be practically the same constituency as it was years ago and this would entail a much smaller transfer of population.
If the Minister had adopted our suggestions in regard to Donegal North-East, Donegal South and Sligo-Leitrim, the final position would be, with the transfer I have mentioned, Sligo-Leitrim, 76,193—sufficient for a four-seater; South Donegal, 57,094—sufficient for a three-seater and North Donegal, 57,097—sufficient for a three-seater and, as I have mentioned, the population transfer would be much less.
This, to me, is a much more suitable arrangement of the constituency than the one suggested. However, since the Minister has his heart set on all these three-seaters and giving him his two three-seat constituency in Donegal, this arrangement could be made, with Sligo-Leitrim maintained as a four-seater, and the gross dismemberment of Leitrim could be avoided. Furthermore, Roscommon, as an administrative unit, would remain intact with the addition of a couple of small electoral areas. The only transfer of population in respect of County Roscommon under that system would be of about 900 people and that is a very small transfer in order to preserve County Roscommon as a three-seater. I do not know why the Minister will not accept this, but he is obviously wedded to the notion of three-seaters in rural Ireland, in the hope of getting two out of three, and in the metropolitan area of Dublin to four-seaters in the hope of breaking even. This threefour rule has obsessed him. He is operating on that basis in order to secure as much electoral advantage as he can. He is completely disregarding the interests and sentiments of the 100,000 whom he is transferring. The figure could be reduced to 20,000 if he really wanted to do it.
I do not know whether there is any point whatever in talking to the Fine Gael Party on any of these amendments or on any of the proposed constituencies because they say completely opposite things. In fact, sometimes the same Deputy puts forward exactly opposing cases. The amendments which we are discussing clearly show that they are in response to the request of the Fine Gael Deputy, Deputy McLaughlin. In so far as a number of Fianna Fáil councillors from Leitrim were in this House, I would point out that they were here to put forward a suggestion that Leitrim should, if at all possible, be left undisturbed. They made a strong case for that and, I may say, a more intelligent one and a less hypocritical one than has been put forward by the Fine Gael Party, but because of the position with regard to the Constitution and because of the decision made by the people on the 16th October, it was not possible to do what they requested.
As I have said, there are, of course, many ways in which the requirements of the Constitution could be complied with but the suggestion put forward by Deputy Harte is not one of those ways. Deputy Harte boasted about his knowledge of geography but even more relevant than a knowledge of geography in so far as this operation is concerned is a knowledge of the Constitution. Deputy Harte has not taken it upon himself to acquaint himself with the constitutional provision in this regard, although the literal adherence to the Constitution that is required is something that was imposed by the Fine Gael Party when they took their action in the High Court in 1961.
The Constitution was adopted by the people in 1937.
The constitutional position is that the ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time in each constituency and the population of each constituency as ascertained at the last preceding census must as far as practicable be the same throughout the country. I do not know whether or not the Deputy knows what a census is. The Deputy spent a long time arguing that it was not the population at the last preceding census that was the relevant thing but an estimate of the present population made by Deputy Harte himself. Deputy Harte or anyone else may make an estimate of the population. I am confined to the population as ascertained at the last preceding census, which was in 1966, and even if Deputy Harte did conduct a census since then, as he tries to pretend here, on which he could make an intelligent estimate of population, the Constitution does not permit me to take Deputy Harte's scientific findings into account.
It is not possible, as Deputy Harte knows, to make the County of Donegal into one five-seater constituency without breaching the county boundaries. Deputy Harte knows that that is not permissible and what Deputy Harte is, in fact, arguing for now is the same thing he put forward during the debate on the referendum and that members of his Party have put forward today, that is, that something up to 13,400 of Deputy O'Donnell's constituents should be removed——
That is not true.
——from the County of Donegal and transferred to a constituency comprising part of Donegal, part of County Leitrim and part of County Roscommon——
That is completely inaccurate.
——because the only way in which County Donegal can be a five-seat constituency is by the transfer of some of its population—up to 13,400—and these, as Deputy Harte knows, must come from Deputy O'Donnell's present constituency.
Could the Minister tell us where he gets the figure of 13,000?
The one thing on this question of Donegal on which the Fine Gael Party are all consistent, the one thing about which none of them have contradicted themselves, is that this matter should be dealt with by transferring some of Deputy O'Donnell's constituents——
It is a commission we want.
Apparently the decision of the Fine Gael Party is that if there is a seat to be lost in Donegal it should be Deputy O'Donnell's seat.
(Cavan): That is the kind of nonsense the Minister talked during the referendum.
It has been admitted that it is inevitable that Leitrim would have to be mutilated in some way.
Leave it alone for a couple of years and there will be nobody left.
The most despicable suggestion of all had to be made by Deputy Harte on this and that is that this is in some way directed against the people of the minority religion in his constituency.
On a point of order.
Deputy Harte knows why the former representation which the minority religion had is no longer available. They were deprived of it.
(Cavan): Since I came into this House, when Deputy Harte rose to speak he emphatically said he disagreed with another Member of this Party who said there was a proposal against the minority in Donegal. Not alone did Deputy Harte not say what the Minister is saying but he said the direct opposite.
That is not a point of order.
It is for the record.
(Cavan): It is a point of truth.
Deputy Harte and his colleagues know that this representation which the people of the minority religion had prior to this in the House was taken away as a direct result of the Fine Gael manoeuvre in the courts, that prior to 1961, under the 1959 revision of constituencies, there was a four-seat constituency and a three-seat constituency proposed for Donegal, but because this would be likely to have retained the then representation in Donegal under which the now Senator Sheldon had a seat here, Fine Gael contested that in the courts with the result that that representation had to be taken from Donegal.
I would agree with the Chair that the long digression into the position in 1918 was hardly relevant but since Deputy Harte insisted on dealing with it in a very fanciful way, I think I should point out that he is incorrect in suggesting that the four Deputies of Donegal had to represent the whole county of Donegal. Deputy Harte should know that at that time there were single-seat constituencies and even if the population of Donegal was at that time 168,000, these Deputies had not to represent 168,000; they had to represent an average of 42,000. However, what Deputy Harte is proposing is that each Deputy should have to represent 108,000 or something in the vicinity of 100,000, which would be much more than any Deputy had to represent in 1918, or, indeed, at any other time.
The inconsistency of the Fine Gael Party is again shown by the fact that one Deputy argues that we should have smaller constituencies, that the proposed constituency of Cavan-Meath, that is, part of Cavan with the addition of a small part of Meath, is too large; and within the space of halfan-hour other Deputies are arguing that the whole county of Donegal should be one constituency. The fact of the matter is that if you take the whole western area of Donegal, the Province of Connacht and Clare, due to the sparseness of population and the constitutional provision, the maximum number of seats there must be 30, which gives an average for a three-seat constituency of over 970 square miles, so that that would be the average area to be covered by each Deputy under the scheme of constituencies which we propose. Although other Fine Gael Deputies have argued that constituencies are too large, Deputy Harte is proposing that Donegal, which is 18,075 square miles—almost double the average of the constituencies we propose for the West—should be all one constituency. I do not know that there is any point in arguing against such inconsistent and contradictory statements and contentions by the Fine Gael Party.
Deputy Hogan maintains that we have drawn too heavily on County Leitrim to make up the deficiency in Donegal for the maintenance of its present representation to which it is entitled on the basis of one-man one-vote because the number of voters per Deputy in Donegal entitles it to this. Here again this is a question, which is a matter of opinion, whether it is better to have the minimum number of people transferred, and have a position where they will be an insignificant element in the constituency to which they are transferred, or whether it is better to transfer a significant number of them who will form a proportion in the new constituency which will ensure adequate attention by the public representatives.
I do not see how anybody can accuse me of being in favour of a constituency stretching from Tory Island to Manorhamilton just because this Bill proposes that. As I have said, I am bringing in this Bill under duress. The Fianna Fáil Party did everything possible to avoid bringing in such an unrealistic Bill. However, it has to be brought in because the Constitution, as interpreted at the behest of the Fine Gael Party, requires this to be done. The proposition in relation to Tory Island is in my opinion excessive. But so is the alternative proposition that has been put forward by Fine Gael—a constituency stretching from the Bundoran-Ballyshannon area through County Leitrim and almost down to Shannonbridge at the southern extremity of County Roscommon.
Deputy Hogan asks me to accept Fine Gael's suggestions. What are their suggestions? On this simple issue alone, we have had four or five different suggestions. The Fine Gael Party do not know what their suggestion is. Deputy Hogan and Deputy Harte and Deputy Fitzpatrick of Cavan have put forward three different vague suggestions on this particular subject. Obviously, they do not know themselves what they actually would like done instead of what is proposed in the Bill—and, of course, that has been what we have been hearing ever since this Committee Stage started.
At the very outset, Deputy Esmonde put forward suggestions with regard to County Wexford and which involved Carlow, Kilkenny and Kildare, but he very quickly admitted that these were his own opinions only and did not represent the opinions of the Fine Gael Party. It is a fact that, on this subject, as on many others, Fine Gael have no definite opinion whatever. As I said, there are many alternatives to every one of these problems and it is just a matter of opinion which is the best.
We think that, on the whole, the proposals we are putting forward are the least objectionable but we do not say that they are not objectionable. They are objectionable. We did everything possible to avoid having to bring them in. However, in view of the vast extent of the western area we are dealing with and the fact that the maximum representation permitted is 30 seats for this area, I think our decision to have ten three-seat areas rather than a number of five-seat areas and a number of four-seat areas, as the Opposition are apparently suggesting, is the best one in the circumstances and in fact we have not any alternative before us.
(South Tipperary): The Minister pleads he is introducing this Bill under duress. I made suggestions to him and these suggestions were made under the same duress because they must be made in conformity with the Constitution, as is the Bill the Minister is introducing here. According as we have come to these western counties, I have suggested at different points to the Minister certain methods of allocating the constituencies' population. As he says himself, there are different methods. The ones I have suggested are not necessarily the best but they are the ones I thought out, at least, and others may think out a better one for a particular area.
In effect, the Minister's proposals for the counties of the western seaboard, plus Roscommon and Leitrim, mean a population displacement totalling 59,274 persons. He is doing that in order to create ten three-seater constituencies. I have given him alternatives here of population transfers. I have given him the areas and he can check the figures from his book of statistics, if he wishes. Summarising it now, I suggested, as we went along, three four-seaters and six-seaters in the same area, which would give a total population displacement of 9,399 versus 59,274. If there is any value in trying to preserve county boundaries—and I believe there is—surely these suggestions which are solid practical suggestions merit consideration? By means of the transfers I have mentioned you will get 30 seats just as the Minister is getting by having ten three-seat constituencies and you will get them with far less breaching of county boundaries. There will be a breaching of county boundaries at three points. I have lost track of the number of breaches of county boundaries that there will be under the Minister's proposal to displace over 59,000 persons.
The Minister stands completely condemned. Fine Gael and other people may say this is gerrymandering. Here we have the statistics of what the Minister has been doing and it is pointless for him to stand up here and speak about hypocritical suggestions and to say that no practical suggestions have been made from this side of the House. These are counter suggestions which I am putting to him. If they are incorrect or have defects, let the Minister point them out but he should not babble about getting no practical suggestions from us. My suggestions give him what he says he is so anxious to have, two three-seaters in Donegal, leaving Mayo as it is, establishing Sligo-Leitrim as a four-seater constituency and displacing a minimum number from Leitrim, preserving almost 25,000 of the population intact as a unit to be joined up with Sligo. It preserves Roscommon as a county with a small addition of population from Ahascragh and Taghboy. It also preserves Clare as a unit but transfer a relatively small number from Galway. It preserves Galway as he wants it as a western three-seater and an eastern four-seater. We have done our utmost to meet the Minister in what we have submitted. Even though I say it myself, this is a far better, more practical and more just allocation of constituencies and population than the blunt ten by three which the Minister is putting forward.
I have the greatest sympathy with the Minister for Local Government in having to come in here and bring in this Bill before us "under duress". What does he mean by the word "duress". Surely the Irish people are entitled, even when the Fianna Fáil Party are divided before going to the country, to give their decision in a free vote and if by a majority of 240,000 the Irish people say to the Minister: "We do not trust you; we want to retain PR", it is hypocritical on the Minister's part and an effrontery for him to say he is bringing in this Bill under duress.
We are entitled to put forward alternatives. Deputy Hogan is entitled to make his suggestion just as I am entitled to make mine. I have pointed out that the Minister could have made Donegal a five-seat constituency, Sligo a three-seater, and he could still have left Leitrim on the map as a five-seat constituency. He would be displacing only between 8,000 and 9,000 people. He chose a different way and he is displacing over 30,000 people. He is doing this purely for selfish, political reasons so that Fianna Fáil can at least try to get the maximum number of Deputies returned. The Minister has spoken about the distances involved in the constituencies and about these being excessive. If the length of some constituencies is excessive, and perhaps it is, then if he can speak about the sparseness of the population, he should realise that the blame for that position rests on him and his Government. If he looks up the official statistics he will see that 6,464 people were driven out of Leitrim in the last ten years, since 1957, and that the population fell from 37,056 to 30,572. On the western seaboard alone since the Fianna Fáil Party came to power, some 150,000 people have been driven out. If there is the sparseness of the population the Minister has spoken about for the past ten minutes, the Minister and the Government must take the blame because since 1932 they have driven out 150,957——
I must point out that this is getting away from the amendment.
Perhaps it is. I shall bow to the ruling of the Chair, but when the Minister argues about excessive distances to be travelled by Deputies and about the sparseness of the population in the West, I think we are entitled to say that bad Government—his Government—has driven out 150,000 of the population in the past 25 years.
This is getting away from the amendment with which we are dealing at the moment.
We are entitled to know the reasons. It is in reply to the Minister's allegations.
We are not talking about population.
The Minister was. He spoke about sparseness of population in the West and excessive distances. I took down his words.
We are dealing with a specific constituency and we cannot have a general debate at this stage.
The Minister misquoted what I said when speaking earlier on this amendment when he alleged that I insinuated that the motives for his actions were that he wished to attack the religious minority in County Donegal. I want to put on record that this was far from being the truth and very far removed from my intention and from my exact words. This had been said by another Deputy and the first remark I made was to the effect that it was not absolutely correct that the motives behind the Minister's proposals simply were to consolidate Fianna Fáil in office, to ensure the return of the present Fianna Fáil representation for the entire County Donegal. For the record, I wish to tell the House that what the Minister said was inaccurate, and if he were a man of integrity he would withdraw it.
It was Deputy L'Estrange who made the remarks about the Protestant minority.
I stand over what I said.
The Deputy is getting out now.
Deputy Booth now says it was not I who made the reference.
I heard Deputy L'Estrange say it. I did not hear Deputy Harte say it.
I thank Deputy Booth for acknowledging that. However, it does not mean to say that Fianna Fáil can absolve themselves for their attacks on the religious minority in Donegal. People of an older generation than I know exactly what I say. The Minister shed crocodile tears and spoke about what his Party did to protect the religious minority in North-East Donegal. It is tommyrot. It is ridiculous for the Minister to suggest such a thing and nobody knows this better than the religious minority. Recently, I met a lady at the Church of Ireland Cathedral in Raphoe. I had been invited to a service there to commemorate a function. She said: "God look to the Protestant minority if Fianna Fáil could do without them."
This is away from the amendment.
I agree and I would not have mentioned it if the Minister had not tried to blame me for something.
Will the Deputy come back to the amendment?
The Minister demonstarted what I thought was impossible —that he could go below his own level.
Will the Deputy come to the amendment?
The Minister also said I had stated that four Deputies represented the Donegal constituency in 1918. I said that but I also said they represented four different constituencies. If the Minister did not hear that I repeat it—four Deputies represented Donegal in four different constituencies in 1918. They represented 168,000 people, without remuneration and without travelling expenses. They came to this city and had to seek overnight accommodation from their friends. They wanted to assert to the world in a democratic way that the Irish people had the right to govern themselves. I do not come to Dublin under duress. I am elected by the people in a free democracy and I am being duly rewarded for it.
My argument is that it is not unreasonable to say to the House that the people of Donegal, bearing in mind and appreciating the feelings of the people of Leitrim, would be content to accept a constituency of five seats representing the entire county of Donegal. The Minister insinuated that Deputy O'Donnell and I advocated the transfer of portions of Donegal to North Leitrim and that in a way someone was blackmailing someone else. That is not so, and just to prove how incorrect the Minister is I shall give some figures. He said that 13,400 people would have to be transferred from Donegal to North Leitrim.
Up to 13,400.
During the Fianna Fáil referendum campaign in Letterkenny, in September, 1968, the Minister is reported in the Derry Journal as follows:
Mr. Boland said that the Fine Gael plan was to "subtract" the Ballyshannon and Bundoran districts, with a population of 6,319, from Donegal and "add" them, with a portion of the County Leitrim, to Sligo.
Someone has put the Minister wise because now he says the figures should be 13,400. Lest, perhaps, some people have not got the message, let us put the record straight. The population of Donegal, according to the last census figures, is about 108,000 people. The Minister is entitled to a five per cent tolerance under the present Constitution, which is the Constitution of his Party. Therefore, he could in effect have a constituency with five seats and the transfer of a maximum of 3,000 people to any constituency he wishes. I do not want the people of Ballyshannon and Bundoran to say that I am advocating this. I do not want the Minister to go there and tell them I want this. I wish to say in all fairness that these people—I have spoken to them—would be prepared to say: "Right, it is better that 3,000 people from the southern tip of Donegal should be transferred to Sligo-Leitrim instead of 10,000 being transferred from Leitrim into South West Donegal." This is the basis of my argument, lest perhaps the Minister may again misunderstand me. He can go on the figures in the Census of Population and not on my figures.
I wish to repeat that since Fianna Fáil took office in 1931 the population in Donegal has dropped to a figure of 108,000. It has dropped continually to the tune of plus 1,000 per year. Therefore, if we were to have an election with a five-seat constituency, and if the Minister were to take this ultimate and extreme measure of transferring 3,000 people from the southern end of Donegal into Sligo-Leitrim, it would be for only one election because the Minister would have to bring them back again to maintain the status quo of five seats in Donegal.
This is why the Minister has brought so many people from Leitrim into Donegal—because, as has been pointed out by Deputy L'Estrange, the rate of emigration, the rate of decline in population in Donegal and in Leitrim is more pronounced than in any other region in the country. I submit that the transfer of 3,000 people from one area to the other now would mean that the entire matter would have to be reexamined before the next general election, bearing in mind that any increase in population would be caused by people coming home on holidays. I do not know what the Minister means by "realism". I am referring again to the speech he made, the speech I quoted earlier. In that speech he said:
The difference between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil is that we see the figures in the Census returns are not just digits to be subtracted and added at will, but that these figures represent real live people and that the 6,319 population in the Bundoran and Ballyshannon areas are 6,319 Donegal people whose interest is in their own country and who should be represented by Donegal Deputies.
Here is the Minister now shedding crocodile tears over the people in Donegal. How does he explain the Leitrim situation? Does he not think the Leitrim people are entitled to the same treatment as the Donegal people? I ask that question as a Donegal man. I ask it because I believe the people in Donegal are a fair-minded people. I am pointing out now to the people in Donegal that this appears to be as inaccurate as so many other things in the selfsame speech of the Minister. The people in Ballyshannon and Bundoran want a Donegal man to represent them just as the people in Leitrim want a Leitrim man to represent them. But the Minister has listened to the call from the wilderness, as others have listened to it, and, instead of having Leitrim disappear from the map, he has a certain amendment in to delete "South-West Donegal" and to substitute "Donegal-Leitrim". He has another amendment to delete "Sligo" and to substitute "Sligo-Leitrim". He has a third amendment to delete "Roscommon" and to substitute "Roscommon-Leitrim"—three Leitrims in one go. This could be described as the trinity of Leitrim. Is this not hypocrisy, the kind of hypocrisy which makes the people hold the Minister in such contempt? Is not this the kind of hypocrisy which made the people reject the proposals in the referendum? Is not this the type of hypocrisy which motivated the Minister into producing these proposals, which can only be described as gerrymandering? That is why I am prepared to give the Minister his amendments and let the people adjudicate on them. I am certain the people will exercise the same freedom of choice as the people of the entire county of Donegal, including those of Ballyshannon and Bundoran, and reject the Government proposals if they are put to them in conjunction with a general election. If that should be the pattern of events, and if this Party are given a mandate to form a Government, I guarantee that I will do my utmost to ensure that county boundaries will be preserved, not alone in Donegal but also in Leitrim, Sligo, Cork, Kerry, Mayo and Galway. I will do that so that those who go to Cork Park, proudly displaying their county allegiance, will not have their pride offended by a Minister who knows nothing more than Party interest and who is prepared, for Party political purposes, to introduce a Bill designed at gerrymandering constituencies. If the Minister says he does this under duress, my answer is that he does not have to do it. He can appoint a commission. I am quite certain a commission would make a better job of it and would have a fairer approach to the whole matter than the Minister has.
Listening to the exchange here one begins to wonder how one can win a debate like this. We in the Roscommon-Leitrim constituency are very conscious of what the amendments mean to us because Roscommon is one of those counties which have been partitioned from time to time in order to make constituencies in other counties. We, in Fianna Fáil, in both Roscommon and Leitrim put it to the people that, if the Third Amendment was not accepted by them, both our counties would once more be partitioned. We were the people who sought methods to avoid such partitioning. We have been listening here for the past hour and more to Opposition Deputies pillorying us for partitioning these areas. That is most unfair. It is most unreasonable. The one method available to prevent such partitioning was offered to the people. For various reasons it was not accepted by them, the most telling reason being that the Opposition Parties recommended the people not to accept the Third and Fourth Amendments. It is the Opposition who should be pilloried for this partitioning. We were told a moment ago that a commission should be appointed. But the commission was also rejected on the advice of the Opposition. It was proposed and it was rejected.
By whom?
By you people.
No.
Deputy Dr. Gibbons must be allowed to make his speech.
I have heard some of the solutions offered. One solution offered by Deputy Hogan suggested part of Galway should be added to my constituency. He must think the Deputies in my constituency people of great endurance. Deputy Harte mentioned that one of the new constituencies will be over 107 miles. I think my constituency is that at the moment and, if Deputy Hogan's proposition were accepted, it would be up to 120 miles. It is long enough as it is.
(South Tipperary): Two district electoral divisions, 900 population.
The Deputy mentioned Ahascragh and Cloughbawn, which would make it 120 miles.
(South Tipperary): And take off Leitrim.
The Deputy included Leitrim.
(South Tipperary): Roscommon alone.
Deputy Dr. Gibbons.
We have the situation now in Leitrim that groups are parading the county protesting against the partition of the county. It is only fair to say the Fine Gael Party are not associated with this. I have told some of these people that, if they are sincere, the time they should have paraded was before the amendments were voted on; had they done so with the same frequency and determination in that area the vote on the referendum would have been very different. Had those who opposed us on the referendum seen the matter in the same light as they see it now, they too could have used their influence to get the amendments accepted by the people. That was not done. It is ironic that we should now in this debate hear this side of the House blamed for not doing what the Opposition side of the House advised the people not to do.
The people want it.
(Cavan): If I understand Deputy Dr. Gibbons correctly he endorses and approves of the proposal to cut the county of Leitrim in three and give a third of it to Donegal, a third to Roscommon, and a third to Sligo. It is admitted in this House that there are ways of dealing with the situation other than that. Even the Minister accepts that. That being so. I should have thought that Deputy Gibbons, who enjoys the support of some Sligo constituents, would have opted for one of these other methods, a method which would leave intact, or virtually intact, the county of Leitrim.
The Minister in his last contribution seemed to think there was virtue in preserving a county or the most of a county, so that the Deputy representing it would have to take an interest in it. It is common case here, that even on the Minister's own proposals, if he wants to give Donegal six seats and insists on doing it, all he has to do is take 5,000 people from Leitrim and put them in Donegal, and give Donegal six seats, leave 25,000 Leitrim people together as an influential unit and put them in Sligo-Leitrim where, by and large, they have been for the past 50 years, and leave Sligo-Leitrim together as a four-seater. Is not that a reasonable proposal? Is there anything wrong with it? Does it not leave Leitrim virtually intact? Does it not leave 25,000 Leitrim people together with a voice that will have to be listened to, and with enough votes to elect representatives of their own and make their voice heard.
One thing has emerged from this debate. We are discussing the Electoral Amendment Bill, 1968, which proposes to revise the constituencies. The object of that Bill should be to provide fair representation for the people of Donegal, and fair representation for the people of Leitrim. That should be the object of the Bill. It should be the intention of any Minister setting out to draft the Bill. It has emerged from this debate—and the Minister has conceded it—that there are a number of ways by which this can be achieved. The Minister proposes one: take 9,000 people from Leitrim and put them in Donegal, making Donegal two threeseaters, take another hunk of Leitrim and put it in Roscommon, and take another few thousand and put them in Sligo. We on this side of the House say that the net object and intention of that exercise is not to give fair representation to Donegal and Leitrim but to give added strength to Fianna Fáil. They are hoping—and I do not concede that it will happen—to get four seats in Donegal and destroy Leitrim. At least two other proposals have been put from this side of the House which would have the effect of preserving Leitrim, if not entirely intact, practically intact. Put 5,000 people from Leitrim into Donegal and have it a two three-seater, if the Minister insists on that, or put 25,000 people from Leitrim into Sligo and give them four seats. Those are two ways of doing it.
Deputy Gibbons introduced a commission and then shot it down. Of course, the way to do it is through a commission. We did not shoot down a commission as Deputy Gibbons said, and he is usually a very fair Deputy who makes a reasonable contribution in the House. Of course, he is wrong when he says we shot down a commission. I introduced a Bill to provide a commission to arrange these constituencies, and the Minister led his Deputies, including Deputy Mooney and Deputy Gibbons, into the Lobbies to shoot down the First Stage of that Bill and ensure it would not happen.
The reasonable thing to do would have been to entrust the arranging of the constituencies to an independent, non-political commission, presided over by a judge, which would make representation to the House. I agree entirely with Deputy Gibbons that that would have been the right thing to do. I want to correct him when he says we were against it.
The Deputy said it himself on television.
(Cavan): I said I was against a bogus commission, which would be subject to change here by the Minister with a simple majority.
The question of a commission has been resolved by the Dáil and we can have no further discussion on it.
(Cavan): It is very unfortunate if that is so because Deputy Gibbons has put this in issue from the Government side of the House. He spoke immediately before me.
It was started over there.
(Cavan): I am entitled to put the record right. I said on television that I was against a bogus commission. I wanted to put the correct commission into both Bills and I would not be let. After the referendum was over I introduced a Bill to set up a genuine, workable, independent, honest commission, to take politics out of the arranging of the constituencies and ensure that they would be arranged in the interests of fair representation of the people rather than in an effort to suit one political Party. I will leave it at that. Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to put the record right. I am satisfied that I have done so.
It is a public disgrace that a county with a national tradition like that of Leitrim should be cut up and put off the political map. Sinn Féin was founded here in 1905 and two years afterwards Charles J. Dolan in Leitrim resigned his seat as a representative of the Irish Parliamentary Party in the British House of Commons and contested a seat on behalf of Sinn Féil. I am glad to be able to claim relationship with the said Charles J. Dolan. He put sinn Féin on the map and in the history books of this country.
As I say, it is a disgrace that a county with its own tradition should be cut up deliberately into three and virtually removed from the electoral map of the country. The amendments we are dealing with now to reinstate the name of Leitrim in three constituencies will not satisfy the people of Leitrim. What they want is what the Minister in his last contribution very correctly said was necessary: to keep a group of people who could exercise their influence on whatever constituency they were in. The Minister made that point and it is a good point and one with which I agree, but he is doing the very opposite here. He wants to ensure that Leitrim will have no voice, that the votes of Leitrim will be ineffective. It is a great pity that the Minister did not accept the commission and avoid all this wrangle and difference of opinion.
The Minister concedes that there are many ways of doing this. There is the right way and the wrong way, the fair way and the unfair way, there is the political way and the independent way, but surely the one person who should not have been entrusted with a task like that is the political head of a Department, the man who was committed in this House last year to saying that what he is now doing was impossible. The Minister is on record time and time again as having said that it was impossible to arrange the constituencies under PR in a reasonable way. I want to go on record as saying that the Minister in drafting and introducing this Bill set out to vindicate the speeches he made during all of last year. He set out to prove that what he then said was right. In other words, he set out not to introduce a Bill that would be as reasonable as possible, not to introduce a Bill that would give as fair representation as possible to all constituencies, but to reduce the whole matter to an absurdity. As far as Donegal and Leitrim are concerned he has succeeded and more is the pity.
He took on an impossible task. No wonder he was able to introduce the Bill within days after the referendum was over. He had preconceived ideas about this. He was committed to destroying Leitrim, not to preserving it. That is the tragedy of what is happening now in this constituency as in other constituencies. It is something that is not necessary. It is only necessary to sustain the argument that the Minister was making all last year, that it was impossible to arrange the constituencies fairly. I suppose it is not permissible to deal in detail with the commission in view of the Chair's ruling, but surely one would think that, if the Minister for Local Government during the last 12 months committed himself to saying that PR is unworkable, that it is impossible to arrange reasonable constituencies under the present Constitution, then the obvious, dignified and responsible thing for that Minister to do when the people disagreed with him to the tune of 250,000 votes would have been to say: "I give in" and to say to the Taoiseach: "I will accept any other Ministry you want to give me but, as far as arranging constituencies is concerned, I have campaigned up and down the country that this cannot be done on the basis that any Bill introduced to revise the constituencies would produce a monstrosity, an absurdity. I am sorry, Taoiseach, I cannot undertake that. You will have to get another man to do it." That would be the reasonable approach of a man holding a Cabinet position in a democracy. But not at all, that was not the attitude of the Minister. He gladly accepted. He said: "Give me the knife, let me at it and I will show them." That is what he did and this is the result. That is what we are talking about here this evening. It is our duty to expose it.
I know what the end result will be as far as this House is concerned, as I said before, so far as the Minister's majority in the House is concerned. The Minister once thought that with his majority in the House he could change the Constitution but the people said "no"——
I am afraid the Deputy is getting away from the question before the House which does not deal with——
He only wants to delay.
(Cavan): Is the Minister in a hurry?
That is a matter for you.
The question before the House deals with North-East Donegal.
(Cavan): As far as North-East Donegal and Leitrim are concerned, the Minister has succeeded in doing what he promised to do last year, what he set out to do after the referendum, to rub the noses of the people in Leitrim in the dirt, to chastise them, to punish them and to remove them from the political map and render them ineffective. I was amazed that Deputy Dr. Gibbons for whom I have the height of regard, was foolish enough to endorse the Minister's action in this House. This is not the first time that the Minister and his Party tried to play a dirty trick on Leitrim. They thought when they linked up Roscommon and a comparatively small part of South Leitrim that they would remove the name of “Reynolds” from the public life of County Leitrim but they did not succeed because the people of South Leitrim reacted violently and elected Deputy Reynolds and he is in the House today, just as the people of North Leitrim resented the mutilation of Leitrim and divorcing it from Sligo and they saw to it that Deputy Joe McLaughlin was elected. The people of Leitrim proved that they were loyal to themselves and showed they resented the attitude of the Government in trying to disfranchise them and they sent two Fine Gael Deputies into this House. I am satisfied that now that it is divided up into three they will again react by playing their part in sending three Fine Gael Deputies back into this House.
(South Tipperary): I wish to join issue with Deputy Dr. Gibbons on a point. He seems to have misinterpreted the discussion. I gather that he had the notion we were suggesting adding on to his electoral area. In point of fact the opposite was the case. He demurred at the idea of Taghboy and Ahascragh being added on to his constituency. I gathered that he thought that this would be an undue extra burden. The Minister seems to ride in with him. As a matter of fact the constituency which Deputy Dr. Gibbons represents is Roscommon plus some of Leitrim.
I do not know what the present census figure in Leitrim would be for the area the Deputy represents but, according to the 1966 census, it was 16,600. I suppose it would be something the same now, perhaps a bit less. The population of Roscommon, according to the last census is 56,228. The suggestion I made was that the county of Roscommon be an electoral area with this 56, 228 people plus 953 people from Taghboy and Ahascragh. These 953 people would replace the 16,000 people from Leitrim so, instead of increasing the man's burden, we are removing a population of 16,600, or whatever it is in the present census of Leitrim people and just adding a small amount from Galway—Taghboy and Ahascragh—of 923 people so that on balance he would be getting a more compact and smaller constituency. It would be a three-seat constituency. The suggestion I made was that Roscommon should be just Roscommon alone plus this small number of people from Galway and with this small number you can have Roscommon county as a single constituency and leave the greater part of Leitrim intact. As Deputy Fitzpatrick has said, you could just transfer a little over 5,000 people into Donegal.
Contrary to what Deputy Hogan stated in his last contribution but one, he has not put forward any suggestion for re-distribution of the representatives in the western area on the basis of ten three-seat constituencies. He has made various vague suggestions of larger constituencies. Possibly, for all I know, there may be some three-seat constituencies in these various schemes that he has been suggesting; but on the whole he has been suggesting larger constituencies than the three-seat constituencies that are in the Bill. Generally speaking, his approach now on this Bill, unlike his Party's approach when the proposal to amend the Constitution was before the House, is that the transfers of the population that are required to comply with the Constitution should be so small as to ensure that the transferred population will be completely submerged in the county to which it is added.
(South Tipperary): Like Leitrim.
Unfortunately, unlike Deputies on the opposite benches, I have to look on the situation as a whole. I cannot put forward vague suggestions with regard to the county of Roscommon in the context of Donegal and Leitrim. I have to look at the area as a whole and I think that the reasonable way to look at the western area is to consider the problems of Connacht, the county of Donegal and the county of Clare and the logical thing to do is to start at the two extremities, to start at Clare and to start at Donegal. Deputy Hogan is now full of this idea of the desirability of preserving counties wherever possible, preserving counties as his colleague Deputy Harte said "as God designed them," though during the debate on the referendum we were led to believe that it was an infamous British monarch who designed them but now Deputy Harte wants to preserve them because God designed them.
God designed Lough Foyle and put the Atlantic where it is.
Whoever designed them we did everything possible to obtain from the people permission to exercise a smaller amount of tolerance than is available in any democracy in the world in order to adhere to those boundaries which, whoever designed them, are practical considerations. But at the behest of the Opposition Parties the people rejected our request and we now have to deal with the situation as we find it due mainly to the machinations of the opposite Parties. To preserve county boundaries is exactly what Deputy Hogan and Deputy Harte and the other Deputies over there have ensured we are not permitted to do.
Deputy Hogan believes that his suggested solution—which of them I do not know because he has put forward so many at once that I do not know which he means—is better and maybe it is. We believe ours is better and, as I admitted, this is largely a matter of opinion. Deputies on the opposite side of the House may consider it quite a feasible and reasonable suggestion that each Deputy should have to represent the whole of the county of Donegal or that a constituency stretching from Ballyshannon in Donegal down to Shannonbridge on the Offaly border of Roscommon is a reasonable constituency for a Deputy to represent, but that is just where the difference of opinion comes in. We think that in this area, where only 30 seats can be allowed as the result of the Fine Gael action in 1961 in the High Court, we should have constituencies of the minimum size permitted by the Constitution, that is three-seat constituencies.
Deputy L'Estrange asked me what I mean by "duress". What I mean is that we made every possible effort to avoid doing what we have to do but we accept the decision of the people that county boundaries may not be adhered to and we are doing what is required to be done in accordance with the Constitution. Fine Gael, of course, want to have it both ways. First of all, having made sure that county boundaries cannot be adhered to, they now want to have it both ways and complain that what they required to be done is now being done.
The position with regard to what has been done with Leitrim is that under what is proposed each group of Leitrim people will form a significant proportion of the electorate in the constituency to which they will be attached. Deputy Fitzpatrick would have it otherwise. If he were arranging things, apparently he would detach the minimum number of Leitrim people from Leitrim and attach them to Donegal leaving them an insignificant number in the constituency of South-West Donegal.
Under what we propose there will not be any group of Leitrim people who will be in the position of having no influence in the constituency to which they will be attached and no Deputy or no candidate will be able with impunity to ignore the part of County Leitrim that will be attached to any of these three constituencies. In fact, there will be almost 7,000 Leitrim voters in each of these three constituencies, so that the Leitrim vote will be an important factor in the consideration of every candidate. In fact, it will be quite feasible, or almost feasible, for a Leitrim Deputy to be elected in either of the three constituencies— quite on the cards that it could happen. If Fine Gael have all this massive support that they claim to have in the county of Leitrim this may result in three Leitrim Fine Gael Deputies being elected here.
Deputy Harte also came out with the remarkable statement that a maximum of about 3,400 people would have to be transferred from Donegal under present circumstances when in fact he must know that this would be the minimum. What he said was that any number up to 13,400 odd would be transferred from Donegal. When I was speaking in Letterkenny during the referendum campaign I was referring to a specific proposal which Senator FitzGerald said he put forward on behalf of his Party to transfer this 6,319 people from Deputy O'Donnell's constituency—from the Ballyshannon and Bundoran area of Donegal—to Leitrim and this was a figure above the minimum Deputy Harte mentioned. It was the maximum I mentioned and it could be any figure within that in so far as the situation in Donegal was concerned.
In so far as the whole situation in this western area is concerned, and the requirement to have the ratio of population per Deputy as near as possible the same in every constituency, if that is to be the objective a substantially greater number would require to be so transferred. I do not remember which of the Fine Gael Deputies first brought up this question of a commission. The fact of the matter is as they know, and certainly as Deputy Fitzpatrick knows, the Constitution requires the Oireachtas to revise constituencies and to determine the constituencies by law and a commission can only be established if a referendum to amend the Constitution is held.
(Cavan): The Minister knows that is not correct.
When there was a proposal to establish a commission Fine Gael were against it but here they want to have it both ways.
(Interruptions.)
They want to be for and against a commission. They want to be for and against a simple proposal and a simple majority of the Dáil, to appoint a commission, for and against the two-thirds majority.
(Cavan): It was the same at the Ard Fheis. They were for and against Taca.
So far as we are concerned we have not changed our opinion about the desirability of adhering to administrative boundaries but the people at the behest of the Opposition have decided that the administrative boundaries are of no importance.
(South Tipperary): You are going to stick your nose in it now.
I am ensuring that each group of Leitrim people will form some considerable proportion of the electoral constituency to which they are attached and their interests cannot with impunity be ignored by any political Party or any candidate. As regards Deputy Hogan's suggestion that the Fine Gael suggestion is to add merely Taghboy and Ahascragh to the administrative boundaries of Roscommon it is quite possible that this may have been one of the many suggestions put forward. It may have been one which was put forward. Certainly it is a fact that one suggestion made from the Fine Gael benches was that there should be a constituency with part of Donegal which presumably should be, as Senator FitzGerald suggested, the Ballyshannon and Bundoran areas, added to Leitrim with a small proportion which would be needed to make up Sligo to a sufficient level to justify three seats and require the constituency of Roscommon to form a five-seat constituency. There is not much point in arguing any further on this so far as I am concerned. It is quite clear that the Opposition have no intention of being consistent and that in fact their only objective here is to delay this Bill as far as possible.
Seven or eight hours delay.
The Minister in his concluding remarks said there was not much point in debating this any further as the Fine Gael proposals were not consistent. Let me point out that Deputy Fitzpatrick has given the Minister his proposals, Deputy Paddy Hogan has given his proposals, Deputy L'Estrange has made his suggestions and I have given mine. If the Minister considers that it is inconsistent to put forward point of views——
I am waiting for Deputy Clinton and Deputy Belton to give theirs and we will have all of them.
Wait until we come to Dublin.
What about Clare?
As the Minister knows we are consistent when we put forward a recommendation for a commission. If he claims duress is his trouble we have put forward reasonable proposals. The Minister in his opening remarks mentioned we had proposed out of a figure of 108,000 people putting a minimum of 3,400——
A maximum you said.
Let it be maxies. The maximum number of people to be transferred would be 3,400. I never used the word maximum or minimum. The mere fact that the Minister has mentioned a maximum of 3,400 indicates to the House that the Minister does consider this proposal and that it is not an unworkable one. The most reasonable aspect of it would be to have one less TD in Donegal. The Minister does not want that because it would be one less Fianna Fáil TD. The Minister says he had to look at the problem in the country as a whole. If this is the position why did the Minister invite every county councillor from every electoral area in the 26 Counties of Ireland to come to Dublin, expenses paid out of Taca money, to advise him and to consult with him on the proposals he was going to introduce to this House? Is this the type of duress the Minister is subjected to? Are members of the local cumainn who have been elevated to the county council to represent the Fianna Fáil Party at that level using undue influence on the Minister for Local Government? Is this what he means by duress? If this is what he means by duress then again, like Deputy Fitzpatrick, I submit if the Fianna Fáil Party were to accept the Fine Gael proposal to have a commission the Minister would be relieved of this headache.
We cannot discuss the question of a commission. We are still debating the constituency of North-East Donegal.
Yes, I quite agree and a commission would have made a far better job of it.
A commission has been debated in the House and the Dáil has taken a certain decision on it. It cannot come up again.
I quite agree. I submit to your ruling. If you had a commission you would not as the Minister wrongly indicated, have to amend the Constitution. The authority lies with the House to introduce and to amend Electoral Acts but a commission could advise the House. I am certain that if the Minister invited Members to participate in a commission and accepted their advice they would produce a fair, reasonable and rational Electoral Act. It would not be designed as the Minister obviously designed this one.
The Minister also mentioned that the county boundaries were described by me and by other members of the Fine Gael Party as being designed by God and took exception to that. In case the Minister has forgotten the geography of the country, I would remind him that most of the county of Donegal is decided by the Atlantic Ocean. The River Foyle is on one side, and Lough Foyle. The River Finn is a continuation of the River Foyle. If this is not designed by God I do not know who did it. I do not accuse the Minister of doing it.
It could be Paisley's doing.
The Minister also mentioned that I knew very little about geography when I referred to Urney West. The electoral division of Clonleigh South is what I could describe as the most easterly part of Donegal and is mostly my native parish. Urney West projects into County Tyrone. The people living there are, to a major degree, oriented towards Tyrone rather than towards Donegal.
We know who drew that border.
It was not God.
It was that Party over there.
(Cavan): We could have a debate on that too. The Minister conceded there would have to be some sort of arrangement with the North. It is in black and white and cannot be denied.
The Minister's remarks are very appropriate to this debate.
Totally irrelevant.
Completely irrelevant. Clonleigh South is the southern part of the parish of Clonleigh, which is my native parish. We have in that parish electoral divisions of Aghawee, Ardnaglass, Ballybogan, Camus, Churchtown, Gortin South, Gortnavilly, Legnabraid, Tirkeeran, Unshinagh Lower, Unshinagh Upper. If I were to describe them as South-West Donegal as the former Minister for Local Government described them people would say I had lost all sense of direction and had little knowledge of geography. The present Minister describes them as South Donegal-Leitrim. Am I to walk into the electoral division of Clonleigh South and tell people who go to church in Lifford that they now belong to North Leitrim just to satisfy the Fianna Fáil Party so that they can retain the status quo of four seats?
The Minister also suggested that there was a difference between four TDs representing Donegal in 1918 and the present position by virtue of the fact that the four represented four different constituencies, and said the comparison was unfair, that there was an imbalance and that we were not comparing like with like when saying that five TDs should represent the entire county. His argument appeared to me to be that the imbalance amounted to this—that four TDs elected to represent 168,000 people in the county of Donegal in the 1918 election were elected from four different constituencies. As such they controlled only the constituency which they were elected to represent. If there were five TDs in the county now with one constituency unit there would be a man in Inishowen representing somebody at Glencolumbkille. This is true. Is the Minister really serious in inferring or suggesting that anyone wanting to consult a Deputy at Glencolumbkille would travel to Inishowen to consult him? Does he suggest that anyone living at Fahan would go to Ballyshannon to consult a TD? The Minister must know very well that under the present system of proportional representation there is is local representation to a very major degree. It is only in extreme cases that a constituent would bypass a local Deputy and go to a Deputy of his own Party, because under proportional representation a person can vote second or third choice for a local Deputy.
The 1918 proposal, indeed, gave constituents only the right to vote for one Deputy. I cannot understand why the Minister disputes the argument or challenges the logic that this country elected its first Dáil with Donegal sending four TDs to represent 168,000 people.
How many are there now?
In 1918 they were without remuneration and without expenses and without protection. The Minister suggests that the county would be underrepresented with five TDs enjoying the privileges that this House gives them. I do not think that the Minister is serious when he suggests this and certainly any reasonable person would not accept his argument.
I am putting forward the argument that it was much more difficult for four men to represent County Donegal in 1918 under the then conditions than for five people to represent 60,000 people fewer—108,000 people. The Minister is not even satisfied with that but wants 50 per cent extra representation which would be six TDs to represent fewer people, and give them the privileges which we all enjoy. If the Minister says this is an unfair argument then I will accept it. My argument is of such force that even members of his own Party will concede that it is unfair to take 10,000 people from Leitrim just to satisfy the Fianna Fáil Party that four Fianna Fáil TDs will be returned out of that six, because if the county were one unit with five TDs—one TD is already elected by virtue of the office which he holds—four seats would be contested of which, despite the fact that it is the strongest constituency for votes controlled by the Party, it would be physically impossible for Fianna Fáil to win three. They could only hope to win two out of the four and one can take one's pick as to the two who would still be here out of the three men. Mr. Blaney, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Mr. Joe Brennan, the Minister for Social Welfare and Deputy Cunningham from Inishowen. I know and the Fianna Fáil Party know that the weakest of these three men is Deputy Cunningham. He would be the last man of the three whom I would defeat. There could be another permutation, but that is not within my authority.
The Minister, of course, goes on to say that Leitrim is now divided into three parts and that, in fact, Fine Gael could get three seats in Leitrim. This is utter folly. The population is approximately 30,000 and the Minister has divided it pretty evenly. He has transferred approximately 10,000 each to South-West Donegal, to Sligo and to Roscommon. We know that the quota is about 6,400 votes in order to elect a Deputy to the House and the largest number of votes in any one of these areas is 5,000.
It is not.
What is it, then?
There are almost 21,000 votes in Leitrim.
I do not wish to dispute the matter with the Minister but my mental ready reckoner suggests that for every two of the population there is one vote. The Minister can reach for his electoral list and he will find that the total electorate is 13,000 out of 20,000. These are his figures but he forgets—or is it that he is so far removed from the scene of the crime that he does not advert to the fact that there are at least 3,000 of those people in Birmingham, Glasgow, London and Manchester. Does the Minister dispute that?
We now see that out of every two of population, one has a vote. I should like to ask the Minister where are the 20,000 votes out of a population of 30,000 in Leitrim. As I have said, some of them are enjoying the luxuries being given to them by the British Government in places like Manchester, Glasgow and London. They will not be in Leitrim to help to elect a Deputy.
I believe as Deputy Fitzpatrick has said, that if the Minister were a conscientious person and if he believed in the things that I believe in and in view of the insults that were flung at him by every constituency in the country with the exception of one or two, he would have gone to the Taoiseach's office and said "I have no longer got the confidence of the people; I am no longer satisfied that I know what the people want. I must be a square". That is what the Minister is. The Minister is removed from reality. His dignity was so much offended by the result of the referenda——
We seem to be having a Second Reading debate on this amendment, which deals with North-East Donegal. That very clearly appears. The Deputy should get back to the matter before the House—the Minister's amendment.
Yes, Sir. I quite agree that it would appear that I am making a Second Reading speech but I shall come back, if you will permit me, to the point I am elaborating. I believe that the Minister's dignity and intelligence were offended——
The Minister has not got any.
That is debatable— that he said to his colleagues in the Government and the Parliamentary Party: "I will show the Irish people what is meant by arrogance; I will show the Irish people what power a Minister for Local Government has in a Fianna Fáil Cabinet; I will show the Irish people that no matter what they say we are still in power and we will introduce an Electoral Bill that will keep us in power——
Let us get back to North-East Donegal if the Deputy has anything to say about it.
"——we will start with North-East Donegal and we will design accordingly every constituency from there to Wexford and to Kerry." This, in my judgment, has been the type of thinking of the Minister for Local Government during the drafting of this Bill. There can be no other explanation as to why a Minister should pluck from an electorate the contents of an Electoral Bill, drafted long before the two questions were decided in the referenda and which was available for inspection on the Minister's desk months before the referenda. It is not now so illogical for Fianna Fáil to put forward these proposals for amending the Constitution in defiance of the wishes of the Irish people? The Minister will say: "Hold it, lads; if it comes off, we are here for keeps: if it does not come off, there is the Electoral Act that will keep us in power——"
The Deputy seems to be discussing the Electoral Act that has been approved by the House and on which we can have no further discussion.
I agree, a Cheann Comhairle.
If the Deputy agrees there should be no argument. We are discussing the constituency of North-East Donegal and the Deputy should try to relate at least some of his remarks to the amendment.
I quite agree with your ruling, a Cheann Comhairle, but surely I am entitled to refer to and to state clearly here the things which motivated the type of thinking which went into this Bill, which has now been described by everyone who has taken an interest in it, even those who have only taken a passing interest in it as a gerrymandering piece of legislation.
We cannot have a further discussion on the Electoral Amendment Bill. What is before the House now is the Minister's amendment dealing with the Deputy's own constituency and the Deputy might relate some remark to it.
The reason why I deviated for those few minutes was that I felt the Minister commenced the carving up in North-East Donegal and that in this he was aided by his colleague, the former Minister for Local Government, who is a Deputy from that constituency, and he advised him on how the Minister could preserve four Fianna Fáil TDs out of six. During the referendum, the Fine Gael organisation—and this relates to the Electoral Amendment Act——
The Chair has already said that the referendum is not a matter for discussion on this amendment.
I agree, but the gerrymandering that went into this Bill is not the first piece which has affected Donegal. The Electoral (Amendment) Bill and the amendment now before the House affect North-East Donegal, and in order to debate North-East Donegal one must include the entire county of Donegal. If we take the entire county of Donegal we must take Sligo-Leitrim. I do not want to go any further than Leitrim. In 1918 we had four TDs representing 168,000 people, and in 1923 we moved up to a onecounty basis with eight TDs, after which time the population declined, as I have already stated, by an average of 1,000 per year.
The Chair recollects that this has already been mentioned this evening.
I agree, but the Minister has put forward arguments and I want to knock them down. To preserve the Fianna Fáil representation, in 1937 the Fianna Fáil Government divided the county in two. They had four Fianna Fáil TDs out of eight. In 1937, under the Constitution, the population fell and they could only return seven TDs. The Fianna Fáil Party then drew a line in such a manner that they still retained four TDs out of seven. In 1961 the population declined further; they changed the line and retained four Fianna Fáil TDs out of six. This was a perfect piece of gerrymandering. Now, because the population has fallen so low that we can only, in all honesty, return five TDs, the only way to maintain the status quo of four TDs out of six is to bring the people of Leitrim into the administrative county of Donegal and make a bigger constituency. I know it is irrelevant to mention the referendum.
The Chair is glad the Deputy appreciates its irrelevance.
I use it only to underline my argument that Fianna Fáil had four TDs out of eight prior to 1937, that they had four TDs out of seven between 1937 and 1961, that they had four TDs out of six from 1961 to 1969, and now by another piece of gerrymandering they will maintain that position. It was not for any other reason that the Minister sent for his county councillors and paid their expenses—out of Taca money, I presume—to advise as to how he could bring in part of North Leitrim and so ensure that Deputy Blaney, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Brennan, the Minister for Social Welfare, and Deputy Cunningham, would be returned.
The farmer and the cowboy must be friends. We have the cowboy over there, Deputy Blaney, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.
That is not the kind of remark a Deputy should make.
That was the only reason why the Minister for Local Government called his posse from the different parts of the Twenty-six Counties to advise him as to how he could gerrymander every constituency to the best advantage of Fianna Fáil.
This amendment deals with only one constituency.
Of course it does, and I have referred to the members of the Fianna Fáil Party who came from Donegal and every other constituency to advise the Minister as they did. This is the type of administration we have. It is one of the reasons why the Minister rejected the amendment proposed in the last session by Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick. The Minister has interfered with every constituency in the entire country. He admitted on numerous occasions, but particularly at a Fianna Fáil convention in Donegal, that only 24 of the 38 constituencies needed adjustment to comply with the Constitution.
The Chair must remind the Deputy that the amendment before the House deals with only one constituency.
I am quite aware of that, but it is rather difficult, to say the least of it, to discuss North-East Donegal without crossing the Border to South-West Donegal or Leitrim. I apologise if I have taken up the time of the House, but if the Minister feels I am expressing an opinion which is contrary to the wishes of the Donegal people, I shall debate with him in Donegal any of the matters I have raised during this short contribution.
(Cavan): I rise to deal with one net point dealt with by the Minister when he last spoke. The question of the commission, rightly or wrongly, has crept into this debate and it has been dealt with by both sides. I referred to it when last speaking, and the Minister in his reply stated that constitutionally a commission to arrange constituencies is not possible. He says that the Constitution lays down that the constituencies must be arranged by Oireachtas Éireann. I respectfully disagree with that proposition. However, assuming for the purpose of this debate and for one moment that the Minister was correct, what was to prevent the Minister from entrusting the arrangement of the constituencies to a Select Committee presided over by an independent person to advise Dáil Éireann.
I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that if we were to discuss at this stage the implications of this, we would have a wide debate on it.
(Cavan): I respectfully agree. I shall reply briefly, in a few sentences, to what the Minister said. What was to prevent the Minister from asking an independent body to advise him and advise the House? Then, even if the Minister did not see fit to accept the opinion of that body, at least the public at large would have had the benefit of having had it considered by an impartial and independent body.
Deputy Harte thinks he has made his point. Well, I must admit that I have not been able to see what point Deputy Harte was trying to make.
That is easily understood.
I shall resist the temptation to go to the same depths as Deputy Harte went to and to spend some time telling him what I think of him.
The Minister is a skin diver.
With regard to this allegation that I sent for every Fianna Fáil county councillor from every electoral area in Ireland I think that, at some time, Deputy Harte, if he is able to bring himself to do it, should read the contribution he has just made to this debate and see just how contradictory it is. He accuses me of having done this. Shortly before that, Deputy Fitzpatrick of Cavan assailed me for being able to produce this Bill within a matter of days. Shortly before that again, or at least during the last session of the Dáil, he was attacking me for having such a long delay in bringing it forward. Now, Deputy Harte says that, prior to drafting this Bill, I was able to bring every Fianna Fáil county councillor from every electoral area in Ireland to discuss with them how we should devise these different constituencies in order to maximise Fianna Fáil representation. Later on, Deputy Harte himself alleged that this Bill was drafted before the referendum.
I do not know what kind of nonsense this is or how anybody is to be expected to take Deputy Harte or any other member of the Fine Gael Party seriously. The only other point that I can remember Deputy Harte making is the question about the defeat of the Government proposals in the referendum and the magnitude of the defeat——
Annihilation.
——the suggestion being that this was a political reverse for the Fianna Fáil Party.
Of course, it was.
Fine Gael will have an opportunity very soon of discovering whether or not that is so.
(Cavan): How soon?
The people were asked to decide on a net issue in regard to the amendment of the Constitution in so far as it provides for the electoral system here and the delineation of constituencies. We have available to us quite recent evidence with regard to the state of political opinion in this country——
And the financial resources.
——the six by-elections out of seven that we won and, before this Dáil comes to an end, we shall have a record of nine by-election wins out of ten.
The Taca brigade.
Is the Minister laying odds on that?
Fine Gael will get the same type of electoral rebuff from the people as they have been getting throughout all the period of their existence. Our proposals in regard to electoral reform were defeated by a substantial margin of the people. But this, as I said, was dealing with a specific issue and a non-political issue. So far from feeling in any way disappointed about this, we are quite happy to face the people at any time with, behind us, the endorsement of our policy that we have got in seven by-elections six of which we won and in the other of which there was a clear indication that there was no diminution in Fianna Fáil support and in the knowledge that there are three further by-elections pending, all of which we confidently expect to win.
The most ridiculous of the suggestions that have come forward from the Fine Gael Party in their fairly obvious attempt to delay the passage of this Bill so that they will not have to face the electorate, is the suggestion of setting up a commission. If I were prepared to accept the commission's advice, Deputy Harte said there would be no contention about the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. All I can say is that if we were to set up a commission or a select committee or whatever one might call it to advise with regard to electoral changes and to expect advice from them, we would have to ensure that there would be very few Fine Gael representatives on it.
That would be of no difficulty to the Minister.
That is the understatement of the evening.
Deputy Harte has put forward his solution. Deputy Hogan has put forward his solution. Deputy L'Estrange has put forward his solution and I have put forward my solution. But nobody has put forward a Fine Gael solution because Fine Gael do not know their own mind on anything. Fine Gael are not able to agree on any subject under the sun. If Deputy Harte had been here longer he would have known that Deputy Esmonde put forward his solution for another part of the country and that, when I asked him if he had discussed it with one of his colleagues, he told me "No; this is my own solution" because one of his colleagues concerned was sitting on a bench below him. A commission comprising more than one Fine Gael representative obviously will not advise me on an electoral amendment.
The Minister would not take advice from an Archbishop because the Minister is incapable of adherence——
I wish to deal with two very brief points. The Minister says that if he were setting up a commission as an alternative, he would make sure there would be no Fine Gael people on it. That statement requires no comment. What I really said was that if he were working under duress, as he said he was, one of the solutions of his problem was to invite a commission to advise him. I did not forecast that the commission would bring in anything that would be as controversial as what the Minister has now brought before the House. I submit that the Minister does not want to understand the force of our argument. These are not Fine Gael proposals. These are logical proposals put forward by four or five different Fine Gael speakers, all of which are better than the proposal put forward by the Minister and it is in that light that they have been put forward. It does not follow at all, Sir, that the proposal which Deputy Fitzpatrick of Cavan has put forward is a contradiction of my proposal. Indeed, it is to say to the Minister: "Here is my proposal, Minister, which is a better one than yours". The Minister, apparently, does not accept that. Therefore, Deputy Hogan then steps forward and says: "Minister, here is my proposal which is different from Deputy Fitzpatrick's proposal and which is a better proposal than yours" but the Minister is not prepared to accept it. Deputy L'Estrange then says: "Minister, here is my proposal which is different from that of Deputy Fitzpatrick and that of Deputy Hogan and that of Deputy Harte and which is better than your proposal", but the Minister will not accept it. My intention, with respect, is to state clearly exactly the same thing. It is different from Deputy L'Estrange's, Deputy Hogan's and Deputy Fitzpatrick's but it is not acceptable to the Minister. The four proposals put forward by my three colleagues and myself are all fairer than the Minister's proposal but he will not accept any of them. It is grossly unfair of the Minister to say that we are in conflict with each other. We could certainly agree on any one proposal and, no matter which one we agreed on, it would be a fairer decision than the one the Minister is forcing, by pure Party strength through the House.
My other point is that he mentioned that I had contradicted my statement by saying that the Bill was drafted before the referendum and that I had also said later on that he sent for Fianna Fáil councillors from every electoral area to advise him on the Bill after the referendum. I say this Bill was drafted, available for inspection by every member of the Government, long before the referendum issues were decided by the people. By members of the Government I mean exclusively the Cabinet Ministers. If anyone thinks that is an illogical conclusion I do not know the meaning of reason. The Minister had this drafted before the referendum issues were decided and he and his Cabinet colleagues knew the terms of the Bill. He knew where the boundary lines would be between North East and South West Donegal but again, to wriggle his way out of it, he tries to confuse the issue as to what, apparently, he thinks I have said.
I further said that the Minister said to his colleagues: "If we lose the referendum this is the alternative. This is what will keep us in office and we will stay long enough in office to purchase the goodwill of the people again." This they did on previous occasions. This is the logic of my argument. Having lost the referendum to the extent they did, the Minister then sent for the county councillors from the different parts of Ireland and from County Donegal to come and advise him as to whether it would be right to keep Donegal as one unit with five Deputies, to chop off the head of one of their own Deputies, or whether they should bring in part of Leitrim to supplement the population of County Donegal to enable him to draw a different division line between North and South Donegal so as to keep four Deputies out of six, as they kept four TDs out of seven prior to 1961.
The Chair must point out to the Deputy that this seems to be repetition of what the Deputy has already said.
I am correcting for the record the inaccuracies of the Minister who is trying to confuse the issues. I agree that it is repetition. I have stated and I conclude by saying this, that the Bill was known to members of the Cabinet. I did not say that it was known to every Tom, Dick and Harry. If the Minister says the referendum was not a defeat for the Government I should like to know who lost?
I just want a little information related to a remark which the Minister passed in his allegations against members of the Fine Gael Party and what he described as their delaying tactics. He said they obviously wanted to delay the passage of the Bill in order to avoid facing the electorate. Are we to infer from that that as soon as the Bill is passed we will have a general election?
To deal with Deputy Corish's intervention first, I think it is fairly well known that the Fianna Fáil Party believe that we are required to accede to the demands made by the Labour Party for a revision of constituencies. We believe it would be desirable to comply with their request that we comply with the terms of the Constitution before having a general election. It is in order to comply with this requirement of the Constitution that this Bill is before the House and until this Bill is passed by the House and by the Seanad the constituencies will not have been brought into line with the provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, this is in fact preparing the way to ensure that the next general election will be held on constituencies that comply with the Constitution.
The Minister has not answered the question. He said it was a matter of urgency to get the Bill passed. Is that not so?
I said that the Fine Gael Party are engaged in an obvious attempt to delay the passage of this Bill.
But the Minister took six hours 15 minutes on the Bill in the Seanad.
They are obviously trying to delay this Bill which is designed to bring the constituencies into line with constitutional requirements. Fine Gael, because of the disarray in which the Party are at present, are seeking to delay the passage of the Bill.
The Minister said it was because we were afraid to face the people.
The Minister has not answered my question.
He does not know himself.
(Interruptions.)
Of course, I do not know when the general election will be held.
Because you are so divided.
Because I do not know when we will get the Bill through. I do not know when we will get even the Schedule of the Bill through. I do not know when the general election will be held because the Taoiseach will decide to have a general election when he sees fit and when he decides to have the general election we will come back here in a stronger position than we are now. While on the subject of the general election I must thank both Opposition Parties for the assistance they have given us to ensure——
The Minister did not answer the question.
——that we shall come back in a stronger position than we are at the moment. They have both been of the very greatest assistance.
The Minister was pretty far wrong early last year.
Deputy Harte alleged that if there was to be a commission I would make sure that there would be no Fine Gael people on it. What I said, as Deputy Harte knows, was that if I wanted a commission to give advice it would be obvious from what the Fine Gael people said today that the only possibility of getting advice from such a commission would be not to have too many Fine Gael people on it, because even the limited number of them who have come in here today cannot agree among themselves in regard to a small section of the country. We had four speakers, four different solutions, and I have no doubt that if Deputy Belton and Deputy Clinton decided to contribute to the debate they would have two different solutions also. Obviously, if we had a number of Fine Gael people on such a commission we would get as many advices as they had members on the commission and that would not be of any assistance in arriving at a final decision.
A final point——
The Deputy reminds me that I forgot something.
I shall give way to the Minister. I would not like to delay him.
I should not like to interrupt Deputy Harte.
Lest perhaps the Minister is serious in trying to lead the people astray by saying that the purpose of this debate is to delay the Bill so that Fine Gael would not have to face an election, if the Minister guarantees us that the Taoiseach will dissolve the Dáil tomorrow, we will give him every section of the Bill right now.
What about the Seanad?
You can have a special meeting of the Seanad tomorrow.
Seeing that Deputy Harte cannot speak for his own colleagues——
I can assure the Minister——
——in this House, I will not accept that Deputy Harte can speak for Senator FitzGerald, because I cannot visualise Senator FitzGerald giving all sections of the Bill without discussion.
The Minister has my word for it.
Senator FitzGerald's plan for Donegal was to transfer Bundoran and Ballyshannon out of it. I refrain from dealing with Deputy Harte's statement on the representation of Donegal in 1918. I did not consider it very relevant. I am not called on to defend the level of representation which the British Government allocated to Donegal in 1918. There is no reason why I should have to defend the allocation of four seats by the British Government to represent the whole of Donegal. It is not my business.
Amendment agreed to.
Question: "That the entry as amended relating to the constituency of North-East Donegal stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
Are all these amendments now being put?
Each amendment will be put in turn, without debate.
SOUTH-WEST DONEGAL.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 7, in the first column, to delete "South-West Donegal" and to substitute "Donegal-Leitrim".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 7, in the second column of the entry relating to South-West Donegal, after "Magheraclogher" to insert "(with the exception of the townland of Glentornan)".
This amendment proposes to transfer the townland of Glentornan in the district electoral division of Magheraclogher from the proposed constituency of South-West Donegal to North-East Donegal. The electors in this townland vote in Dunlewy which is in the proposed constituency of North-East Donegal. I understand that, having regard to the mountainous nature of the area, it would be difficult to make suitable alternative polling arrangements for these electors if they were included in South-West Donegal. The total population of the townland is only eight.
The change would reduce the population of the proposed constituency of South-West Donegal to 58,338, an average per Deputy of 19,446, and increase the population of North-East to 59,208, an average per Deputy of 19,736.
We agree to this amendment not because we agree with the general contents of the Bill but because here we are dealing with Donegal people being transferred from one part of the county to another, still being represented by a Donegal man. Irrespective of which Party these people will support, they will be selecting a Donegal man to represent them. This kind of thing indicates the muddled thinking of the Minister in regard to the entire Bill. It demonstrates clearly that the Minister must comply with boundaries as God designed them. He went to great lengths to dispute that God could design county boundaries.
Apparently, the Minister has had second thoughts. Here, God designed a mountain range separating one part of Donegal from another and the Minister has decided that the people in Glentornan would be best served, that it would be in their best interests to have them represented by Deputies in North-East Donegal rather than leaving them with Deputies representing South-West Donegal and North Leitrim. These people have more in common with the people of North-East Donegal. This has been the basis of our argument and of the whole trend of the debate on these amendments— that people are entitled because of their background and heritage and because of their wishes in the matter of representation, to be coupled with people of their kindred. The people of Glentornan are very welcome to the constituency which I represent and which I hope I will continue to represent. I hope that before long the people in the areas described by the Minister as being in South-West Donegal and North Leitrim, who have a lot more in common with the people of North-East Donegal, will be treated in a similar manner.
Therefore, in agreeing to this amendment I wish to say that this Party will guarantee that, if given a mandate after the next general election we will acknowledge the boundaries as God designed them and as man followed— we will introduce an Electoral Bill in respect of which no one can accuse us of attempting to gerrymander nature. The Minister may not think I have the authority to speak for Fine Gael.
I thought it was for God the Deputy was speaking.
The one man in Ireland who got confused with God saved Fianna Fáil from a major defeat in the Presidential Election in 1966. He was the only man who became confused with God. If the Minister feels we are delaying the Bill, then if he gives an assurance to the House that the Government will dissolve Dáil Éireann tomorrow and have an election within the next month, I guarantee now that the Fine Gael Party will give him every section in the Bill without a vote.
Amendment agreed to.
Question: "That the entry as amended relating to the constituency of South-West Donegal stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
NORTH COUNTY DUBLIN
Question proposed: "That the entry relating to the constituency of North County Dublin stand part of the Schedule".
Is the Minister moving an amendment?
There is no amendment to it. It is part of the Schedule.
I understand. Earlier today the Minister said that he was aware that I knew a good bit more about Meath and Cavan than I did about County Dublin and that he was well aware of the fact that I did not know County Dublin. Looking at this proposal here, all I can say is that the Minister obviously not only does not know County Dublin but he does not know even the townland next to his own. When I was speaking on the Second Stage I pointed out to him how ridiculous he was in the mapping out of this constituency. People in one part of the constituency who had been voting for as long as we can remember in Newcastle were put voting in Lucan and those nearer to Lucan were put voting somewhere else. I cannot object to this amendment because that ridiculous situation was an obvious mistake in the first instance. The whole area of Ballymakaily, Brownstown, Coolscuddan——
The Deputy will appreciate we have not yet reached that.
I thought you said we were on amendment No. 15.
We are on that portion of the Schedule which deals with North County Dublin.
Amendment No. 15 is surely related?
Maybe, if we discuss the grouping of constituencies in County Dublin. The amendment, while it specifically relates to one, does in fact deal with the three actually.
If it is agreed to take the entry in regard to North County Dublin with South County Dublin——
And Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown.
And Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown.
Do I take it there has been a change in the decision given earlier that related constituencies could be discussed together? If that decision stands Deputy Clinton can talk about related constituencies.
I thought it was a point about the amendment.
That is a later stage.
The amendment affects the three of them.
Of course, it does.
I find it somewhat difficult. These areas are in fact, in North County Dublin and it is now proposed to exclude them. These were included in what the Minister described in the Bill as North County Dublin and the amendment proposes to exclude them and it is very difficult, therefore, to discuss the new constituencies without referring to that fact. The proposed constituency of North County Dublin starts a couple of miles beyond Balbriggan. It goes out to Skerries, comes back to Blanchardstown, takes in Newcastle, Clonsilla, Lucan, out to Mulhuddart, Clondalkin, comes up again to the fringe of Newcastle, on to Clondalkin, across to Crumlin, Walkinstown, Greenhills, Manor Estate, Perry Estate, Kimmage Manor and, in fact, Fortfield Road. Anyone who knows Dublin could tell the Minister that anyone who regards that as a compact constituency certainly knows very little about County Dublin. The fact is the Minister knows County Dublin well. He was not, of course, motivated with the idea of drawing a compact constituency in this case certainly. He was thinking of one thing and one thing only: that was how he could preserve the seats of two Fianna Fáil Deputies in North County Dublin.
The Deputy would not accuse him of such a thing.
I said earlier he made a mess of the referendum. He proved he was not in touch with the people. The result showed that the Minister did not know what the people wanted. That was obvious. It is even more obvious now that the Minister is making another mess of this. He may think he is doing a great thing for Fianna Fáil. He will find he is making the mistake of his life. He thinks he has broken up County Dublin in such a way that Fianna Fáil will get quite wonderful support and equally wonderful representation in it. There is another shock in store for the Minister just like the shock he got in the referendum. He is as wrong in his ideas here as he was in the referendum.
I should like him to tell the people why he drew this constituency in this peculiar way. Why did he put four seats in North County Dublin and three in South County Dublin instead of four in South County Dublin and three in North County Dublin? Why was it necessary to split No. 3 area right down the middle? He will not tell the House why he did that. I say he could have left this area intact were it not for the fact that he was at pains to split my council vote. He knows that in three county council elections I headed the poll in that particular area and he wanted to ensure that where I live would be on the border of the two constituencies. Strangely enough — I said this on Second Reading—he also wanted to ensure that a certain Fianna Fáil councillor—he is a man who has done a good deal of work in the area but he is not one of the favoured— would not be successful and he also wanted to get far enough away himself from Deputy Burke. I said all this on Second Reading in the Minister's absence. I am glad he is present now when I repeat what I said then. I cannot see any other motives for the Minister producing this extraordinary constituency of North County Dublin. Nobody in the area affected can understand why it is North County Dublin.
One of the reasons why the Minister did not do what I suggest, make South County Dublin a four-seater and make North County Dublin a three-seater is that he knows that in a certain area which I would include in South County Dublin he has fallen into disfavour and he does not want to make things more difficult for himself than they will be. He is not motivated by any intention to produce a compact constituency. He just chopped it up to save and suit himself. That is really what I want to emphasise.
It is rather a pity that Deputy Clinton did not say as much about this as he did on Second Reading. I mentioned in passing today, when Deputy Clinton put forward his close knowledge of County Meath, that it would appear from his contribution on Second Reading of this Bill that he must know more about County Meath than he does about County Dublin, because some of the suggestions he put forward on Second Reading with regard to this matter of North County Dublin and South County Dublin show either of two things: either Deputy Clinton is entirely ignorant of the constituency he now represents, or else he is deliberately feeding his supporters with what he knows to be false arguments and false propaganda. In column 1969 of the Official Report of the Dáil Debates of 4th December, 1968, Deputy Clinton has this remarkable and ridiculous statement to make:
Why not take the Navan road and make North County Dublin a three seater and give South County Dublin four seats?...
If he took the Navan road he would have the population for a three-seater on the north side and a four-seater on the south side.
If Deputy Clinton knew anything about the constituency he represents he would know that that is absolute nonsense. It is in complete contradiction of the facts. I am sure he could procure a copy of the Census of Population Report, 1966.
I have it.
If he would look at that and at the Swords electoral area, the No. 1 electoral area, he would see that the population of that electoral area is 31,412 and that, as he knows, comprises almost all of the territory in County Dublin north of the Navan Road, and that the Lucan electoral area, the No. 2 electoral area, has a population of 26,410. If he would get a pencil and add the two figures together he would see that the total of the No. 1 electoral area and the No. 2 electoral area comes to 57,822, which would be barely above the minimum allowed under the Constitution as interpreted by the High Court for three seats. If it could be considered on its own—that area stretching far south of the Navan Road— even Deputy Clinton will know that the No. 2 electoral area comprises, in addition to the area north of the Navan Road, Castleknock, Lucan, Palmerstown and Clondalkin—the total of these two areas——
And Manor Estates.
——if they could be considered alone, is in compliance with the constitutional requirements for three seats. As Deputy Clinton should know, they cannot be considered alone. They must be considered in the context of the fact that, having allocated seats to the rest of the country, there are 38 seats left in the Dublin area and that if one constituency with only 57,822 of population is to be made a three-seat constituency, then the remaining population would be far in excess of what would be permitted for the remaining 35 seats which is the maximum that can be allocated to the remainder of the Dublin area. So Deputy Clinton knows that what he suggests, what he tries to propagate, that North County Dublin should be a three-seat constituency, is not possible and that, in fact, you can barely squeeze in two seats. Surely he must know at this stage that the Constitution does not permit of a two-seat constituency.
Deputy Clinton knows that the whole of the No. 1 electoral area and the No. 2 electoral area would not be sufficient even for a three-seat constituency. It would be deficient by 3,000 or 4,000 of population and, therefore, even to make North County Dublin a three-seat constituency you must take some population from the No. 3 electoral area.
A very slight number.
Deputy Clinton knows that the adjoining parts of the No. 3 electoral area are the Walkinstown area or the Newcastle, Saggart and Rathcoole area. If you take the Navan Road as the boundary, there is no doubt that neither Walkinstown nor Lucan nor Clondalkin are north of that boundary. Still they are more northerly than any part of the proposed constituency of South County Dublin. That is what I was referring to when I said that Deputy Clinton has already demonstrated quite clearly that, whatever he may know about County Meath, he is completely ignorant about the distribution of population in the constituency he represents at present.
I do not think I ever claimed that under this Bill the constituency of North County Dublin or any other constituency, except possibly the urban ones, is a compact constituency, but certainly North County Dublin is a more compact constituency than the one Deputy Clinton and I represent at present. Therefore, as to making North County Dublin a three-seat constituency, surely is a toss up, since there are seven seats, which you make a three-seat constituency and a four-seat constituency. Deputy Clinton apparently would consider himself more convenienced if South County Dublin were a four-seat constituency, and so would I. I think I would probably find it easier to be elected in a four-seat constituency than in a three-seat constituency, as would any Deputy. If Deputy Clinton's vote will be adversely affected by the fact that North County Dublin is a four-seat constituency so will mine. I will retain only a very small proportion—on the assumption that I go up in South County Dublin——
Deputy Burke is gone.
——of the constituency for which I was originally elected, and only a comparatively small portion of the constituency for which I was elected in the last general election.
Deputy Clinton knows this is a reasonable and rational division of the constituency, in fact, I would say, one of the only two feasible divisions of the constituency that could be made. Eleven seats had to be squeezed into this small area of County Dublin. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown has always been a four-seat constituency and, in order that it should remain a four-seat constituency, it had to be reduced. There was a surplus population from the existing Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown constituency.
Why not make it five?
I do not know what Deputy Belton is saying.
Why not make it five in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown?
There are 11 seats. You could have one five-seat constituency, and two three-seat constituencies, or two four-seat constituencies and one three-seat constituency. We decided——
In the interests of the Party.
——on the same basis as in other rural constituencies to have two four-seat constituencies and one three-seat constituency, whereas we could have gone for one five-seat constituency and two three-seat constituencies. The more likely thing to have done was to have kept the five-seat constituency where it is already.
We will come back to it tomorrow.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 6th February, 1969.