Deputy Hogan, concluding on amendment No. 1.
Private Members' Business. - Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1968: Report Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In page 4, to delete the entry relating to Carlow-Kilkenny and to substitute the following:—
|
Name |
Area |
Number of Members |
|
Carlow-Kildare |
The administrative area of County Carlow and the administrative area of County Kildare. |
Five |
—Deputy P. Hogan
(South Tipperary)
(South Tipperary): In dealing with these amendments, of which there are eight applicable to the eastern counties from Carlow-Kilkenny to Cavan-Monaghan, I mentioned my disappointment at the fact that the Minister had not seen fit to make any contribution on the amendments on this Stage of the Bill. He probably found himself unable to offer any reasonable refutation of the amendments which deal with the counties of Cavan, Monaghan, Meath, Louth, Kildare, Carlow, Kilkenny and Wexford. As I mentioned earlier, the amendments have been designed to secure the minimum transfer of population outside county boundaries.
I realise that there are many alternative methods by which this could be done. Perhaps there are methods superior to the one I suggest. The only transfer of population involved here is the transfer of five district electoral divisions involving a population of 6,640 from Meath to Louth. That is the sole transfer of population in the whole eastern section of the country. If my suggestion were accepted by the Minister it would obviate the breaching of five counties which he has put in motion. There would be no transfer from Meath to Cavan of 5,656 persons; no transfer from Meath to Monaghan of 6,426 persons. It would not be necessary to transfer 5,041 persons from Kildare to Meath. It would not be necessary to transfer 7,532 persons from Louth to Monaghan. It would not be necessary to transfer 4,398 persons from Wexford to Carlow-Kilkenny. These transfers from five different areas, embracing a total population of 29,053, would be unnecessary and only one transfer need be made. I should think that the transfer would be smaller. From Meath to Louth it would be 6,640 persons. That was the smallest transfer I could work out so as to leave reasonable constituencies.
It is a matter of regret to me that the Minister has not seen fit to accept any amendment on those lines. In the amendments, I have concerned myself entirely with local authority areas. I have not dealt with the other gerrymandering efforts on the part of the Minister which undoubtedly have taken place. Those are matters which, I suppose, should be properly dealt with by each individual Deputy in respect of his own area. Deputy Collins mentioned that parishes and townslands were juggled in his area in County Cork. The same type of juggling has been done in Mayo, Dublin and elsewhere. I am conscious that this type of exercise has been carried out in the multi-constituency counties but I have not dealt with that. It is part of the general pattern of gerrymandering in which the Minister has indulged.
This entire exercise along the eastern part of the country has been carried out for one purpose and one purpose only, that is, to secure the maximum advantage for the Fianna Fáil Party. It is gerrymandering pure and simple and can be called by no other name, and no argument on the part of the Minister and no play with words will convince any objectivelyminded person that that is not the purpose of the exercise.
It is regrettable that politics should have come to this level. I appreciate that, in the ordinary course of events, a political Party will try to preserve its own fortunes but, in this case, the Minister has leaned over backwards and done everything he possibly could to secure the maximum political advantage for his own Party, and he has thrown aside all considerations of justice and the rights of the ordinary people. I believe this will boomerang. It is bound to boomerang. I cannot understand what the Minister hopes to gain ultimately by this abuse of the power which the Irish people have given to his Party and to him. In this exercise the Minister is prepared to cart nearly 30,000 in these eight counties in the eastern part of the country outside their counties and throw them into constituencies in other counties, an exercise which is completely unnecessary and which could be obviated by adopting amendments on the lines I have suggested.
The Minister accused us of wasting time and of trying to prolong the debate unnecessarily. In my opening remarks on these eight amendments I spent exactly half an hour. I do not think I can be accused of wasting time as there was an amount of factual material to be covered. The Minister spent six hours talking about nothing but the Budd judgment and repeating himself dozens of times. It is not my purpose to waste the time of the House. There is no conspiracy to stonewall so far as I am aware and I do not know what purpose would be served by it. The Minister can have the Bill as soon as he wants it. I have merely taken sufficient time to try to put across the ideas behind the eight amendments and that is all I have to say on the matter.
Is the Deputy withdrawing the amendment?
(South Tipperary): No.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided. Tá, 59; Níl, 40.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, John.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Dublin South Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Foley, Desmond.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moore, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Norton, Patrick.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaig, Seán.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Smith, Patrick.
Níl
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Collins, Seán.
- Connor, Patrick.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Cavan).
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Kenny, Henry.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lyons, Michael D.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.K.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Geoghegan and Mrs. Lynch; Níl, Deputies L'Estrange and T. Dunne.
Question declared carried.
With the fall of amendment No. 1, the following amendments also fall: Nos. 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 21.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 3 may be discussed with amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 17 and 18 and a decision on amendment No. 3 covers the amendments that I have just mentioned. These amendments comprise a composite proposal.
(South Tipperary): I move amendment No. 3:
In pages 4 and 5, to delete the entries relating to Clare and Clare-South Galway and to substitute the following:—
|
Name |
Area |
Number of Members |
|
Clare |
The administrative area of County Clare and the District Electoral Divisions of Ardamullivan, Gort, Beagh, Kilbeacanty, and Ballycahalon in the administrative area of County Galway. |
Four |
Owing to falling population County Clare would, under our Constitution, be no longer entitled——
What was the second last place?
If the Minister would get his own Party to keep quiet he might hear something.
It is all right.
I know it well. I took a wife out of it. Take care would I stand there now.
Tell the Deputy how to pronounce it.
(South Tipperary): I did not hear what the Minister was saying.
He said the Deputy did not pronounce it correctly.
(South Tipperary): That could be. There are many areas the names of which I will not pronounce correctly because I am not familiar with the local pronunciation of all of them.
This amendment merely suggests a transfer of some population from Galway into Clare with a view to giving sufficient population to Clare to preserve Clare as a four-seat constituency. The Minister, on the other hand, has proposed the formation of a new constituency which involves Clare-Galway or Galway-Clare. It means part of Clare is to be transferred and joined up with Galway. He proposes to transfer 14,765 people from North Clare into Galway to form a new constituency of Clare-Galway. My proposal is the transfer of these five electoral divisions I have mentioned in the amendment to Clare so as to enable Clare to be treated, as heretofore, as a four-seat constituency. I believe this is a better arrangement than the one suggested by the Minister.
Amendment No. 5 relates to Donegal and the purpose of this amendment is to form a three-seater in North Donegal leaving sufficient population in South Donegal to form a three-seater without encroaching too much on the county of Leitrim. The Minister has been too liberal in his transfer of population from Leitrim to Donegal. As a consequence he has produced a rather awkward constituency. I believe a smaller transfer of population from Leitrim would suffice and still leave two three-seat constituencies. The transfer of population from Leitrim will be dealt with later when I come to deal with the amendment for South Donegal. The rural districts of North Donegal which I have listed will give sufficient population to have a three-seat constituency within the terms of the Constitution.
South Donegal embraces the administrative area of County Donegal except the parts mentioned in the previous amendment in respect of North Donegal, and also embraces certain district electoral divisions in the county of Leitrim, these divisions being Tullaghan, Gubacreeny, Kinlough, Aghavoghill, Aghanlish, Aghalateeve, Melvin, Glencar, Glenade, Ballaghameehan, Manorhamilton, Kiltyclogher, Glenfarn and Glenboy. The position as regards these two amendments in respect of North Donegal and South Donegal is that Donegal needs extra population to provide either a six-seater or two three-seaters. It needs 5,619 extra population, and Sligo-Leitrim can spare, at most, only 5,703 population and remain a four-seater. I have suggested the transfer from North Leitrim to South Donegal of the population of these district electoral divisions mentioned in amendment No. 6, and that population will amount to 5,641. That would increase the population of Donegal to 114,191 and leave sufficient population in Sligo-Leitrim to form a four-seater and in Donegal to form a six-seater. Then Donegal could be divided into North and South with three seats each. This means there would be less encroachments on North Leitrim than is envisaged in the Minister's Bill where he divides up Leitrim roughly into three parts. There would be North Donegal and South Donegal and a much more limited transfer of population. The final position would be: South Donegal with a population of 57,094 and North Donegal with a population of 57,097. This would leave a good part of Leitrim intact to be dealt with later.
Amendment No. 7 deals with East Galway. The suggested constituency of East Galway is:
The administrative area of County Galway except the part comprised in Galway West and the District Electoral Divisions of Taghboy, Ahascragh, Ardamullivan, Gort, Beagh, Kilbeacanty and Ballycahalon.
These are the areas around Gort. It is proposed that Taghboy and Ahascragh be put in with Roscommon and that the other areas in the vicinity of Gort be added to Clare. That has been mentioned in amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 8 proposes that West Galway as a three-seater would comprise the rural districts of Clifden, Galway, Oughterard and Galway borough. That would be slightly larger than the West Galway three-seater suggested by the Minister. The Minister's suggested constituency would have a population of 58,481. This administrative area would have a population of 62,605 and would have seven extra electoral divisions, namely, Aughrim, Belleville, Clarinbridge, Deerpark, Lackabeg, Liscananaun, Lisheenavalle on the eastern side of Galway added on, comprising a population of 4,124. This would give a balance in that you might regard Galway as the centre of the three-seat West-Galway constituency. These seven electoral divisions would be quite well placed on the eastern side of Galway and would, I submit, be not unreasonably joined up with Galway city in this constituency.
Amendment No. 12 proposes that the four-seater constituency of Longford-Westmeath shall comprise the administrative county of Longford and the administrative county of Westmeath. Deputies are familiar with the fact that the Minister has transferred population from the Athlone, West Urban Area, some 4,024, into the western complex. In fact, he has added on considerably to Roscommon. In the amendment which I have submitted here covering this western constituency this transfer of population from Longford to Westmeath is not necessary. As I said, it consists of 4,024 persons who traditionally belonged to Westmeath. While the rural area is part of Roscommon, Athlone, West Urban, belongs to the town of Athlone in County Westmeath. It was transferred purely for political purposes; so I understand. It could always be available if the western population were found to be down at some later stage. If it was found in future years that the population of West Galway had gone down this extra population here could be used to bring up the population there. This transfer of population is not necessary. The constituency of Roscommon can be formed much more simply and without any breach of the constituency of Longford-Westmeath.
Amendment No. 17 deals with the administrative area of County Rossiderabl common and the District Electoral Divisions of Taghboy and Ahascragh in the administrative area of County Galway. We are all familiar with the fact that Roscommon has been very badly butchered by the Minister. He, on the one hand, has added on Athlone, West Urban, but he has also taken 1,975 from Roscommon and put them into this new hybrid creation of his own called Clare-Galway and he has also transferred 7,938 from Roscommon to East Galway. This is bad enough but to make the thing more ridiculous he has added 11,072 from South Leitrim to Roscommon. The Minister has completely butchered Roscommon as a county. The new constituency which now emerges will be completely different and completely divorced from the administrative area of County Roscommon. The transfer of population which I am now suggesting here is comparatively small. It is merely the transfer of two small areas of Taghboy and Ahascragh to Roscommon which would leave it a three-seater constituency.
Now, amendment No. 18, which is the last one of those various amendments dealing with the western counties, is an attempt to preserve, so far as one may, the political identity of Leitrim. The Minister has practically wiped Leitrim off the political map. In order to make some kind of peace offering to Leitrim sentiments he introduced a series of amendments whereby the people of different counties are given to Leitrim. Those new areas are called Donegal-Leitrim Roscommon-Leitrim and Sligo-Leitrim. This is purely window dressing. The fact of the matter is that Leitrim has been roughly divided into three parts. You will find a large part of it added into Donegal, the middle part of it thrown in with Sligo and the lower part of it thrown in with Roscommon.
When dealing with the first set of amendments I made the point that if it is deemed necessary to transfer population from one area to another I believe one should aim to have the transfer of population as small as one can or to transfer a whole county or the greater part of it. It is only by those two methods of transfer of population that you can preserve the political viability, if I may use that word, of a county. When you transfer 10,000, 11,000, 12,000 or 13,000 it is a futile exercise. A population of that amount is no bigger than an electoral area. I mentioned earlier an illustration in regard to my own county of South Tipperary, to which was added portion of County Waterford with over 11,000 people. That area is no more than a county council electoral area so far as population is concerned. That is about the strength of it in comparison with the rest of the county. It is only about one-sixth of the rest of the county and that county council area is seldom heard of or listened to. It often happens that a Deputy who lives in that area is not known to the rest of the county at all. They very seldom elect a Deputy in that area, be he Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or Labour. The chances of doing so are very poor.
That is one of the reasons why I object to the Minister transferring such small areas of population. The amount he is transferring is really too small. In special circumstances that may work but in average cases, unless it approaches the same population of the part to which it is added on, it tends to lose its political identity and its political viability. That is what happens in any complex like this which is created and that is what the Minister has done too often all over the country. I have already given the townlands in Sligo-Leitrim which would be transferred to Donegal and I have given those district electoral divisions and they comprise a much smaller population than the Minister's transfer. I think the Minister's figure is 8,997, whereas the figure I have suggested to him regarding the total population of North Leitrim that it seemed necessary to transfer would be 5,642, leaving two three-seaters in Donegal. That is cutting it rather fine but it is sufficient and meets the requirements of the Constitution. It is not necessary for the Minister to take the very liberal figure of 8,997 from North Leitrim and put them into Donegal; to take 10,532 from mid-Leitrim and put them into Sligo and to take 11,072 from South Leitrim and put them into Roscommon.
Apart from doing an injustice to the people of Leitrim, it renders the constituency of South Donegal more awkward on account of the geographical factors because these people would have to go down into Leitrim. By transferring the relatively small population of 5,000 people instead of his approximate 9,000, the Minister could leave intact about 25,000 people in Leitrim. This reasonable bulk of population would make its presence felt politically and it is a far more suitable method of dealing with the situation than by dividing Leitrim into three parts which virtually wipes the county off the political map.
It will be poor consolation to the people of Leitrim to know that when an election is in progress the name of Leitrim will still appear on the ballot paper because it will be increasingly difficult for them to have a Leitrim man representing them in Dáil Éireann. It is very clear that the purpose of the exercise is to secure that Leitrim, which is one of the counties that has misbehaved—it is a bold county—will be wiped off the map. These people are to be put into Donegal where there are very good people and also into Galway because these two latter counties have largely supported the Government Party; undoubtedly, East Galway has misbehaved in recent times and they may be punished a little but this transfer of population which the Minister has embarked on is completely unnecessary.
For all of the western seaboard counties — Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon, Clare and Galway, the Minister has made a total transfer of population of 59,274. The figure of 9,399 which I have suggested in my amendments would give him reasonable three and four seat constituencies and he would have the same number of Deputies elected along the western coast from Donegal to Clare. This would entail a transfer of no more than 9,000 persons or over as against the Minister's figure of 60,000 odd. This is a tremendous difference. The method proposed by the Minister will entail the breaching of 14 constituency boundaries while the amendments I have proposed would mean the breaching of only seven constituency boundaries.
There are other methods by which this could be done but I am merely dealing with those which I have put down in my amendments. I have not dealt at all with Mayo which has been re-adjusted but as regards those counties I have mentioned a much more equitable job could be done if the Minister were prepared to do it but, obviously, he has proposed these adjustments purely and entirely for the purpose of securing as much electoral advantage for his Party as the Constitution will permit.
The proposals I have made in my amendments are much more reasonable and would leave most of the traditional counties as they were. It would leave Leitrim more or less intact. I admit there is a problem here. If my amendments were adopted, it would mean a better type of constituency in Donegal North and South. It would give a more balanced constituency in West Galway. It would leave the county of Clare—a county from which we have never got much support — a traditional county. The people of Clare have their pride and their emotional associations; they have their own local authority control and I believe that such a county should be left intact instead of creating this constituency of Clare-South Galway or whatever the Minister calls it. Under the Minister's proposal a third of Clare is taken and put in with some area in Galway drawn up entirely by the Minister on the political advice of the Fianna Fáil Party in that part of the county. It contravenes the rights of the local people.
It is strange that since the foundation of the State we have been able to survive with most of these counties like Clare as four-seaters, but now when I suggest that a small transfer of population from Galway, which would still leave Galway as a three-seater and four-seater—a small population transfer would rectify that—and still leave Clare as a four-seater, the Minister rejects any suggestions on these lines. It is obvious that the Minister is only concerned with dividing the country in such a way as to secure as many Dáil seats for his Party as he can secure by way of any gerrymandering method available to him.
The Deputy got ten minutes extra that time.
A LeasCheann Comhairle, I should like to say a few words about amendment No. 3 which deals with the Clare constituency. Deputy Hogan has given as his reason for this amendment, which is to transfer part of the area around Gort into Clare, his anxiety to preserve Clare as a four-seater. We would all like it if this could be the case, but the people of Clare realise that because of the result of the referendum they would have to revert to a three-seat constituency. This was explained to them during the recent campaign. The Minister has proposed to put a large area of North-East Clare into this new constituency known as Clare-South Galway. It is estimated there are more than 9,000 voters in this part of Clare going into Clare-South Galway. This surely will ensure that a Clare man will be elected in this constituency.
(South Tipperary): It is a take-over bid.
I contend that, instead of having three Clare men in the next Dáil, we will have four Clare men representing Clare.
Deputy Hogan seems very familiar with what Senator McHugh was saying since the referendum. He even called a meeting of the Clare County Council to express his ideas. Senator McHugh has been saying that part of East Limerick should be transferred into Clare to preserve it with four seats. It seems to me only fair to say that he is at variance with his colleague, Deputy Hogan. They should get together and decide which is the proper cure for the Clare constituency.
They would only fight if they got together.
I am glad some of the people on the Government benches decided to interest themselves in this debate. I would like to congratulate Deputy Barrett. With regard to the line Deputy Hogan adopts and the line
Senator McHugh adopts outside, I can only accept it one way. One day we hear the Taoiseach talking one way and the following day we hear the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Blaney, talking another way. If they are allowed to do that, I cannot see any reason why Deputy Hogan and Senator McHugh should speak with one voice.
I will confine my few brief remarks to amendments Nos. 6, 17 and 18. They involve three counties which I know very well, Roscommon, Leitrim and Sligo. Since 1961 I have represented the constituency of Roscommon in this House. For years prior to that my mother represented Sligo-Leitrim and at one stage she represented Leitrim on its own. Prior to that my late father represented Sligo-Leitrim. These are three counties of which I have a fair knowledge. As Deputy Hogan has said, these counties have committed a mortal sin in the eyes of the Government, the sin being that they are counties in which, for a number of years past, the trend of the electorate has been away from the Government Party. For that reason the present Minister for Local Government has decided to gerrymander them. He has divided Leitrim into three, putting a portion into Donegal, a portion into Sligo and a portion into Roscommon.
The Minister will have tremendous trouble in convincing the people of any of these three counties that his intention is anything other than gerrymandering. The motive behind it is to move the electorate into Donegal, which is favourable to the Government Party. If not able to get them into Donegal, he intends to get them into Galway, which again is favourable to the Government Party. He will do anything but leave them as a unit, or a near-unit, because, if he did that, the Minister and the Fianna Fáil Party know that they would probably lose even more seats in the next general election than they lost in the last general election.
There are many reasons given by the Minister for what he has done. He tells us it is due to the result of the referendum. During that referendum campaign he told us on numerous occasions that if the single seat constituency with the straight vote were accepted it would mean there would be no more than two or three Parties contesting elections and that the whole thing would be much easier for the electorate to understand. Maybe he might be able to tell us now how that worked out in the general election held on Monday last in Northern Ireland. They have the straight vote there, but there were 13 Parties contesting that election. It just shows how ridiculous the statements made during the referendum campaign were.
Another reason given for the revision of these constituencies is that it is due to the drop in population. The Government cannot shut their eyes. Even today we had the Taoiseach answering a question and saying that the population in the west of Ireland was not dropping. If the Ceann Comhairle will bear with me for a few minutes, I will deal with the figures for these three counties. In 1926 the population of Roscommon was 83,566. At the last available Census in 1966 the population was 56,228, a drop of population was 56,228, a drop of 27,338 people. Approximately 700 people per year were leaving the county. The Minister may convince himself they were going to the graveyard but the big percentage of these people were emigrating and finding work for themselves in Birmingham, Manchester, and many other English cities. The population of Leitrim in 1926 was 55,907. In 1966, the last available Census, it had dropped to 30,572. There was a total drop of 25,335 people, or, again, 652 people left that county every year since 1926.
Sligo, also, has suffered very heavily. In 1926, its population was 71,388. In 1966 it had dropped to 51,263, a total decrease in a period of 40 years of 20,125 persons. In other words, approximately 500 persons per year left that county. Again, that may be the other reason why these constituencies have to be revised but most blame can be laid on the shoulders of the Government because they have not done anything to stem the flow of emigration from the west of Ireland. They make up their minds, and then they change them and say these are not viable units—that they are this and that.
They are the counties who have been voting strongly against the Government Party and I should like to say, honestly and sincerely, whether the Minister for Local Government likes it or not, that there will be two Fine Gael Deputies returned for Leitrim, no matter how they try to gerrymander the area, because from Leitrim they had no Deputy in the House and they had no Member of the Seanad for the area until after the death of the late Miss Pearse: she was not cold in her grave when they appointed Senator McElgunn, preparing him to contest the next general election. However, I can tell the Minister it has been a pure waste of time.
We know the motive behind all this. They added a number of electoral divisions to South Donegal from the northern part of Leitrim. The amendment suggests that these areas be substituted by the following: Tullaghan, Gubacreeny, Kinlough, Aghavoghill, Aghanlish, Aghalateeve, Melvin, Glencar, Glenade, Ballaghameehan, Manorhamilton, Kiltyclogher, Glenfarm and Glenboy. That would mean that only 5,431 people would be moved from Leitrim to South Donegal to give it a three-seat constituency, but the Minister when he was making the change, decided to move 8,997 people, 3,656 more than were necessary. Anybody who looks at this honestly and sincerely will see why the Minister has decided to move these people: he wants them in County Donegal, a county which has been inclined to support the Government. However, when one looks at the result of the recent referendum, I do not think the Government can be too happy about this plan.
Now I come to Roscommon. Leitrim has been badly enough done by, but Roscommon is not much better. Roscommon has returned two Fianna Fáil Deputies, one no less than the Minister for Education and the other, Dr. Gibbons. I do not know how either could agree with this gerrymander. The Minister has decided to move 1,075 people out of Roscommon into Clare and 7,938 people to North East Galway. They have taken 11,072 from South Leitrim to add to Roscommon and approximately 3,000 from the Athlone area.
I cannot see how these two Deputies, sitting on the Government benches, can agree to the butchering of their own county to that extent. Portion of it has gone to Clare, portion to North East Galway and a further bit of Longford-Westmeath has been added. The motive behind this is quite obvious. The portion which the Government have decided to move to North East Galway is fairly convenient to Castlerea and Fianna Fáil have two budding prospective candidates for the next general election who will contest the Roscommon constituency. One of them has told me about it and I am prepared to accept his word for it. However, the Minister for Education decided that he would not have him in his constituency—he could be a danger to him—and in order to secure himself, the Minister decided to move that portion of the county into Galway to protect his own seat. Any Minister or Deputy who is prepared to allow his native county to be butchered to that extent in order to secure his seat in this House is not acting in the best political tradition and I am surprised that it should have happened in this case.
We come, of course, to Sligo-Leitrim. It would have been easy to make this a four-seat constituency. It would have been the normal trend and if the Minister were prepared to accept these amendments we should have Sligo-Leitrim a four-seat constituency involving the movement of only 5,341 people into Donegal. We should then have an administrative county of Roscommon with the addi-tion of two electoral divisions from County Galway, Taghboy and Ahascragh and we should have a unit which would leave Roscommon with three seats and the county virtually intact. If the amendment in this connection were accepted, instead of the Minister's proposal we should have had to move only 5,000 people out of Leitrim instead of the 8,000 which he proposes. For those reasons the Minister should accept those amendments.
I conclude on the suggestion that the Minister's motive behind this gerrymandering revision of constituencies is to remove people from antiFianna Fáil areas into Fianna Fáil areas in order that Fianna Fáil may secure an odd extra seat here and there so that they can be returned to Government. However, when the Minister interferes in this way with the rights of people, he is treading on dangerous ground and I have no doubt that as soon as the people get the opportunity the Minister will be given his answer.
I wish to say a few words on these amendments. The last occasion on which I spoke on this matter I said we had come to the stage when we had only 25 counties left. The Minister decided that we would need Sligo carrying the name of the Sligo constituency, with 11,000 people being brought in from Leitrim. He decided that he would leave Roscommon constituency with a further 11,000 people being put in from Leitrim; and that he would put 8,900 voters from Leitrim into South Donegal.
It would appear that the Minister felt rather embarrassed at all those people coming to meet him. He paid a visit to Carrick-on-Shannon and gave them the concession of having the name of Leitrim added to three constituencies to make them Donegal-Leitrim, Sligo-Leitrim and RoscommonLeitrim. I can tell the Minister for Local Government that the Fianna Fáil people boasted of the concession that he granted them on his visit to Carrick-on-Shannon. Many people thought it amounted to a great change and said to some Deputies that there was a big change being made in the constituency. The Minister granted merely a name simply because if Leitrim were not mentioned there would be only 25 counties.
I must compliment Deputy Hogan on the research he has done in order to produce the figures that he has given us and to be in a position to inform us that the constituencies could have been arranged by the transfer of 9,399 voters instead of 60,000 voters. That would have resulted in very few changes in the constituencies. Instead of 9,399, as suggested by Deputy Hogan, groups of 9,000, 10,000, 11,000 and up to 12,000 of the population are being transferred from one constituency to another.
In the constituency of Sligo-Leitrim, in the gerrymandering that is being done on the Leitrim side, townlands and parishes are divided and the location of polling booths is altered with the result that the county council has to revise the whole machinery for elections on the basis of the new boundaries determined by the Minister.
All this is being done, as the people all know, because in those areas the people did not yield to the pressure being put on them by Fianna Fáil. All down the years Fianna Fáil have been most anxious to get the people to do what they wanted them to do and held out every inducement possible in order to sway the electorate. The people of Sligo-Leitrim in every general election, in local elections, in the referenda, gave their decision against the Government and for that reason the Minister saw fit to divide the people and to create splinter groups so that, with three-seater constituencies, his Party would stand a better chance.
On 1st October, 1968, the people of this country decided by an overwhelming majority of 260,000 voters for the retention of PR. That was a clear indication to the Minister that the PR system of election would remain. The Minister realised that the only hope for survival of a Fianna Fáil Government under the PR system of election was to have three-seater constituencies. The Minister will discover in the next election that the people will not bow to the gerrymandering that is taking place in the revision of the constituencies. The population of Leitrim in 1966 was 30,500, which represents a drop of over 25,335 since 1926. The population of Sligo in 1966 was 51,262 as compared with 71,388 in 1926. The Minister may tell us that this revision of constituencies had to take place. He should remember that it is necessitated by the fact that the west of Ireland has been sorely neglected. The flight from the land that is taking place in the west of Ireland even today is deplorable.
I am sorry to interrupt Deputy McLaughlin but the reasons for any alleged fall in population do not arise.
I was pointing out that, if the Government had done their job properly down the years, this depopulation which causes this revision of constituencies would not have taken place. There is nothing wrong in saying it. The people in the areas concerned are taxed out of existence and it is a case of their having to go. The Minister told us on the last occasion the Bill was before the House that he considered that he had done the best he could. I have no doubt that the Minister did the best he could.
(Cavan): The best he could for himself.
The best he could do is, in my opinion, a very poor effort for the people.
The best for the Party.
Let him make his own case.
It is the best for the Party, not the best for the country. If the Minister were sincere he could easily have left Sligo-Leitrim a four-seater constituency. Since I was a schoolboy Sligo-Leitrim has been known as one constituency and it was taken for granted that that would continue to be the position. In his final revision the Minister has divided the constituency in three parts. As Deputy Hogan has pointed out, the Minister could have added 5,345 people to South Donegal and have left Sligo-Leitrim as a four-seater and have Donegal a six-seater. There would not be anything very wrong about that.
Deputy Hogan has indicated how easily Roscommon could be fixed. Instead, the Minister and his advisers decided on taking away all of North Leitrim—four centres that were the main centres in the county plus the rural areas Kinlough, Kiltyclogher, Manorhamilton and Dromahair in the centre of a rural area and that part of North Leitrim that stretches almost into the village of Drumkerrin, quite convenient to the village of Ballintubber, wiping out all North Leitrim except for a few polling booths stretching to Drumkerrin.
That is the position and nobody can take any meaning from it than that it was designed to improve the lot of Fianna Fáil candidates and in the hope that it would get rid of the Fine Gael candidates in the next general election. There was an all-out effort made in the last general election to do that and I expect that there will be a similar effort made at the next election but I think that when the results of the next election are announced the Minister will discover that the people did not yield to his wishes. The people will decide for themselves that they are not going to accept the administration which is forcing the people from the constituency of Sligo-Leitrim. How important it would have been for that constituency if the same amount of money had been spent providing employment there instead of telling the people what they were going to do with the single-seat constituency, how they wanted a TD to be convenient to his constituents and how everything would work much more satisfactorily if we would only accept Fianna Fáil's advice. That did not succeed and now 80 miles or 100 miles is a common enough distance to be removed from your Deputy. However, I expect that after the next election all that will be changed. I hope that the Minister will consider this before it is too late and give the people an opportunity of having their representatives where they wish to have them and of having a more compact constituency than having Sligo-Leitrim stretching from Newtowngore at the Cavan border down almost to Bundoran in Donegal and from that across to Enniscrone, a journey of about 100 miles.
Deputy McLaughlin was worrying about the distance from Newtowngore in Cavan to Bundoran and Enniscrone but this amendment would shove him nearly into Longford. Anybody with a knowledge of past history knows that we were doing very nicely—all political Parties—with our interpretation of the Constitution until Fine Gael decided that what was done in 1960 was not constitutional and they obtained a new interpretation of tolerance for us. Again, only a few months ago they rejected tolerance and the one-seat constituency. Of course, looking at the three counties in question, Roscommon, Sligo and Leitrim, and having regard to tolerance and the ambiguity about it—whether it is going to be 1,000 below or as near enough as possible to a national average—the Minister has one responsibility and that is to ensure that what he is doing should at least be constitutional and that when this Bill has passed through the Dáil and Seanad it will not be brought before the High Court as being unconstitutional. The Minister has endeavoured to come as near as possible to 20,000 population per Deputy. This is what the Constitution requires. Leitrim has a population of just over 30,000 or a representation of one Deputy and half a Deputy. Sligo has 51,000, or about 2½ Deputies, and Roscommon has 56,000, plus some hundreds. Is it more wrong to transfer a bit of Roscommon into Galway than to do the reverse and transfer a bit of Galway into Roscommon? Is it wrong to have Roscommon-Leitrim as a constituency rather than to have Sligo-Leitrim?
I, too, remember that it used be Sligo-Leitrim and it continued to be that until the 1961 election. The breaking up of Leitrim arose entirely from an action by a member of the Fine Gael Party in having that formula for a constituency declared unconstitutional in the High Court. We can make many variations and in the long run one is as good as another. One detests the idea of any county being broken up into divisions. One never likes that because we all look upon the county as an administrative area and we would like to see it kept that way. However, because of two actions, one being the rejection by the people of the referendum——
(Cavan): How dare they!
Is it not a free country?
Of course.
Then do not kick them in the teeth for having rejected it.
That does not give the Deputy any particular reason for saying that one method of forming constituencies is better than another. The ones we have provided are as good as anything proposed from that side. If we are accused on this side of doing things to suit ourselves, I wonder for what purpose the Party opposite are doing it?
(Cavan): Leave it all to the independent tribunal.
We had that, too, built into the referendum and the Opposition rejected it.
That does not arise on the amendment.
(Interruptions.)
The people will have a right one day to vote on this matter also. I cannot see that there can be any great improvement brought about by transferring all of South Leitrim back into Sligo or, indeed, into Roscommon. I cannot see that Deputy Hogan's figures, of transferring 5,000 to South Donegal, would bring the population up to 20,000 Nor do I see any chance of transferring 29,000 from Leitrim into Sligo because the population is not there, unless you get down to a very fine measure of tolerance and tolerance by and large has been rejected.
Something Fianna Fáil have not got.
As I said, it is sad that any county must be broken up, but at least there is an effort here to solve the problem of Deputy McLaughlin. At least the distance to travel has been reduced somewhat. With the present layout of Sligo-Leitrim from Newtowngore to Enniscrone or from Bundoran to Newtowngore, whichever way you like it, this amendment would bring one right up to the Longford border which is far more distant. I have nothing to add except to say that I think that dividing the western region of Donegal and
Clare with Connacht into a ten-seater is at least a step towards more workable constituencies.
I should like to compliment Deputy Hogan on his homework. He has done a good job and, as far as it affects my constituency, I say he is perfectly right and that his proposal could be applied. I refer to the constituency bordering the Clare-Galway area where we have Liscananaun, Lisheenavalla and Lackabeg adjoining. Further south you have Clarinbridge, Belleville East and Aughrim East also. Figures for these areas total 4,124 and I think the proposal is quite acceptable. I say that because Galway city is, and has been for years, the focal point for the people of this area. I was in the High Court at the time of this case and there was a gentleman with a wig who tried to walk me into a corner but I brought him in along with me. That finished it. I was able to point out that I could accept this area as representative, even though it was outside the actual constituency at that time. I was able to take evidence out of my pocket that 50 per cent of the people I was dealing with were coming from these adjoining areas. It is quite easy for these people to get to Galway city, much easier than it is to go to Tuam, Loughrea or Ballinasloe. There are main roads leading to Galway city from these areas that I have mentioned. People can travel in by bus and get home by bus in the evening, having got their business done with either myself or the Fianna Fáil representative.
With the experience I have for the past 15 years I could go into these areas and I might "shake" the Minister if they were added on. I suppose the Minister knew that. I "shook" Fianna Fáil in areas that he thought previously were 80 per cent Fianna Fáil. Overnight, when I went up, they became 85 per cent Fine Gael. Perhaps that is one reason why the Minister is not prepared to allow in these areas. Thank God, the Minister is not a Land Commissioner because he would have the country tied up in knots if he was to approach his job in this "Find-the-Lady" card trick fashion he is using in the division of constituencies. I wonder, on the day of an All-Ireland final, how some of these people would cheer, whether it would be for East Galway or Roscommon? I know it does not arise on this Bill but it can arise: there is such a thing as pride in one's county. The Minister is not taking that into consideration.
The whole Bill is an indictment of the Government for the state of the West. It is a sort of cover-up. It is something for which, like Tom Dooley, the Minister should bow his head in shame. All we got from this House over the past year was talk about saving the West. That is how they are going to save it now.
I have mentioned the areas of Claregalway. I may confuse some people. Claregalway is a parish in west Galway. There is a Clare-Galway —I think it is Clare-South Galway the Minister mentioned—which is quite a different thing, a combination of both Clare and Galway. Claregalway adjoins these areas in my constituency, and if the Minister likes to ask any questions on it, I shall bring him to the church gate next Sunday where I often held good meetings. I would also be prepared to bring him down to Gort and the area of Kilbeacanty, Skehanagh Beagh Hill and around that country. It might be no harm that Gort should be brought in there. It might cultivate them since the hero in the Park, with respect to the Park and the seat that is there——
The Deputy should keep to the amendment.
I am getting back to Clare, the county that first elected the gentleman to whom I am referring. They think he is canonised as far as that county is concerned.
We cannot have a discussion on the President.
They think Fianna Fáil is the be-all and end-all for Clare. Thank God, I shared this House with one of the best representatives Clare ever produced, the late Deputy Bill Murphy—Go ndéana Dia trocaire ar a anam. I knew much of the problems of Clare through the late Deputy Murphy and I know much of the problems of South Galway. I did a share of courting down there. It might be a blessing if this Bill goes through. It might get these people from the wild parts of Clare which I canvassed into an area where there is some culture. We might let them know what a representative from Claregalway could do. I hope I have not confused the parish with the constituency.
I see no reason why Deputy Hogan's amendment cannot be accepted. Instead of messing up borders, whether this refers to the area across the Border where Ministers are telling people how to vote or messing things up down here, the sooner Fianna Fáil throw in the towel and let them vote for themselves, the better. I do not think anybody has done as much work on this as Deputy Hogan. The Minister had the help of his Department and his personal sweat was not involved. Therefore, I compliment my colleague on his homework.
These amendments comply with the provisions of the Constitution and come as near as it is possible to come to the figure of 20,000 per seat. They are, as I said earlier, fair, just and reasonable. They are a much better alternative than the provisions in the Minister's Bill. The Minister envisages interfering with 14 pieces of nine counties and over 100,000 people. These people will find themselves in constituencies with which they have never had any connection. Deputy Hogan suggests interfering with only six pieces involving 21,199 people, barely one per cent of the total population. The Minister is not prepared to accept these reasonable proposals. He will not accept for one reason, and one reason only; the Fianna Fáil Party know that their support is dwindling and they are trying to hang on to the bitter end.
There is no doubt but that this Bill gerrymanders constituencies. If we accept Deputy Hogan's amendments for the western areas only 9,399 people would be interfered with and each constituency would come within the provisions of the Constitution and Mr. Justice Budd's interpretation. The Minister, however, envisages disturbing 59,274 people, almost six times the number in Deputy Hogan's proposals. There must be some very good reason why the Minister will not accept these amendments. The Minister is silent though we know from past experience here that he can speak for seven hours, six hours, six and a half hours in Seanad Éireann, and five hours on another occasion here. Now he is mute of malice. What has come over him? Because these amendments are fair, just and reasonable he is not able to make a case against accepting them. It is a pity the Taoiseach did not silence another Minister before last Sunday.
We are discussing amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Hogan.
Deputy L'Estrange is talking about elections though.
That would be a very wide question indeed. We are merely talking about constituencies at the moment.
It would have been much better if the Minister had kept his big foot out of it because he has done a great deal of harm to the people concerned and I think the leader of the Nationalist Party is out because of the Minister's bungling.
How does this come within the scope of the amendment before the House? It does not seem to arise.
We know there was gerrymandering in the past in the North and we know there is gerrymandering in this Bill, gerrymandering as good, if not better. Even the Unionists could learn a lesson from it. The West will lost four Deputies. These four Deputies will come to the eastern seaboard. The West generally is dying because of Government policy, or lack of policy over the last 20 years. Fianna Fáil are responsible for the decrease in the population of the West because over the past 30 years they have encouraged all the wealth to come to Dublin at the expense of the western seaboard. When Deputy Gallagher says the West is losing Deputies because of
Mr. Justice Budd's judgment it is only right to place on the records of the House the fact that the responsibility for this loss rests on the shoulders of the Fianna Fáil Government. That Government has driven out of Connacht and Donegal no fewer than 194,957 people since they came to power. The boys and girls born since Fianna Fáil came to power numbered about 600,000; they, too, have been driven from the western seaboard because of the dead hand of the present Government. If that population were still in the West it is the West which would be getting extra Deputies. We were promised that, if we got rid of the British yoke, this country, instead of supporting 3,000,000 people would be supporting 10,000,000 people. I remember a particular gentleman, our present President——
Surely the President does not arise on this amendment.
If there were the same number of people in the West now as there were in 1932 when Fianna Fáil came to power the West would be entitled to ten extra Deputies. That is something that should be put on the records of the House. Lovely Leitrim will now disappear from the map as a political entity. We know Leitrim never supported Fianna Fáil. Leitrim always elected a majority of Fine Gael Deputies. The Taoiseach went down to Leitrim before the referendum and warned the people that, if they did not vote "Yes", Leitrim would be wiped off the map. The people refused to vote "Yes". The people rejected the referendum by 234,000 votes. The Minister for Local Government told us the referendum would be won by 100,000 votes. What is happening now to the county in which Seán Mac Diarmada was born? Remember, the people of Leitrim are proud. They love their native soil. They withstood the ravages of Lord Leitrim and the evictions of that time, but what he failed to do, Fianna Fáil have done in a very short time.
Amendment No. 3 refers to Clare-South Galway. In the past Galway had eight Deputies, and it is now proposed to give it nine. Other parts are added on to Galway because Galway always remained faithful to Fianna Fáil. Instead of losing one Deputy, Galway is getting parts of Roscommon and Clare, and will now be three three-seater constituencies. Fianna Fáil are hoping they will be able to win two out of three. This will boomerang on them as the referendum boomeranged on them.
Let us take Mayo. In the past we had there a four-seater and a three-seater constituency. In the four-seater there were two Fianna Fáil and two Fine Gael Deputies, and in the three-seater there were two Fine Gael Deputies and one Fianna Fáil Deputy. Because it is a Fine Gael constituency Mayo has to suffer. In the past a horizontal line was drawn across it, but now it is a vertical line. The Minister for Justice and the Minister for Health have to be separated. These constituencies have also to suffer and we see the bloody vindictiveness again because the people there rejected the Third and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution Bills.
Roscommon is being butchered and mutilated in a vicious fashion. At present there are two Fine Gael Deputies there, Deputy Joan Burke and Deputy P.J. Reynolds. They are excellent Deputies. The Government have taken as much of Leitrim as they possibly could from Deputy Reynolds, and to the good area surrounding Deputy Burke's home place they have added 4,000 votes. For the past 40 years Athlone has not been butchered or dismembered. It has always been kept together but because the great promiser, the Minister for Education, comes from Athlone 4,000 voters are being transferred from Athlone into Roscommon to bolster up his waning fortunes.
The Reynolds family have represented Leitrim very well since the foundation of the State. The late Deputy Burke and his widow, Deputy Joan Burke, gave Roscommon excellent representation. Those two Deputies are proud to be the servants of the people of Roscommon and Leitrim. No matter how the Minister may gerrymander or use the knife on those constituencies, the people of Roscommon and Leitrim, who love justice and fair play, will see that this vindictive effort by the Government to put these two Deputies, or at least one of them, out of Leinster House will misfire. When the election comes, and come when it may, both those Deputies will be returned to Leinster House.
The Minister deserves 100 per cent marks for clever work, work well done by an avaricious political Party bent on riveting themselves in power. They are now flying in the face of the people because the people spoke out loudly and clearly on 16th October and, by a massive figure of 234,000, defeated the Government's proposal despite the fact that money and Taca and everything that could be assembled was used to terrorise the people and try to sway them. The Government failed and today they stand condemned and discredited. They are trying to hold on to the reins of office and, therefore, we have this Bill to gerrymander the constituencies to try to get the maximum number of seats with the minimum number of votes.
(Cavan): I wonder does the House fully appreciate the performance of the Minister for Local Government on this measure. We had a long discussion here on Second Stage but, of necessity, it had to be a very general discussion. On Committee Stage we went into the Schedule constituency by constituency. We tried to get from the Minister his reasons for drafting the constituencies as he had done. It then transpired and was very clear that the Minister could not justify the scheme of constituencies which he proposed for the House.
At the conclusion of the Committee Stage we made it perfectly clear that it was necessary for us to put down amendments on Report Stage and the Minister endeavoured to prevent Report Stage being taken, or wished to have it taken on such a date that it would be impossible for this Party to put down amendments. We had the disgraceful performance at the conclusion of Committee Stage of the Minister doing his damnedest to prevent Report Stage. It should go on the record that it was only under pressure from the Minister for Finance, and presumably the Taoiseach, that the Minister yielded and accorded the House the customary courtesy of giving a reasonable time between Committee Stage and Report Stage. We had the unprecedented performance of having a debate lasting a couple of hours on a date for Report Stage and it was only when it was apparent to the Minister that this Party would not be deprived of their rights that the Minister, under pressure from his more sophisticated colleague, the Minister for Finance, yielded and agreed to have Report Stage taken to another date.
In accordance with our intentions and the requirements of the Bill we put down 21 amendments on Report Stage to try to force the Minister to amend this measure as it should be amended and to improve it as it should be improved. We are now dealing with a number of amendments. What do we find? We find Deputy Hogan putting forward, on behalf of this Party, a reasoned case substantiating and justifying these amendments. When the Minister for Local Government is beaten in his efforts to deprive us of the opportunity of putting down amendments, he sulks and leaves this House, runs out of this House, refuses to listen to the arguments, refuses to refute the arguments and behaves like a spoiled child.
God help him. He could not get his way.
(Cavan): He could not get his way and, when he could not deprive us of our right to put down amendments on the Report Stage, he exercises his right of refusing to listen to them—but it is not his right because, as a member of a Government in a democratic country, he is bound to come in and listen to arguments.
He is getting paid for it——
(Cavan):——and well paid for it. It is his duty to come in here and to listen to these reasoned arguments put down by a responsible Deputy, after much thought and consideration without the assistance of civil servants or anybody else. The Minister for Local Government cannot get out of it by saying that he dealt with all this on the Committee Stage because this is the first time and today is the first day that these amendments ever came into this House. On the Committee Stage, he challenged us to put down amendments when, on that Stage, we were simply and solely trying to find out what the Minister was at and whether he had an answer for his ridiculous scheme. He now refuses to listen to these amendments, refuses to give his reason for marching his troops through the Lobby in opposition to them. I say that that is an insult to democracy. It is an insult to Parliament. It is an insult which would make even certain people in other countries blush.
Let us look back at these amendments in a particular way—the amendments we are dealing with—and see what the Minister for Local Government has refused to come in here and listen to. Amendment No. 3 which stands in the name of Deputy Hogan of South Tipperary proposes to restore Clare to a four-seater constituency. Is there anything wrong with that? Is that an unreasonable proposition? I say it is not. I say that the only reason the Minister for Local Government will march his troops through the "Tá" Lobby, in opposition to this amendment, is because he wants to reduce Clare to a three-seater constituency for selfish political purposes, namely, in order to deprive the Labour Party of a seat there, a seat that they have held for many years. Why does the Minister not come in here and justify his opposition to this amendment?
He is afraid Fine Gael will get two out of four seats.
Exactly.
(Cavan): The next amendment deals with Donegal. Deputy Hogan has provided, by taking a small portion from Leitrim, two three-seaters in Donegal, although, indeed, we might have put down an amendment to give Donegal five—that is all that Government policy, over the years, has decreed that Donegal is entitled to. However, Deputy Hogan is prepared to give the Minister a bonus and, instead of taking a seat from Donegal, proposes to give them two three-seaters. However, the Minister is not here to say what is wrong with that.
Amendments Nos 7 and 8, dealing with Galway, propose to divide it into two constituencies and to give it a four-seater and a three-seater. At the moment, County Galway has eight Deputies. The population of Galway has dropped from 168,198 in 1936 to 148, 340 in 1966. In other words, in spite of the fact that it has lost 19,858 in population, the Minister has decided to increase the representation in Galway county from eight to nine. I think that if seats are to be lost and if, because there is a drop in population, certain seats must go from certain areas, it is only reasonable that the county which has lost the population and has lost the right to the seat should suffer the loss of that seat. But that is not what we are having here. We are having this political manoeuvre in Galway of dividing a county into three three-seaters, thereby giving it a bonus of one seat, instead of reducing it by one. I say that that is political trickery. I say that the proposition put forward by Deputy Hogan to divide the county into a three-seater and a four-seater is a more reasonable, more rational and more equitable representation for the county. Again, I ask why the Minister for Local Government is not here to let us have his views on the amendment as drafted. The reason is that he has no answer and, of course, when he could not silence us on the Committee Stage he has refused to listen to us on the Report Stage.
So much has been said about SligoLeitrim that it is not necessary to say a lot more. In this debate, it has clearly been pointed out that it is not necessary to mutilate Leitrim and to divide it up into three sections, giving one section to Donegal, one section to Sligo and one section to Roscommon. It has been stated here that a much more rational constituency is Sligo-Leitrim. I wish to repeat that. County Leitrim is entitled to permanence on the map of Ireland for a number of reasons. I have said here before that the philosophy of Sinn Féin was first known throughout the length and breadth of this country as a result of an action taken in Leitrim as far back as 1907. Sinn Féin was founded in 1905. Very little was known about the Party or the philosophy behind it until 1907 when Charlie Dolan, who represented North Leitrim at West-minster—he was then in his early twenties—as a member of the Irish Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons, contested North Leitrim as a Sinn Féin candidate. That was the first time that Sinn Féin really got under way, that Sinn Féin got off the ground. He did not get elected there——
I am afraid this has got very little to do with the amendments.
(Cavan): With the greatest respect, Sir—and I will bow to your ruling if you rule after what I have said that I am out of order—I am trying to establish the right of this ancient county of Leitrim to retain its identity and I will not be very long doing it.
It was only as a result of Charlie Dolan's resignation from the British House of Commons and his contesting North Leitrim as a Sinn Féin candidate that, in those days of bad communications, Sinn Féin became known throughout the length and breadth of this country. As I said, he did not get elected but he got about one-third of the votes that were cast for his opponent, a member of the Irish Parliamentary Party who won the seat. But, as from then, Sinn Féin was established not alone in Leitrim but throughout the length and breadth of Ireland.
As Deputy L'Estrange has said, Seán MacDermott was born and reared and spent a lot of his life in County Leitrim. Indeed, a much more fitting tribute to Seán McDermott than calling Aras Mhic Dhiarmada after him, would be to maintain the identity of his native Leitrim, the county which he served so well and which he loved.
I want to go on record as saying that if ever a case could be made for preserving the unbroken boundaries of a county that case can be made for Leitrim and if ever a county should be left to enjoy its own identity that county is Leitrim.
Deputies McLaughlin and Reynolds have said what does not need saying: Sligo and Leitrim are like love and marriage, you cannot have one without the other. They have been coupled together down the years and when you speak of Sligo you immediately think of Leitrim, because they have been a unit for as long as most of us can remember. They have a joint county manager. A manager resides in Sligo and manages, under the Local Government Acts, the Counties of Sligo and Leitrim. They have a joint Mental Hospital Board for the two counties and members of each local authority have served on that year after year for many years and have worked in complete harmony. The people of Leitrim do not regard Sligo as an outside county or as a stranger.
Where is the Minister for Local Government to answer the case that has been put forward here in support of leaving Leitrim and Sligo alone? Why does he sulk and run out of this House and refuse to listen to concrete arguments in support of concrete amendments which are here to be debated? Why is he not here? As Deputy Corish has said, that is what he is paid for. God knows he wasted enough of the time of his Department and of his own time last year on the futile referendum debates. Of course, the difference between the referendum debates and this debate is that he could not treat the people with contempt. He knew that his referendum proposals could not go through or go on the Statute Book unless he could persuade the sovereign people of this country to give their support in the ballot box on 16th October last, but he knows perfectly well that with his majority in this House he can steamroll this measure on to the Statute Book without any reference to the people. That is why he huffs and sulks and runs out of the House and refuses to listen to these arguments. He could not do it last year because he had to try to carry the people with him but he can do it now because he has his forces behind him and he can march them through the "Yes" Lobby in support of this. But I venture to say, as Deputy L'Estrange has said, that when the day of reckoning comes, on the day of the next general election, the people will not forget this effort and this performance of the Minister for Local Government in his efforts to get his way.
Deputy Gallagher spoke earlier in the evening on this set of amendments. I was rather amazed at his approach. His argument seemed to be that these amendments were not any better than the Minister's proposals but by that he seemed to concede immediately that they were an adequate alternative. I want to go further and say that they are an equitable alternative. If that is so and if this set of proposals carry out the constitutional requirements just as well as the Minister's proposals, why is the Minister not here to argue in favour of his proposals as against these? That is what I want to know and it is what the people of the country will want to know when they read the newspapers tomorrow. They will not be satisfied with the manner in which the Minister for Local Government is treating this House and the manner in which he is dealing with this measure. The people are entitled to pose the question: "How would the Minister for Local Government behave if he had——
There is your friend.
(Cavan):——carried his referendum proposals and had 100 or so Deputies behind him in the knowledge that he could not be uprooted?”
I am glad that the Minister for Local Government has come back into the House. Perhaps at this late stage he will deal with amendments 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 17 and 18?
The Deputy is not able to hold it up any longer himself?
(Cavan): I suggest that the Minister should deal with these amendments which have been tabled by Deputy Hogan.
Deputy L'Estrange is slacking. He cannot get them in. He cannot get them in to hold it up.
(Cavan): It is a strange coincidence that just as the Minister for Local Government entered the House so did Deputy Norton. I wonder could the Minister for Local Government have been trying to fix up Deputy Norton with a constituency?
This has got nothing to do with the amendments.
(Cavan): It has a lot to do with constituencies.
Not these constituencies.
(Cavan): I was just drawing the attention of the House to the coincidence, if a coincidence it be.
(South Tipperary): Is the Deputy suggesting a Seanad amendment?
(Cavan): I want to suggest that the Minister for Local Government might now deal with these amendments which we have put down. I know he refused to deal with an earlier set of amendments. On amendments 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 21 we had not a word from the Minister. I hope that, even at this late stage, we will have the Minister's silence broken, unless, of course, he has got a lecture from the Taoiseach on talking too much with such disastrous consequences on the referendum proposals.
He is an extremist. He will talk at length or he will not talk at all. There is no middle of the road.
(Cavan): Maybe he has been muzzled in the hope he will not do any more damage.
Tá sé soiléir go ribh an ceart ag an Teachta Ó Ceallaigh nuair a labhair sé anseo coicís ó shin agus nuair a dubhairt sé go raibh an Freasúra cosúil leis an bhfear a fuair an luch in a phionta portair: ní raibh sé sásta leis an luch ann agus ní raibh sé sásta leis an luch as. Ní bhíon an Frúra sqsta nuair a thugaim freagra ar an ráiméis a bhíonn ar siúl acu agus ní bíonn siad sásta nuair a fhanaim im thost. Mar is eol don Teach, thug mé freagra ar na rudaí so coicís ó shin ar Chéim an Choiste den Bhille so, agus thug mé freagra ar an méid atá ins na leasaithe so——
(Cavan): The amendments were not before the House.
——ar an Dara Céim. Chuals mé cad a bhí le rá na mílte uair agus thug mé freagra air. Ní dóigh líom gur gá domsa bheith ag athrá chuile rud atá ráite chomh minic sin cheana féinm agus níl sé beartaithe agam comhoibriú leo chun moill a chur ar an Bhille so. Tá faitíos orthu faoi láthair roimh mhuintir na tíre.
(Cavan): Not a bit. Get on with it.
Tá an Páirtí tré na chéile fé láthair agus tá súil acu réiteach a dhéanamh le daoine a bhí in a gcomhghuaillithe acu go dtí so.
Innis dúinn dáta an toghacháin.
Má theastaíonn uatha moill a chur ar an mBille so, caithfidh siad í a dhéanamh lena dTeachtaí féin. B'fhéidir go mbeidh toradh ar iarrachtaí an Teachta L'Estrange chun iachall a chur ar Theachtaí Fhine Gael teacht isteach sa Teach agus a ndícheall a dhéanamh chun moill a chur ar an mBille, ach nílimse toilteanach comhoibriú leo sa chuspóir sin.
(South Tipperary): We had a small contribution here from Deputy Gallagher. He felt he had to say something about the West of Ireland. He did not say anything specific about the West of Ireland.
He answered everything Deputy Fitzpatrick said.
(South Tipperary): He said the Minister had done his best and got as near to 20,000 per Deputy as he could. He blamed two things for the present difficulty. He blamed the courts and he blamed the Irish people. Legislation had to be framed by the Minister as a result of the appalling decision of the Irish people in the referendum. Deputy Gallagher felt that, having made that contribution, he had exonerated his Minister from all blame. He must have felt the Minister was in need of a bit of saving, that he needed to extricate him from some of the difficulties into which he has, apparently in Deputy Gallagher's thinking, got himself. The plain fact of the matter is that these amendments proved beyond yea or nay that the Minister could have produced a worthwhile alternative had he so desired. There is no refutation or argument of any value which has been advanced or which can be advanced at any stage against the substance of these amendments. The Minister here has thrown in the sponge. He has said in effect that he will not submit any counter-argument to these amendments. It must be the first time in this House.
Rinne mé é sin coicís ó shin.
(Cavan): The amendments were not down and well the Minister knows it. He is trying to muzzle us.
(South Tipperary): The Minister in replying to each of these reasoned amendments had to admit to his own Party, to the House and to the country that he had no answer. He stated that he would not waste time answering any of these things. There is no man more ready to waste time than the Minister concerned. I do not think, if he had a worthwhile answer, there is anyone more ready to give that answer. He likes the party and thrust of debate; it is part of his life. However, he does not like to be made a punch bag of and that is what has been happening to him here since this Bill was introduced. On the committee Stage he was like a punch-drunk boxer rolling around the ring. All he was able to say was “Budd” and “referendum”. Today he has taken the knock-out, and he has lain down and he cannot get up at all. There is not much satisfaction in pursuing an opponent of that type. The Minister has the full help of his Department behind him. He has had ample opportunity to study these amendments and see if there is anything statistically or geographically wrong with them, as obviously there must not have been. I am reasonably sure that when these amendments were put before the Minister—and even before the amendments were formulated, the substance of them was discussed at length here on Committee Stage—the subject matter of these amendments, and the amendments themselves afterwards drafted by me, were passed by the Minister to his Department for comment. I imagine that would be the usual procedure and, even if the Minister did not specifically ask for comment from his Department, these bright boys are always on the ball; that is their job— if there is something wrong, you can hit him on that. The Minister has said nothing. I feel like Cassius Caly in this matter. I do not know what the poor Minister feels like. Maybe he is like Jack Doyle, except he does not even sing. However, I thought when the amendments were put down he was waiting around the corner with something to throw at me but, so far nothing has happened. I am now trying to urge him into getting up at this late state——
and helping the Deputy to delay this.
(South Tipperary):——to say something concrete about those amendments, something that will tear them to pieces. He has not even made a small criticism. I would consider it worthwhile if he made some criticism, but apparently neither he nor his Department are capable of coming up with one concrete argument whatsoever, apart from diffuse generalities, on these amendments. Those amendments should stand some challenge. All the Minister is doing is going into the Division Lobbies and with the numerical strength of his Party he will vote those amendments out. He is quite happy to sit there and accept this role of not saying anything, which is rather unusual for him. He is observing complete and abject silence. We discussed in the earlier part of the day the eastern counties and on this occasion we are discussing the western complex of counties.
Agus amach uait ansin.
(South Tipperary): Those counties, which spread from Clare to Donegal, embrace the counties of Donegal, Leitrim, Roscommon, Clare, Galway and Mayo. The Minister has produced a very simple solution here for this whole western seaboard area, the ten by three solution, ten three-seater constituencies. It must be obvious to anybody who has any respect for geographical considerations or for county boundaries that, in the normal order of things, it would be quite impossible to imagine that the complex of country-side west of the Shannon and up to Donegal could lend itself to such a simple and equitable solution. Providence has not fashioned that part of this country, or indeed any part of the world, in such a nice, symmetrical fashion. Despite this, our Minister has been able to go in, ignore those county boundaries and set up the constituency complex of ten threeseat constituencies. He says this was the only solution be could arrive at, that it was a just and equitable soultion and was what the people wanted when they voted in the referendum. This is what he has produced as a result of his gerrymandering. He was not able to receive the message which we gave to him and which the people of Ireland gave to him that they did not want any gerrymandering and did not want any of the peculiar things which are happening and have happened north of the Border.
That was the message the people tried to convey to the Fianna Fáil Party. Despite that, the Minister has completely ignored it in regard to this western seaboard area. He is producing a beautifully balanced position of ten constituencies of three seat each. I have suggested reasoned amendments here. Earlier today we discussed a group of eight amendments dealing with the eastern area and now these eight amendments deal with the western area. These eight amendments hang together and have been discussed together. The Ceann Comhairle ruled that, in respect of these eight amendments dealing with the western complex and the earlier ones dealing with the eastern complex, they would be discussed as one unit and we could discuss them in any order we liked. Deputies who spoke did just that because, to use the Minister's words, those things are subject to a chain re-action and, if you discuss one, you have to discuss the other.
When discussing these eight amendments the Minister will appreciate that I have made the suggestion that this matter can be dealt with by a single procedure. If one reads the phraseology of the amendments the general purport and picture escapes one. I will put it quite simply to the Minister that these amendments mean nothing more than the establishment of six three-seaters and three four-seaters. The Minister wants ten three-seaters in the particular area, giving 30 Deputies to this House. The adjustment which I have suggested is very little different and I think it is by no means unreasonable. We had constituencies represented by seven, eight and nine Deputies. Even in my own county of Tipperary we had seven Deputies coming into this House from that constituency. In so far as we can, I believe we meet the Minister's whishes to establish smaller constituencies when we suggest three four-seaters and six three-seaters, giving the same representation to that part of Ireland west of the Shannon, including Donegal. That is reasonable. At the same time, an effort has been made to preserve the traditional county boundaries and the traditional local electoral areas.
Is cosúil nach raibh an Teachta thiar riamh.
(South Tipperary): That can be done if the Minister studies these amendments. It can be done without any considerable breach of county boundaries. The Minister has mutilasted two-thirds of those counties in the western complex. He has completely obliterated County Leitrim and he has breached Roscommon almost out of recognition. He has transferred colse on 60,000 people, roughly, outside their counties into some other counties. Those 60,000 people will be voting in their own counties for local authority purposes, for their county councillors, and they will be voting in another area for Fáil purposes. They may have, and probably will have in many cases, to go to Deputies outside their area to get representation.
I have already tabulated in the amendments the areas which I suggested might be transferred and it is not necessary for me to go over these particular areas again. The figures, too, I have given to the Minister. In the suggestions I make there would be only three breaches of constituency boundaries west of the Shannon. The two District Electoral Divisions of Taghboy and Ahascragh in Galway could be transferred to Roscommon, making Roscommon a three-seater without any population transfer from anywhere else. That would make a more reasonable constituency than the Minister's suggestion of taking 11,072 persons from South Leitrim and putting them into Roscommon. My suggestion, with a transfer of only 953 persons, would make a more elongated and, georgaphically, as more manageable constituency.
I have suggested to the Minister that the transfer he proposes to make from North Leitrim—unless he is making provision for the fall in population which he anticipates will occur under Fianna Fáil during the next five or six years—is excessive. He is suggesting a transfer of 8,997, whereas I suggest to him that it would suffice to transfer 5,642 persons and I have already given in the amendment the District Electoral Divisions which may be used for that purpose.
There is not much choice of district Electoral Divisions here as the population is rather close. I admit that, from the point of view of national average, these amendments leave the nationa average very low in the western areas; but that is a pattern which the Minister himself has followed and a pattern which he has preached here in the House on several occasions on the agrument that the percentage of voters to population is higher in, for example, Clare and in Donegal and, indeed, in rural Ireland generally, them it is in Dublin. The Explanatory Memorandum which accompanied the Bill shows that there are a number of minus signs when dealing with the western constituencies and a number of plus signs when dealing with the Dublin constituencies.
I accept that there is some validity in the Minister's argument in that respect and the amendments I have put down are on the same lines in so far as the per Deputy representation that would arise if these amendments were adopted would be below the national average. I admit that, if we brought in Athlone West Urban, we might raise it a little and if, at a future time, the population in the West of Ireland goes down further, it may be necessary and may be an inescapable exercise to bring in Athlone West Urban, but it is not necessary to do so at the present time to meet the tenets of the constitution. The Minister has unnecessarily brought in Athlone West Urban. He has also unnecessarily brought population from Leitrim to Donegal. Not alone is that an injustice to the people of Leitrim but it also means that they must come down too far into County Leitrim.
Regarding Clare and Galway, I have suggested that a transfer from Galway to Clare of 2,805 persons—the figure reached when dealing with District Electroal Divisions in the Gort area— would suffice to preserve the traditional county of Clare as a four-seater. I do not think we need any special charm to deal with those areas I have suggested. The Minister could move them westwards or he could move them eastwards; he could go into greater detail and depart from District Electorl Divisions. He could get smaller units; he could get smaller maps and the population of the townlands from the Statistics Office.
The Minister could divise several alternatives to what I have suggested. The point that I have made is that, merely by a comparatively small transfer of population from Galway it would be possible to leave the constituency of Clare intact. I think that is by far a better solution than what the Minister has done is an endeavour to try and create a new constituency of Clare-Galway.
Cén difriocht atá idir an dá rud?
(South Tipperary): This is like a wireless when you get a foreign station coming in. One cannot concentrate.
(Cavan): They are prostituting the Irish language in an attempt to reduce this to farce.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Hogan.
(South Tipperary): The Minister proposes to transfer a huge population from Clare to Galway. This transfer of 14,765 persons is the gratitude which the people of Clare have now received from Fianna Fáil for generations of loyalty to that Party. They now find that their county is being partitioned and that their very loyalty is being used to their disadvantage. I know they will be told that they will have a Clare man to represent them, but is there an assurance that these people will be satisfied to find that 14,000 have been added on to the new constituency of Clare-Galway?
Cé difríocht atá idir an dá rud?
(Interruptions.)
(South Tipperary): These people are being used in experimental fashion. This is a Trojan Horse experiment. These people are being sent into Galway in order to neutralise any element which exists there against the Government and to secure a second seat in this new constituency of Clare-Galway. It is quite amusing to find Deputy Geoghegan, who is normally a balanced and sensible sort of man, suddenly becoming excited and over-wrought whenever I happen to mention Clare or Galway. I feel I must be walking on somebody's corns. I did not mean to walk on Deputy Geoghegan's corns.
Níl puinn cearr le mo chosa.
Ní gá vótáil anocht.
Debate adjourned.