Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Nov 1959

Vol. 51 No. 13

Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1959—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

Under sub-section 4 of Section 2 of Article 16 of the Constitution, the Oireachtas is required to revise Dáil constituencies at least once in every 12 years, with due regard to changes in distribution of the population. The purpose of the present Bill is to provide for the revision which is now due. The Bill provides for the reduction, as from the next dissolution, in the number of constituencies from 40 to 39 and the number of Deputies from 147 to 144, which is the maximum permitted by the Constitution on the basis of a population of 2,898,264 as ascertained at the census in April, 1956.

As Senators are aware, the Bill as introduced provided for 142 Deputies. The number was raised to 144 during the Committee Stage in the Dáil and the two extra seats were allocated to the Dublin South (East) and Wexford constituencies.

Perhaps the first point to which I should draw attention in connection with this Bill is that it provides for the retention of the maximum number of Deputies permitted by the Constitution. The principal reasons for this can, I think, be summarised by saying first, that from each Dáil a Government must be formed and, assuming that the membership of the House is divided into two approximately equal groups representing Government and Opposition, then only half the total membership will be available from which to choose the members of the Government and Parliamentary Secretaries. Two Ministers can be appointed from this House but this does not, I think, weaken the argument unduly. It would obviously be undesirable to have the number of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries too high a proportion of the Government side of the House in the Dail.

Then, as a general rule, a high proportion of Deputies may not seek or may fail to secure re-election. In the last two general elections, the proportion varied round one-quarter of the total membership. This limits severely the pool of experienced legislators from which a Government or Opposition may be formed.

Further, with the extension of the State's activities and the large legislative programme of recent years the amount of work which a Deputy must perform if he is to discharge his duties conscientiously has not grown any lighter. If a severe reduction were made in the total Dáil membership, it could become impossible for Deputies to attend properly to their business, with obvious detriment to the nation.

The allocation of the numbers of Deputies to be returned for each constituency is governed by sub-section (3) of Section 2 of Article 16 of the Constitution which provides that the ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.

In the proposals now before the House, it may appear that there is, in a purely mathematical sense, a slight bias in favour of rural constituencies. That this bias is more a matter of appearance than of fact will be obvious to anyone who has done constituency work in various parts of the country. I am thinking particularly of rural constituencies where the people are not, for the most part, concentrated in districts of high population density but are scattered over wide areas and sometimes in remote and inaccessible places. The difference in population density between a rural and an urban constituency can be very marked. To cite some figures: in Dublin city, the number of persons per 100 acres is 1,892; in county Dublin, it is 83; in Cork city, the figure is 2,391, which is considerably higher than in Dublin city. At the other end of the scale is county Clare were the figure is 9.8 persons per 100 acres. It is obvious that in any equitable revision scheme such divergencies cannot be ignored.

The nature of the western seaboard is also a factor. In my own constituency of East Donegal, Fanad Head and Malin Head are 12 miles apart as the crow flies but travelling by road involves a journey of 88 miles. This is further than a journey from Dublin to Monaghan and almost as far as that from Dublin to Thurles. Many similar examples of long journeys over mountainous territory with a much indented coastline, could be taken from other western constituencies.

I may seem to emphasise unduly the difficulty of communication but, if I do, it is because I believe that it is essential to the democratic process that each Deputy should be able to reflect in the Dáil the trends of thought in his constituency so that he can help to ensure that the measures which the Legislature enacts are as accurate as possible a reflection of enlightened public opinion throughout the country. It is part of the same fundamental process that every citizen should have the right to interview his Deputy on any serious matter relating to himself, his neighbours or his district, without disproportionate loss of time, trouble or expense.

This right is important in every constituency in the country but it is particularly difficult to see that it is accorded in the large sprawling rural constituencies, particularly in the poorer areas along the western seaboard, where, because of the greater variety of State benefits the need to avail of a Deputy's assistance is often greatest. The proposals in the Bill go as far as it is practicable to preserve these rights and to ensure equal representation for urban and rural constituencies alike, in compliance with the constitutional provisions.

In the 12 years since the last revision took place, changes in population have thrown the ratio of population per member in many constituencies seriously out of line. This effect is seen in its extreme form in the Dublin area where the range is from 45,153 of the population to each Deputy in the county Dublin constituency—by far the highest ratio in the country—to 14,120 to each Deputy in Dublin North (Central)—by far the lowest ratio in the country.

We can go a long way towards evening out these disparities by incorporating in the city constituencies the areas brought within the city by recent boundary extensions. These areas, as I need hardly remind Senators, are in the city for administrative purposes but remain outside it for Dáil election purposes. The areas in question comprising the Artane, Baldoyle, Ballyfermot, Beann Éadair, Coolock, Crumlin West, Finglas East, Finglas West, Rathfarnham South and Santry Wards, contain a population of 70,916. Unfortunately, this is insufficient to raise the average population per member in the city constituencies up to the average for the Dublin area as a whole and we found it necessary to depart from the city boundary and bring within the South (East) constituency an area in Dún Laoghaire consisting of the Blackrock No. 1 district electoral division and an area in the county consisting of the Milltown district electoral division and certain townlands in the district electoral divisions of Dundrum and Stillorgan. These areas contain a population of 29,362 and are mainly urban in character.

The changes in the city constituencies follow more or less as a corollary of these alterations. On the north side, the city constituencies will generally be the same as the old ones but will include the contiguous areas from the county constituency and some minor modifications to make the new constituencies conform with the ward boundaries.

On the south side, the only constituency in which a change of membership is proposed is Dublin South (East) which will return four, instead of three members. The constituency will gain from the Dun Laoghaire and Rathdown constituency, the Rathfarnham South ward and the area outside the city boundary to which I have referred, and, from South (West), the greater part of the Rathfarnham and Rathmines West wards. It will lose portion of the Pembroke East and Pembroke West wards to Dublin South (Central). Its population after these changes will be 91,833.

The South (West) constituency will lose portion of the Rathfarnham and Rathmines West wards to South (East) together with a portion of the Kilmainham ward to South (Central) and, on its outer boundary, will gain the Ballyfermot and Crumlin West wards. Its population after the change will be 115,641. South (Central) will gain part of Kilmainham, Pembroke East and Pembroke West wards from South (West) and South (East) respectively. The boundary of the county constituency will follow the city boundary from Baldoyle to Templeogue where it will leave it to follow the present boundary between the county and Dun Laoghaire and Rathdown constituencies southwards to the county boundary.

The Dun Laoghaire and Rathdown constituency will cede the area about Churchtown, Dundrum, Drummartin, Merrion and Roebuck, and the Rathfarnham South ward to South (East) and, on the south, will lose the part of the district electoral division of Rathmichael which was transferred to County Wicklow in 1957.

The task of dealing with population changes in other areas is simpler. In Cavan, Roscommon and Longford-Westmeath, we propose a reduction of one member without any alteration of the boundaries.

The Cork area is, after Dublin, that containing the largest concentration of population in the country, with a total representation at present of 17 Deputies. We propose no change in the present representation or boundaries of the Cork city constituency but a reduction is proposed in the number of members to be returned by the county from 12 to 11, as well as a re-drawing of the constituency boundaries in the county so as to constitute one five-member constituency in mid-Cork and two three-member constituencies in East Cork and West Cork to replace the four existing three-member constituencies. I may mention that the five-member Mid-Cork constituency is not appreciably longer or more difficult to traverse than many of the existing three-member constituencies. In county Limerick, a minor change is proposed in order to transfer some of the surplus population from East Limerick to West Limerick. The number involved is 2,582.

Since the last constituency revision, a small part of county Dublin has, as I have mentioned, been transferred to county Wicklow and now forms part of the Bray urban district. The Waterford county borough has also been extended to include an area which was formerly in county Kilkenny. It is proposed in the Bill to alter the boundaries of the Wicklow and Dun Laoghaire and Rathdown constituencies as well as the boundaries of the Carlow-Kilkenny and Waterford constituencies in order to make them conform with the changed administrative boundaries. Only minor changes are involved.

The provisions of the Bill itself follow the lines of the 1947 Act and do not need any elaborate explanation at this stage.

In conclusion, I may say that the Bill provides for nine five-member and nine four-member constituencies which is the same number as at present. The number of three-member constituencies at 21 is one less than at present. I might mention that I have arranged for maps showing the constituencies where boundary changes are involved to be displayed in the Oireachtas Library.

Professor Hayes

My personal view on this Bill is the same as the view I expressed in 1947 on a similar Bill. This House undoubtedly has a constitutional right to discuss, or even to amend, this Bill, but it seems to me that as the Bill got a very full discussion in the other House, there is not very much left for us to do but to accept it as it comes to us from the other House, because it does, in fact, concern them exclusively.

However, the Minister has raised certain points and perhaps, very briefly, I might give my views upon them. The notion of a very small Dáil is a bad one when you consider that the Dáil must contain at least two sets of people capable of forming a Government. There are other reasons, too. Having regard to the nature of the work Deputies have to do, it seems that the membership of the Dáil is fair enough. The Minister went to considerable pains to explain that the Bill retains what he calls a bias towards the rural constituencies. There may be some merit in that, and I do not want particularly to discuss it, but in the other House a point was raised as to whether or not it is constitutional to have a constituency in which considerably more voters are required to put one member into the Dáil than are required in another.

Attention was drawn by the Minister to-day, and in the other House, to the difficulties which rural Deputies experienced in getting to their constituents and the physical difficulties the constituents have in reaching Deputies for interviews. That, I think, is correct, particularly in certain areas, but it is also true to say that the Constitution is not framed in such a way as to take account of that kind of difficulty. There is no doubt at all about that. There is nothing in the Constitution to justify what one may call a rural bias. The word "practicable" in the Constitution has nothing whatever to do with what the Minister called a democratic process to give facility of access as between a Deputy and his constituents. The provision in the Constitution reads:—

The ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.

There can be no doubt whatever that it would have been practicable for the Minister and the Oireachtas to arrange that the number of people electing a Deputy would be roughly the same throughout the country and there can be no doubt that would be in accord with the Constitution. Whether what has been done is, in fact, in accord with the Constitution is a moot point and certainly the Constitution takes no account whatever of the matters upon which the Minister laid such stress.

Having said that, I revert to my original opinion. Leaving the matter of the Constitution aside to be settled in whatever way may be determined, I think this Bill is one which this House should pass.

Mr. Murphy

Unlike Senator Hayes, I think this is a Bill which should be opposed. I say that because I think, even though the Constitution is being met in so far as the electoral areas are being reviewed within the time provided, the result of the review is not, in my opinion, in conformity with the Constitution. I refer, of course, to that section of the Constitution which says:

The ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.

The Minister made a good argument as to why there should be a rural bias in regard to the allocation of seats between the rural areas and the cities but that is not provided for in the Constitution. I think the argument as to whether there should or should not be a rural bias is rather beside the point. The Constitution is silent on that matter and it is a matter for this House, as a House constituted under the Constitution, to have regard to what the Constitution says.

Even though we are dealing with the allocation of seats in the Dáil, I think the Seanad should oppose this measure because of the result produced by the review. The Minister says that the rural bias is very slight. Whether or not it is slight again is beside the point. The Minister went on to quote some interesting figures about the persons per hundred acres in various areas in various constituencies. Again, I suggest, that is beside the point. What we are dealing with is a review of the constituencies as laid down by the Constitution and I suggest under the terms provided for in the Constitution.

The Minister referred to the changes in population and this brings us to what I consider is an interesting point, namely, not only what the population is in the various constituencies at the moment but also what are the reasonable expectations of changes and developments in the next 12 years. We are starting off in the year 1959 by providing a rural bias, with the result that certain rural areas, particularly Galway and Donegal——

Mr. Lenihan

And Wexford.

Mr. Murphy

I have not got the current figures but Galway and Donegal are being unduly favoured in regard to the number of Deputies in relation to the population. It seems to me that we can hardly expect in the next 12 years that there will be a drift of population towards those rural areas from the cities. I should like to hope that such would be the case but I do not think any reasonable person would expect that result. On the contrary, from our experience, it would appear that there will continue to be that drift from the country to the cities and at the end of 12 years, the bias and the injustice to the cities will be even greater than is proposed in this Bill.

Let us not ignore the fact that in giving a rural bias, we are, whether we like it or not, inflicting an injustice on the cities. In effect, we are making the Dublinman's vote less valuable than the vote of a Galwayman or a Donegalman. I am not a Dublin man, as Senators may know, but I am a democrat and I think it is thoroughly undemocratic that we should conceive and arrange a situation in which the vote of a person—merely because he happens to be living in one area—will be of appreciably less value than the vote of a person living in another area.

The Minister said in the Dáil that one of the principles adopted in approaching this review was that there should be as little change as possible in the constituencies as they stand at the moment. I think that is desirable but that is not the sole criterion. It is not one of the principles laid down in the Constitution. Let us look at the result of the review that has taken place, the result embodied in this Bill. We find, as is very well explained to us in the explanatory memorandum which accompanies the Bill, that there is a reduction of one Deputy in each of the constituencies of Cavan, Longford-Westmeath and Roscommon. I was interested in looking at the position which resulted in those constituencies when the people were last asked to cast their votes, namely, in the referendum during the summer. It may be a coincidence but it is still strange that in the first of them, Cavan, there was a majority for the Government, for the abolition of P.R., but in all the others, Longford-Westmeath, Roscommon and in Cork North and Cork South—which it is proposed to merge—there was a substantial majority against the Government and in favour of the Constitution as it stands at present.

That sort of result was even more marked in the cities. It was even more marked in the large centres of population. Under this Bill, we are providing that their votes in coming elections will be of less value than the votes in other rural areas. The Minister in his final speech on this measure in the Dáil said that nothing new was involved and that, in effect, he was not doing anything to Dublin that did not already exist. Those may not be the exact words he used but I think the sense of what he said was that he is not introducing any new principle in taking the hammer at Dublin. For the past decade, Dublin has been under an injustice in this matter and the Minister is not simply introducing that injustice. However, the Minister, and the Oireachtas, have a duty to correct any injustice that might have arisen in the preceding 12 years and it is because of that that the Constitution provides there shall be a review every 12 years.

The Minister and the Government in this measure have not tackled the problem properly. They have not had sufficient regard to the Constitution and they have not done a good job. I notice that the number of Deputies is being reduced. There is, I think, a fairly widespread public opinion at the moment that the number of Deputies should be further reduced but I do not subscribe to that opinion. Nevertheless, we have here the maximum number of Deputies that can be provided under the Constitution. Again we have the experience that unfortunately the population is tending to drop. I hope that trend can be reversed but really are we not being a little optimistic in providing that as the population stands at the moment we shall have the very maximum number of Deputies there can be and not have regard to what might be reasonable expectations in the next 12 years?

One drastic change has been made by the Minister. I referred to the principles he adopted in approaching this review, namely, to try to avoid disturbance of the constituencies as they stand at present, but I find that in my native county, Cork, he is really taking the hatchet and has decided to merge North and South Cork, and thus we have what was a frightful thing, according to the Minister when we last saw him—in connection with P.R. and the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill—in that we have an unwieldy constituency with a length from one end to the other of 110 miles. If it was necessary, as I think it was, to reduce the numbers of Deputies and to rearrange the constituencies, I think that other constituencies were more deserving of some drastic and severe rearrangement than the constituencies I refer to, namely, Cork North and Cork South.

The Minister has embodied proposals—and I see that here he has the support of the Leader of the Opposition in the Dáil—which gave a rural bias but some areas are more equal than others. Galway and Donegal are certainly more equal than Cork, Cork North and Cork South. I think the Bill does not meet the letter or the spirit of the Constitution and because of that, and because I believe in democracy, believe in equal rights and equal values attached to votes, I oppose this measure.

Professor Stanford

Despite what Senator Murphy has said, I still think this is a fair minded and sensible Bill, and I should like to support it. It seems to me that, as a matter of national policy, we are right to have a rural bias. The word "bias" sounds ugly, but in this case I think it faces the facts. Economically, we have to remember that we draw our main wealth from the country and anything we can do to preserve its morale and to strengthen it is wise nationally. I think, too, as a matter of equity, that there is something to be said for giving the country voter slightly more weight than the city voter because area and distance are not to be neglected. They have to travel further and are responsible, as it were, for a larger slice of the country. I think it is a kind of equity to give their votes a little more weight than those in the city.

Psychologically, too, although I am a city man myself, I think the country voter is often a wiser man in taking the long view than the city voter. I think the reason is that very often he has to act and think for himself in a way in which the city man has not got to do when he is working in an industry or a large firm. The countryman has to be a man of initiative while the working man, whether he is in a factory or in the university or wherever he is chiefly goes by the rules and regulations laid down.

Speaking as a city man, I think the Government are right to have this rural bias. But what I want to commend the Bill for chiefly is this. The Government have not reduced the number of five and four members constituencies. I do not know whether it was deliberately so or not, but I think that it was a fair minded action because, as I see it, the Government could have nullified much of the effect of the referendum by cutting down the constituencies with the larger number of members, which it was within their powers to do. If there had been rancour or meanness in the Government's mind, they could have reduced these. And, if they had reduced these multiple-member constituencies, they would have gone right against the principle which I and some others put forward in the Seanad, that the minorities had their rights better preserved by proportional representation than by the so-called straight vote.

I think it is wise and commendable on the Government's part to preserve these constituencies with the larger number of representatives, and I think the various minorities will appreciate that point. I have nothing more to say. I simply wish to commend the Bill, both for its preservation of the good points of proportional representation, and for its rural bias.

Mr. Barry

In his preamble, the Minister devoted a great deal of time to discussing the difficulty of forming an Executive from the present small House. I think in that he indicated he had what we all have a little of, that is, a guilty conscience about the large number of Parliamentarians we have and the small number of people in the country. For many years, there has been public criticism of the size of the Dáil. Those of us who are aware of the work of public representatives, and of the difficulties they encounter due to geographical considerations, particularly in country areas, feel that that side of the case has not been put sufficiently fully to the people. At any rate, though I am a member of a Party who took a very positive decision in another matter, I think the cost to the people here per public representative is probably very much lower than it is in any other country.

If we do have that guilty conscience about what is alleged to be over-representation, and if the Minister finds it necessary to make a speech defending this piece of legislation, having so much of its framework based on that point, I want to suggest that it is not lack of members that we suffer from but lack of ability, and I want to state something that might seem to be a little hypercritical, namely, that it is lack of quality. There is a great lack of quality in the Irish Houses of Parliament. I am a member of one of those Houses and that is my considered opinion. What you should do to rectify that is another story.

I think the representation is ample, and in seeking certain changes in the Bill, we have had a very attractive phrase coined, that we are tending towards a rural bias. That might be unconstitutional but it sounds very well. However in seeking that rural bias, we have turned into some rather curious labyrinths. Briefly the result is that Galway can laugh at the Mid-Cork constituency, and what is apparently rural in Galway is not so rural in one of the best farming and most industrious areas in the Twenty-Six Counties.

Mr. Burke

Hear, hear!

Mr. Barry

I suppose one should not talk politics in a place like this, but I think that had the two constituencies in Mid-Cork done better than one-third for the Government Party in many elections, they would have done better for themselves in this Bill. Maybe Cork city and Cork county together are to be punished for rejecting the Government's very paternal advice regarding the proportional representation system.

I do want the House to note that the delightful intimacy which the President upheld, the intimacy of a single-seat constituency with its homely, over-the-garden-wall contact with its public representative, has been completely lost sight of in the 110 miles long constituency in the middle of the county from which I come. There is no intimacy there. The Leader of the House knows that area better than I do. He knows how far it is from the town of Kinsale to the borders of Cork and Tipperary, and I think he would prefer to be a member of the Seanad for the whole country than to be a Dáil Deputy for that area.

I do not believe it is the duty of the Opposition to delay this Bill, but I hope that the criticisms I have made will occasion some comment from what I must say is a rather silent Government side of the House.

Dr. O'Donovan

I might repeat the observation of the last speaker and say that we should like to hear from the other side of the House, preferably from some Galwayman. The Constitution sets out that the constituencies must be revised once every 12 years. This Electoral (Amendment) Bill was circulated about a month ago, that is to say, at the 11th hour and 59th minute of the 12th year. Strictly speaking, I think it should become law to-morrow or the day after. It should be passed before 27th November, 1959. If it is not law, no general election can be legally held in this country after that.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

And we would be here for ever.

Professor Hayes

Let us hold it up.

Dr. O'Donovan

It has been done. It would not be the first time it was done, if that happened.

Mr. Burke

We can talk ourselves into permanency.

Mr. O'Donovan

I was really astonished that the Bill did not make its appearance earlier. Actually I prepared a letter to the Press which I did not send for a reason which was personal to the Minister. I had it drafted, but I thought it might be personal if I sent it at a particular time. My reason for feeling that way about it is that the previous Government had before them a proposal from the civil servants in the Department of Local Government, before they left office at the beginning of 1957. I shall come back to the nature of those proposals later. What happened in the intervening three years? I think it is obvious what happened. The Government put all its eggs into the basket labelled "Abolition of proportional representation," and they made no arrangements for the contingency of the attempt to abolish proportional representation going wrong.

When it did go wrong subsequently —I disagree with Senator Stanford— it seems to me that the Government did direct their mind very definitely towards an attempt to nullify the affect of the referendum on proportional representation, in so far as it could under a Bill of this sort, but, as Deputy McGilligan said in the Dáil, Ministers are wasting their time doing that kind of thing. It only shows whether they are fair minded, to use Senator Stanford's phrase.

Professor Stanford

May I just ask the Senator to make it clear how he disagrees with me? I am always very ready to be corrected.

Dr. O'Donovan

During the course of my speech, I shall make it clear, Senator. Regarding the Bill, the usual phrase may be "fairminded and sensible". That is not the question we are here to discuss. We are here to discuss representation as provided by the Constitution. This Bill does not provide for representation as laid down in the Constitution. I agree with what Senator Murphy said about that subject and also with the case, which was not answered, made by Deputy McGilligan on the Fifth Stage of the Bill in the Dáil. When the Minister came to deal with Deputy McGilligan's carefully reasoned arguments, the Minister indulged in a great deal of personal abuse. If anybody wants to hear them, I can quote them.

When we examine the Bill, as it comes to us, let us not forget that the Seanad is entitled, if it insisted on its constitutional rights, to hold up this Bill for three months. Suppose it did hold up the Bill for three months, would we be accused, as we were last Spring, of standing on the people's rights and not allowing the people to fulfil their function? That was the real thread of the argument which went through the speeches made on Proportional Representation in the early part of the Spring.

I agree with the Leader of the Fine Gael Party in this House. This is not a Bill which the Seanad should hold up. At the same time, I think the Seanad would be quite entitled to amend the Bill, if it felt so inclined. The relevant part of the Constitution is at Article 16, Section 2, Paragraph 3. It states:

The ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.

The important phrase there is "so far as it is practicable." There is no use talking about whether you can move across a range of mountains when one is not quite sure whether it runs north-west to south-east or northeast to south-west or whether it runs both ways, depending upon how you look at it. On a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the county and city of Dublin are entitled on this redistribution of seats to five extra seats. Unlike the people who believe in this rural bias, I am not a hog for the last ounce of representation for the city of Dublin. If this Bill had given three extra seats to the city and county of Dublin, I do not think you would have heard a great deal of criticism. Although it would not be in accord with the Constitution, it would be nearer by far than is the present Bill. With the amendment in, the county and city of Dublin have got one extra seat. If it had got three extra seats, I do not think any sensible person would have objected. It would still have allowed the Government to allocate two seats somewhere else. That was not satisfactory from the Government's point of view.

When one examines this Bill, one realises that the Government do not really believe in democracy. Like Senator Murphy, I believe in the principle of democracy—one man, one vote and all votes of equal value. We all know the history of "rotten" boroughs and "pocket" boroughs. If county Galway, under this Bill, is not a "rotten" borough or a "pocket" borough, it is near enough to it. What is the position? The position, in fact, is that five votes in county Galway are equal to eight votes in certain parts of the city and county of Dublin. It might be 7½ or something like that but it was five equal to eight without calculating out to the nearest place of decimals. I see Senator Lahiffe smiling blandly at that position. Naturally, he does. I would, too, if it referred to Dublin South (East).

I must say that the Minister made one statement during his speech that shocked me. He said that while Dublin county had the largest ratio of population to the number of Deputies in the existing Dáil, Dublin North (Central) had by far the lowest ratio in the country. He gave the figure as 14,750. It might be the lowest ratio in the country but to suggest that it was by far the lowest ratio in the country is a gross misstatement of the facts. It is completely false. It is not by far the lowest. Galway is within one-eighth or a decimal point of it. I think that the Minister spoiled his case by making that grossly inaccurate statement.

I come now to the proposals which were put to the previous Minister for Local Government at the beginning of 1957. The House should remember that these proposals came from the Department of Local Government. What did they suggest for the city, particularly the south side of the city of Dublin, that part of Dublin south of the Liffey? This was the proposal that was put to the Minister. The constituency of Dublin South (East) was to have three Deputies and it was not to be changed. It was about right. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown was to have five Deputies to which it was entitled. A new Dublin South (West) constituency, consisting, roughly speaking, of Rathmines, Rathfarnham and Crumlin areas was to have four Deputies. Dublin South (Central) was to have four Deputies, which was dead right. It was to be cut one, which was perfectly in accord with population. Finally, there was a new constituency of three Deputies which, for want of a better name, I shall call Ballyfermot. It was the Drimnagh-Ballyfermot area. That is a total of 19 seats.

What, in fact, did the Minister put into his Bill? He made no change whatever. I am speaking from recollection. It is a total of 16. It is extraordinary how this happened. There was no information available between 1957 and the time this Bill was prepared in the early autumn of 1959—the end of 1956 and the later part of 1959. The fact is that that was what fair-minded people would have done, to use Senator Stanford's phrase. They would have given 19 seats to that area. In fact, the city and county of Dublin were entitled to somewhat more seats.

That was what any fair-minded person would have done. It is obvious from the debate that has taken place— I do not see it quite so obviously— that other people think that Donegal has been the guiding line in this whole matter. If I accept the Taoiseach's statement that the mountains run north to south, I cannot understand why there are three in East Donegal and three in West Donegal under this Bill. In county Donegal, there is only 119,000 of a population. It does not quite qualify for six seats but so far as it is practicable, it is near enough. No one is going to argue about one or two thousand. Similarly, speaking from recollection, the population of county Galway is 155,000. I would not object to Galway getting eight seats. It would be quite an easy thing to do. Make two coherent constituencies, West and East Galway constituencies, calling it North and East Galway constituency. Combine the two constituencies and there you have your two constituencies, five plus three seats, Galway city and west of it.

Mr. Lahiffe

Wait until I get the Senator down in Galway again.

Dr. O'Donovan

I frequently go to Galway on my holidays. I think they will have as good a reception for me as I have always got. Words are important in this matter. The Minister talked about the Bill and said it retains a bias towards the rural areas. There is no justification for the assertion that the Bill retains a bias towards the rural areas.

Again speaking from recollection, the constituency that had the highest population per Deputy under the 1947 arrangement was that of Louth. It is a fifty-fifty constituency. As far as I can make out, Dundalk, Drogheda and Ardee comprise about half the population of Louth which, speaking from recollection, is about 69,000. Therefore, there were 23,000 votes per Deputy there compared with 20,000 for the county as a whole. That could have been rectified by an additional seat. Also, in County Meath, there were too many. You could divide a seat between Louth and Meath, or something of that sort, if you wanted to.

I examined the figures given following replies to Parliamentary Questions. My conclusion was that in the 1937 Bill or Act and in the 1947 Bill or Act—these were years, as far as I recollect, when there was a ten-year interval compared with the full 12 years now—taking the areas round the country, a fair effort was made, on the whole, to allocate the seats by population. I am not saying there was not a slight element of turning a line a bit to the North or South of where it should go in certain areas. However, in the 1937 Act, I think the Minister for Local Government of the day, Deputy MacEntee, turned his attention more towards creating a three-seat constituency in the belief that his Party would in most cases get two out of three seats. If you are having a Parliamentary system of Government I think it is as good a way of getting it as any. I do not believe in four-seat constituencies.

Mr. Lahiffe

Only for Galway.

Dr. O'Donovan

I said three and five for Galway.

Mr. Lahiffe

I thought the Senator said two fours.

Dr. O'Donovan

I did not. I want only to get out of the practical difficulty there. I prefer the three.

Mr. Lahiffe

The Senator would like to have two fours, though.

Dr. O'Donovan

I would not. From such elementary arithmetical calculations as I have made, a Party can get two seats out of four with under 40 per cent. of the votes. I do not agree with 39 per cent. of the electors getting 50 per cent. of the seats. Apparently the Government Party do, in a global way, taking the country as a whole. They would like 39 per cent. of the electors—which is roughly what the Government had; 37 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the electorate—to get 50 per cent. or more of the seats, 55 per cent. of the seats.

I think the argument about the constitutionality of this Bill was put excellently by Deputy McGilligan on the Fifth Stage of the Bill in the Dáil. It is not necessary for me to go into the meaning of the word "practicable". It is quite well set out by Deputy McGilligan. There is no question about his accuracy in relation to it and the various points about it, taking it from the Oxford Dictionary. The ratio at present is seriously out of line with what it should be under the Constitution. My opinion is that if this Bill goes to the Supreme Court it will not be upheld. I am not a lawyer, but I firmly believe this Bill has no hope of being upheld by the Supreme Court.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We shall be here forever, then.

Dr. O'Donovan

We shall have to pass another Bill. To come back to the point made particularly by Senator Murphy in a cogent way, I was tempted to put down an amendment to the Bill myself. I do not think there is any point in putting down amendments to this Bill. This Bill is drafted in such a way that the Opposition should have said to the Government: "If that is the kind of thing you want you can have it."

Senator Murphy made this excellent point: why could the Government not have transferred one of the seats from Galway—still having Galway over-represented, technically—to the mid-Cork area? Of course, Senator Barry gave the answer—because the Government wanted to get two seats out of five in mid-Cork which they will get, they hope, and I think, instead of two seats out of six. In the present arrangement, with three-seat constituencies in Galway, they hope to retain six out of nine seats in Galway— perhaps, at the worst, five out of nine.

Mr. Lahiffe

We will get six seats out of eight.

Dr. O'Donovan

No. I believe that if there were eight seats Fianna Fáil would certainly get only five out of the eight and might quite easily get four out of the eight. Fianna Fáil had only one out of three in North-East Galway before. The Opposition had two.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We had five out of seven one time in Kerry.

Dr. O'Donovan

Let us go further. Fianna Fáil had eight out of nine or seven out of nine in Galway at one time.

Mr. Lahiffe

We had two out of two in South Galway at one time.

Mr. Barry

Senators should not talk politics now.

A Senator

Senator Barry is not a politician.

Dr. O'Donovan

This Bill shows the Minister as a man who can see only as far as the next election. This kind of thing is extremely bad. If it were reasonably done, nobody would have any great objection to it but an effort to make five votes in County Galway worth eight in County Dublin is extremely objectionable and I think the Bill will not stand up to investigation by the Supreme Court.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I agree with a good deal of what Senator O'Donovan has said about this Bill. I do not think there is any point in putting down amendments. I do not think it is a Bill that could be much improved in Committee. I think it would need to be redesigned ab initio to satisfy the demands of justice.

One of the arguments put in this House in favour of the retention of P.R. was that, under P.R., it is relatively difficult to gerrymander a constituency, whereas, under the single-seat constituency system, you get some very queer-shaped constituencies which render the whole operation considerably easier. I do not think there is any major new injustice brought in by this Bill, though I do think it continues the kind of injustice and disparity we have had under previous Bills. Nevertheless, if you look at the shape of some of the Dublin constituencies, for instance, on the maps downstairs, one begins to wonder whether it would take much more of a change and a twist here and there to make them look like the original gerrymandered constituency which was somewhere in New York, I believe. The shape is beginning to look peculiar. You are getting places like Ringsend cut off from the constituency in which they have been for a very long time, for purposes to which the Minister did not advert. I am not quite sure why this arrangement is considered necessary.

Mr. Murphy

There was not a range of mountains there.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

There may be a range of mountains there. It may be due to the silting of the canals there, resulting possibly from the giving over of the canals, or as a result of some change in topographical conditions I have not yet spotted. The Minister did not advert to this.

I do not think this Bill introduces any major new injustice, but it does continue, as Senator Dr. O'Donovan suggests, many other ones. It does continue disparities that have existed before. I think it is in that sense that Senator Stanford says that this Bill, judged in the light of existing conditions is a fair-minded Bill, and to some extent I think I could agree there. Where Senator Dr. O'Donovan seems to be slightly innocent is that he thinks that if his Party, for instance, were introducing such a Bill, all these disproportions, and so forth, would be abolished and we would get pretty even representation. I reject that view. I do not accept or believe that either of the big Parties are prepared, in practice, to try to see that the principle "one man, one vote" and the equality of voting power should be given throughout the country. I have not seen any sign of that in any electoral Bill or any amending Bills.

I think it should be possible under proportional representation, if properly used, when there is an increase in population in a certain area, presuming the constituency to have been reasonably designed in the first place, simply to add a seat, to increase it from a five to a six or seven member constituency, and where there is a decrease in population, either to reduce the number of members or, better still, fuse two constituencies. I do not think there would be any objection. I should like to see the constituency division centring around five- or seven-member constituencies rather than upon the smaller one with only three members.

It is true, as the Minister has been able to point out, that the number of constituencies which have been changed is, if I understood him correctly, only one. Only one three-member constituency has disappeared, and there remain nine five-member, nine four-member and 21 three-member constituencies. These 21 three-member constituencies are too many. I should at least like to see far more five-member constituencies.

I do not share the Minister's view, either, that the question of distance within a constituency is so difficult. I think that is hokum. I do not believe it is at all so difficult to get around Ireland, much less around one constituency. Furthermore, I do not believe T.D.s spend time going round their constituencies in this way. I do not believe they seek their constituents out, except of course immediately before an election. Then you get a big circulation of T.D.s in a constituency. They cover the area and they might find it a little expensive in petrol to run around a big area then, but that only applies immediately before an election.

I do not think T.D.s spend much time going to the outlying areas and if there were some voters from those areas in this House to-day, they would bear me out and say they have not seen their T.D. since before the last election. The distance to Dublin is considerably less than the distance from Aberdeen to London. It is quite possible to cover all the distances within Ireland, so it is nonsense to talk about these gigantic mountain ranges and impossible geographical barriers. I would not object to having considerably bigger constituencies.

According to the Constitution:—

The ratio between the numbers of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.

When do numbers cease to be the same? When does an increase, for instance, on the number 16,000 begin to look like a disparity? If you find you get one T.D. for 16,000, one T.D. for 16,500 and one T.D. for 17,000, is that a disparity or is that still "the same"? When do we regard 17,000 as being the same as 16,000, and if so, can we go so far as 17,500? You have one T.D. representing 16,000 and one representing 17,500. At what point does a number cease to be "the same"? The words used in the Constitution are "shall ... be the same throughout the country."

We are asked in this Bill to believe that it is the same when one T.D. represents 16,000 people, another represents 17,000 or 17,500 and another 24,000. So, under the terms of this Bill, 24,000 is equal to 16,000. I do not know what our primary schoolteachers would think of that piece of mathematics, or what the children in our schools would think of the mathematical capacity of those who ask us to believe that, for practical purposes, 24,000 is equal to 16,000.

It is quite clear that this disparity is there far in excess of what is rendered necessary by practical considerations. That brings me back to the phrase in the constitution "so far as it is practicable". Senator O'Donovan made the point that this in fact means that, in practice, it is not possible to have an absolutely identical figure but it certainly is perfectly possible—that is to say, practicable—to have the figure considerably closer than the distance between 16,000 and 24,000. Therefore, I think there is a strong presumption that what Senator O'Donovan says is right and that this Bill does not conform to the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. The figures I give, by the way, 16,000 and 24,000, were given by the Minister himself when speaking in the other House. He mentioned, if I understood him correctly, as a justification for the disparity, not that it was not practicable to have the numbers the same throughout the country, but that it did not suit the Government and did not suit the country, because the Government thought there should be a bias in favour of the rural areas and the rural voter.

In my contention, that amounts to this: the Government says: "We are not going to obey the Constitution, because we do not think it would be good for the country to obey the Constitution." The Constitution says representation must be "the same", and the Government say you must give a bias to the rural area. It is for the Minister to demonstrate to us—if he will give his attention to the problem—that to give a bias to the rural votes can be considered the exact equivalent of having the same representation for country and town.

In other words, the Government are trying deliberately and openly and admittedly to give a bias in favour of one section of the electorate and they must prove that, in doing that, they are in fact giving the same representation throughout the country. The phrase "throughout the country" is the phrase used in the Constitution. I feel there is a heavy onus upon the Government to show that they have in some Article of the Constitution the right to give a bias to the rural areas. I contend they have no such right.

I contend, too, that it certainly is not covered in the phrase "so far as it is practicable" because the phrase does not say: "So far as you can help the country people and produce a bias in their favour." There is nothing like that implied in it. I feel the Minister has gone outside his brief, and so have the Government, in telling us they are not obeying the Constitution simply because they think a bias in favour of the rural areas would be a good idea.

Perhaps I am cynical—more cynical than my colleague, Senator Stanford— because I am afraid there is a connection, as has been suggested by Senator O'Donovan and Senator Murphy, between the fact that in the recent referendum, the country voters followed pretty docilely, in the majority of cases, the Government's view on the abolition of P.R., while the city voters said no, and stood by the Constitution.

I believe there is a connection between that and the strong desire on the part of the Government to give a bias in favour of the rural voters. The case for that bias is not contained in the paragraph of the Constitution which is quoted in the explanatory memorandum. I have not followed the geographical implications very closely, but judging by the Dáil debate, apparently faith in the Government has actually moved mountains in Donegal. That is a very impressive thing to see happening. I do not know whether there is any aerial photography to show precisely what happened, but there seems to be a preoccupation with imaginary geography behind the laying down of the dividing line in certain constituencies. I think that is an unhappy thing. It may be an entertaining thing, but I do not think it provides good political administration.

Furthermore, the Minister has put it to us that population density has got something to do with a man's importance as a voter. He quoted figures to show us, and, while I am afraid I did not jot them all down, the general tenor was that the fewer people living on the acres around you, the more important your vote is. I do not accept that. I do not believe it is true. I do not think that population density ought to have anything at all to do with the individual importance of one man's, or woman's vote. The T.D.s should represent not acres but people. That is so simple and obvious that we ought all accept it, and I am surprised at the Minister mentioning the number of acres that are to be represented by T.D.s. Some T.D.s may come to be regarded as representatives of very empty acres indeed, if the present trend of emigration goes on.

I do not think acreage or area has anything to do with representation. Representation in Parliament must depend on the counting of heads, on individual votes and on individual people. That is not a perfect system, but it is the democratic system and I suggest that in applying——

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister would like to cast his vote in the other House.

Professor Hayes

It is not as bad as that.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The distances are very great to the other House. I do not know whether the transport is available or not.

If I may continue, in the hope that we shall have the Minister with us again soon, having got in touch with these outlying areas of our own particular House, the point I am making is that any suggestion that the density of the population—and I am using the word "density" meaning overcrowding and not mental incapacity—should have anything to do with the number of votes is wrong, but if one were to make such a suggestion, I think one might put it the other way, in some circumstances. For instance, in relation to housing, I would say that if it was a question of a decision on overcrowding more weight might possibly lie with those people who have to put up with the overcrowding, and who are congested together in tenements, than with those outside in the wide open spaces. If there were to be this argument, it would seem to be the other way.

However, I would stick to the view that no matter what one's living conditions, or wealth, or importance, or acreage, one should have one vote which proportionately should carry no more weight than that enjoyed by one's neighbour. The voter is not more important if he is living by himself on one hundred acres than if he is living with 54 other people in a Dublin tenement.

There are other matters which I should like to have seen dealt with in an Electoral (Amendment) Bill. I have a feeling that some of them would probably require a special Bill, although they all deal with electoral methods. Therefore, I do not want to dwell at length on them. I should like to think of the Government being preoccupied and concerned with changes in, for instance, the lay-out of the ballot paper. It seems to me that a reform in that connection has long been needed. What I mean is that it seems to me that the function of the ballot paper is to place the voter, as far as possible, in a position to make an informed choice. The ballot paper should be fully explanatory and should show to what Party each candidate belongs. That would require perhaps a special Electoral (Amendment) Bill. I am prepared to accept that it could not be introduced into such a Bill as this, but there should be such an Electoral (Amendment) Bill.

In my opinion, the Government should introduce a fuller type of Electoral (Amendment) Bill in order to simplify the voting process for the benefit of the voter and in order to allow him or her to choose with a full knowledge of the facts. Similarly, the whole question of deposits, the amount and forfeiting of deposits, the proportion of the quota which has to be got to save one's deposit, are all details which require amendment in our electoral system.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is now going very wide of the Bill.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I realise that. There is just one point here which seems to be related to the size of constituencies. I really mean to the number of Deputies per constituency. I think it will be agreed that the fewer the number of members in a constituency, the bigger the quota is likely to be, that is to say, the division of the number of seats into the total electorate is likely to produce a bigger quota. Therefore, it may well happen in a constituency where there are very few members— a three member constituency—that it may be more difficult than it would be in a nine-member constituency to achieve the amount of quota necessary to save one's deposit. I accept the view that this might be a bit outside the scope of this particular Bill and I pass on, having thrown out the suggestion that some of us would like to see the Government concerned at some future date with some of these apparently minor, but I think, quite important, changes in our electoral system.

I pass on to the final question of the ideal size of the Dáil. On a previous occasion, in relation to the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. I proposed amendments which would have produced a Dáil ranging, if I remember correctly, from somewhere between 90 and 130, or 120 members. One of the sections of this Bill lays down the actual size of the Dáil, so it is very much in order to say whether or not we favour this view. The Government have decided what the size, of the Dáil should be, the ideal size, though the population is diminishing, and they have decided to drop its membership by two only The Minister adverted to that in his opening speech, and said a Dáil was required which should provide a sufficient number of people from whom to select a Government and an Opposition, and perhaps an alternative, as it were, another Opposition.

We would all agree with that but where I would differ from the Minister is on the figure. He says that the Government think about 140 members is right. I think 120 would be plenty and I should like to see throughout the country something like 17 or 18 seven-member constituencies. I do not really mind whether some of these would be very extensive in area, and I think they could be designed to produce a House of somewhere around 120 members. It should be recognised that in this Dáil of ours where we are to have one Deputy for every 20,000 of the population, as opposed to every 80,000 in Britain, our Deputies are not, in fact, asked to do the same amount of Committee work, responsible Committee work, that is asked of their counterparts in the British House of Commons. I do not suggest there is not a good deal of work done outside the House itself, but the amount of responsible Committee work expected of Dáil members is not anything like as great as that expected of the people across the water. Yet there they have one member to 80,000 and here we have representation four times as strong. I think that disparity is too big. If we were to have representation similar to Britain, our Dáil would be too small, but the difference between the two at the moment is too great.

If we were to reduce our Dáil to 120 members, I believe the quality of the individual members would go up, because it would be—shall I say?— the less strenuous T.D.s who would disappear. The better ones would remain. I do not think we would lose anything by cutting down the Dáil by about 20 members. The fact is that in one constituency—I am not sure whether it is Donegal or Galway; actually, I think it is Donegal and I am sorry the Minister is not yet back here, as he might be able to give me the actual figure—there is to be one Deputy for every 16,000 of the population, whereas in Dublin we are to have one for every 24,000. I have stressed that before and I do not wish to dwell further on this disparity. Yet I must say that people in Dublin are not resigned to the presumption that any two Donegal men are worth any three Dublin men. That might be popular in Donegal; it might be popular in other parts of the country; but is it really fair play, and does it conform with the Constitution which says that the representation shall be "the same throughout the country"?

It seems to me that the Government are asking us to accept the continuance of such disparities. I do not suggest that these are being invented by the Government, because they are, to a great extent, only continuing what has been too long tolerated. They are not doing their duty as a Government however in failing to right these wrongs and amend these disparities and have produced a Bill consequently which is only a shadow of the Bill which should be brought before us.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

I must say that I did not think we would be treated to such a long discussion on this Bill. I think that any fair-minded, unbiased individual must give credit to the Minister for having brought in a measure designed to meet the situation that exists in the country today as regards the trend of population, the density of population in certain parts, and the sparsity of population in other parts, and I do not agree with Senators who say that these things should not be taken into account in a Bill of this kind. Of course they must.

Mr. Murphy

The Constitution?

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

I shall deal with the constitutional position in due course. As has been the case with many other measures that come before the Seanad, it is very difficult to ascertain whether some of the speakers who have spoken are for or against it. I must say that the Leader of the Opposition made a very reasonable speech on this Bill.

Professor Hayes

That is quite usual, you know.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

While he had some minor criticisms to offer, he accepts the Bill as a measure that has been well thought out.

Mr. O'Quigley

Be careful.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

And he also gave expression to the view, which is mine too, that a measure of this kind, which deals with Dáil elections, is more the concern of the members of the Dáil than it is of the members of the Seanad. Of course, that is not to say that the Seanad has not a constitutional right to deal with it, and to put down amendments as it thinks fit, but, despite all the criticisms we have heard today from some of the Senators opposite who are attached to political Parties, it is very strange that there were very few amendments, if any, put down to the Bill in the Dáil. If my recollection does not lead me astray, I think the Second Reading was accepted by the Dáil without opposition; yet we were told today by several Senators, especially by Senator Murphy, that this measure is undemocratic, and that we are taking away rights from certain sections of the people which we should not take away.

I do not agree with that at all and I do not agree, either, with those who find fault with the Bill because, as they said, it has a rural bias. I think it is only natural to expect that a Bill of this kind should have that bias because this is an agricultural country, our chief industry is the agricultural industry, and it is only right that in Dáil Éireann proper representation should be given to the country's major industry.

Mr. Murphy

Never mind what the Constitution says.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The Constitution does not provide for any difference in representation.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

I shall come to the Constitution later. Does any Senator suggest that the constituencies in this country could be so framed as to give mathematically precise representation all around?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Within 1,000 votes, yes.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

I think that would be utterly impossible. Those who say that the number of seats in a place like the city of Dublin should bear the same ratio to the population as in the country are not facing up to the realities of the situation. How could any realistic person try to convince himself that the same number of seats could be given in Dublin in ratio to the population as would be given up and down the country?

The Minister was right when he said that the trend of population in the country must be taken into account, the lie of the land, the mountains, the nature of the land in certain places and so on. All these things must be taken into account. Some of us know from experience that some T.D.s elected for certain rural parts have to travel a distance of 80, 100 and more than 100 miles from time to time to meet their constituents and attend meetings. In other words, I should like to point out to those people who find fault with and belittle the efforts and duties of T.D.s in rural Ireland that representation in the country parts is a whole-time job. It is not a five-day job, or a six-day job but a seven-day job. These people have to do as much work and sometimes more work than even civil servants have to do.

As to this question of the constitutionality or otherwise of this measure there can, of course, be divergent views on that, but my view, for all it is worth, is that the provisions of this Bill are in accordance with the Constitution. Perhaps, the House will bear with me if I again read the relevant sub-section of the Constitution. Article 16, paragraph 2, subparagraph (3) states:-

The ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.

The whole thing centres round the word "practicable".

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

It centres round the words "the same".

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

I say that it centres round the word "practicable" and not round the words "the same". As to the practicability or otherwise, we must have regard to the realities of the situation and, as I have pointed out, to try to give the same number of seats in ratio to the population in Dublin as down the country would not be practicable.

Mr. Murphy

Why?

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

That being so, I think it would be as well to get away from that argument. If there are people who feel strongly on it, no doubt an opportunity will be found elsewhere to have the matter tested. As I said at the outset, I think the Minister has done a good job with this measure. I think it is fair and equitable—as equitable as any Minister could make it.

If there is a rural bias, that is, as I said, only natural in a country like this, but the question is whether there is that great rural bias that Senators have been referring to because, in actual fact, in the general elections that have taken place before now, it has taken more voters on the average to elect a T.D. to the Dáil in the country than it has in the city of Dublin.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Question.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

That can be ascertained. I make that statement and it can be examined when I have sat down.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Will the Senator quote the figures?

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

I have not the figures here. It is not my duty to quote any figures. There is no obligation on me to quote figures. I am making a statement.

Professor Hayes

That is fair enough.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister in introducing this Bill sounded like a person who was making a justification for doing wrong and saying that what he was doing was not so wrong. The whole tenor of the Minister's speech was to justify the manner in which the provisions of the Constitution with regard to the limiting of the constituencies was being dealt with in the Bill.

I think that this House is bound to take some notice of what the Constitution provides. The other Senators who have spoken have all dealt with the constitutional aspect of this Bill. On a previous occasion, this same question of constitutionality of Acts of the Oireachtas came up here. I am beginning to wonder whether the Government in drafting legislation have any regard whatever for the provisions of the Constitution because the Constitution is quite specific on the point. It says:-

The Oireachtas shall not enact any law which is in any respect repugnant to the Constitution or any of the provisions thereof.

That is quite specific but the view taken by the Minister for Health on the Greyhound Industry Act was that the Oireachtas could enact any legislation it liked, provided it was not blatantly in contravention of the Constitution. That is not what the Constitution provides. The Minister and the Government apparently in relation to this Bill think it is sufficient if the Bill is not blatantly in defiance of the provisions of the Constitution.

The Minister said that there is a slight bias in favour of rural districts. That certainly is an understatement in the light of the figures that have been produced here by different Senators. The point that has been made—and I repeat it—is that there is no provision in the Constitution for a bias in favour of anything. The Minister must be well aware of that. The mountains in Donegal were there when the Constitution was passed in 1937 and the coastline on the western seaboard was much the same in 1937 as it is today. If the farmers of the Constitution wanted to provide for a bias or take into account certain geographical features of the country, that could have been done in the Constitution but it was not done.

Therefore, the Oireachtas is tied to an ordinary interpretation of Article 16, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution which provides that the ratio shall be on a mathematical basis so far as it is practicable and the practicability centres entirely on the odd thousand here and there where you could not get exactly even numbers.

The Minister's arguments in favour of departing from the provisions of the Constitution do not seem to hold any water. The Minister has spoken about Deputies in rural areas having vast distances to cover and said that the need for more Deputies in rural areas arises from the fact that these distances are big in some constituencies. It would seem to me that, in a place like the city of Dublin, the Deputy, by reason, of the density of population, is much more harassed by his constituents than the Deputy in a rural area because the means of communication are much more readily available than in a rural area. The Dublin Deputy can be contacted by telephone. If he is not at home, he can be contacted at Leinster House or at his place of business. To meet all the needs of the population of Dublin would require more Deputies because the people can all the time be in touch with their Deputies.

In rural areas, people do not travel great distances, except in extreme cases, to see their Deputies. Consequently, if the Minister talks about this facility being made available in rural areas to enable constituents to see their Deputies, he is not talking about something that is a fact. Apart altogether from that, the population is a literate population. The people are able to write and do write to their Deputies. The postal service is always available as a means of communication between Deputies and constituents in rural areas and, as far as my information goes, is very much availed of.

The Minister has also said that by reason of the whole range of social welfare and other benefits, people require to get in touch with their Deputies about them. If people have problems in relation to their rights under various enactments and schemes, I think this is not the way to solve them. A Deputy's primary function is to represent the whole of the people in his constituency. Much of the time of Deputies that might be devoted to the more important aspects of the national economy and to national problems is taken up in dealing with matters that need never require to be dealt with by Deputies or Senators, if local and Government authorities were a great deal more helpful to people who think they have grievances or who think they have rights in explaining these to them.

The Deputy can give very little assistance to any person who approaches him to know whether he is entitled, for instance, to a particular allowance under the Infectious Diseases (Maintenance) Regulations. A Senior Counsel would find the greatest difficulty in telling him that because they are all in regulations which are not to be found anywhere, hardly. Therefore, the problems with which Deputies are confronted by their individual constituents cannot be cured by having more Deputies but by an attack from an entirely different angle. The whole range of duties which devolve upon Deputies at present will not be lessened in the case of Donegal by giving the representation it is proposed to give them under this Bill but in an entirely different way, as I have indicated.

The Bill itself is not very easy to follow in some cases, particularly where constituency boundaries are being changed. I think we must regret, despite the fact that maps are supplied in the Oireachtas Library, that maps were not supplied to Deputies and Senators so that these matters could be followed with some precision. I cannot understand why, in this modern age, with photostatic equipment available, it was not possible, without the necessity of printing maps, to provide photostatic maps to enable people to see what precisely is being done in this Bill.

Senator Stanford rather commended the Government for not nullifying the effects of the Referendum. It would have been entirely deplorable if the Government had done anything more than they have done in this Bill to nullify the effects of the Referendum on P.R. It is perfectly clear that the Government did not find favour with Dublin in the Referendum and now Dublin does not find favour with the Government in this Bill. To that extent, this Bill is a product of the results of the Referendum on the Constitution.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington commented upon the fact that neither of the big Parties was prepared to do justice in relation to the distribution of seats and the allocation of Deputies in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. I think Senator Sheehy Skeffington should accept the word of Deputy O'Donnell, the former Minister for Local Government, in the Dáil on this Bill, when he indicated that he had asked his own Department, the Department of Local Government, to draft a Bill in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and having regard to the changes in population since the last revision and that it was the intention of Deputy O'Donnell, when Minister for Local Government, that the product of that examination of his Department should be the basis of the Bill.

It is quite unfair of Senator Sheehy Skeffington to brand everybody with the same tarred brush and to give the impression that nobody could be right and nobody was prepared to do justice except apparently Senator Sheehy Skeffington. He is erroneous in his view of the activities of Deputies in rural areas. He expressed the view that Deputies go into circulation only at election time. If Senator Sheehy Skeffington stopped now and again and had a conversation with some of the rural Deputies and asked where they were last week and the week before and the week before that again and where they were going next week, he would find that Deputies of all Parties are constantly in touch with their constituents. He might even have regard to reports in a paper like the Irish Press, for instance, where you find Deputies constantly attending meetings of the various Fianna Fáil cumainn. That is one way of keeping in touch with a section of the electorate and, at any rate, it indicates that Deputies are keeping in touch with the electorate. Senator Sheehy Skeffington's view is quite erroneous in point of fact.

With regard to the practicability of having constituencies drawn differently from the manner in which they have been drawn up to the present time, I want to point out that under the new Health Authorities Act it is proposed, with apparently no difficulty whatever, to constitue several counties and parts of counties into new health authority areas that can be administered quite well. It is expected that they can be administered quite well under the new Bill. I cannot see any reason why constituencies cannot be drawn differently from the manner in which they have been drawn up to the present time, somewhat on the same basis— not necessarily the health authority basis—but it could be done. The county boundaries and the siting of towns and so on, are not the be-all and the end-all of representation in Parliament.

I share the view expressed by Senator Hayes that this Bill is primarily a Bill for the Dáil but nevertheless the Seanad, of course, has its own rights in relation to it. As the Minister for Health indicated during the debate on the Greyhound Industry Bill, there is always another day, and there is always another place, in which matters such as this Bill may be capable of correction. I suppose we ought to be grateful that if some provisions of the Constitutions are not being observed by the Government, there are at least other provisions in the Constitution which can be put into operation by ordinary private citizens to ensure due compliance by the Government with the provisions of the Constitution in matters such as this Bill.

Mr. O'Reilly

It must be 12 years since I last found myself acting as teller in this House. I understand it is also 12 years since a measure similar to this Bill came before the House. On that occasion, I felt very strongly on a particular issue, so strongly that I challenged a division and I found myself with very few of my colleagues passing by me in my capacity as teller. The issue involved was as to whether a seat should devolve to Wexford or Mayo. From the point of view of population and for other reasons, I felt it should go to Mayo.

Twelve years have passed and we are now considering a similar measure. I have listened to all that has been said in the debate so far, and I think many people did not intend their arguments to be taken over-seriously. The Minister used the word "bias" and it is an unfortunate thing that the Minister should use that word in this context and in this connection. The word "bias"——

Mr. L'Estrange

You have a monopoly of it.

Mr. O'Reilly

——was used in the Dáil. I do not think it is fair to use that word and if the people who used it went to the trouble of finding out what exactly the word means, they would not use it because it does not properly describe the situation. Senator Sheehy Skeffington used it many times but when he came to describe another situation in regard to giving greater representation to city areas he did not then use the word, but he used a word which I had written down prior to his using it—the word "weighted". If this Bill does anything, I suggest it weights representation in favour of the rural areas and I do not think that is a biassed thing to do. I argue that it is a just thing to do. I am not convinced by the arguments of people with a city mentality that it is unfair and biassed to weight representation in favour of the rural areas. I hope the Minister will see fit to understand properly what he means when he uses the word "bias" and that other members of the House, and of Dáil Éireann, will go to the trouble of finding out exactly what they mean when using that word. In my opinion, the word "weighted" describes the situation. It was an unfortunate choice of word on the part of the Minister.

Mr. O'Quigley

It was the Taoiseach who used it first. Do not blame the Minister.

Mr. O'Reilly

I hope the matter will be brought to their attention.

Mr. L'Estrange

It probably will.

Mr. Carton

It will get "by us" anyway.

Mr. O'Reilly

Senator Hayes was quite reasonable in his approach. He criticised the measure mildly and expressed, generally, his agreement in principle, as also did Senator Stanford. While I believe Senator Stanford was honest and unbiassed— and he certainly cannot be accused of being political in his approach to this issue—I disagreed with him when he argued that there is a virtue in this measure because it contains so many five-seat constituencies. I suggest to Senator Stanford that that does not add any particular merit. It is not a virtue in itself. Senator Stanford argued that it is a good thing to have multi-seat constituencies because it would appear to give a guarantee to minorities.

I want to say—and quite a lot will have been said when the dust has died down—that I am not convinced on that point. I believe there is no safeguard in the multi-seat constituencies for minority groups. It is my experience, and I think it is the verdict of history, that the rights of minorities are really in jeopardy when you have two conditions: one, when you have a dictatorship and extreme tyranny, and the other when you have extreme liberty. It is under those conditions that minority groups suffer most and I think most people will agree that is the verdict of history, in practice.

In so far as multi-seat constituencies tend to give the balance of power to minorities, that situation has been responsible for the collapse of democracies which were based on these constituencies in other countries. It brought about a position in which you had dictatorship, under which large minorities of all types suffered. It is when you have chaos or dictatorship that minorities suffer. I do not think there is any virtue at all in having a multi-seat constituency. It may suit a particular geographical area and then it may be desirable to have a five-seat constituency, but after that I do not see any particular merit in it.

Certainly I would never subscribe at all to the ready-made plan of having eighteen seven-seat constituencies as advocated by Senator Sheehy Skeffington. The result would be that you would have at least 18, or possibly 20, or maybe 30 people who would find themselves in the position of being a dominant minority. They could then successfully dictate to the majority in Parliament. That would be government by the minority and that is not the type of democracy I wish to see.

People who argue on those lines, and who argue that there should be mathematical representation, convince me that they have not really studied the situation. They convince me that they have no real contact with the country, apart from contact with the city. They may elect to say that they have, but, in practice, they have not.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

You meet more country people in the city than you do in the country.

Mr. O'Reilly

I am well aware of that and I am so well aware of it that I know that quite a lot of the people in this city have their interests attended to by people elected in the country. I know where people from such places as Donegal, Leitrim and Kerry go when they want representations made. It is quite common for people living in this city to go to Deputies from the country when they want something. If the Senator can contradict my suggestion that people from Leitrim or Mayo have gone to Senators or Deputies to get representations made about houses, old age pensions or such matters, then I withdraw my statement.

It would be chaotic if we were to adopt this mathematical scheme suggested by Senator Sheehy Skeffington. Imagine 18 constituencies with seven Deputies each—126 Deputies. Many of the Deputies would not even know the limits of their own constituencies. I had experience, when I was a younger man of working on elections. The seven-seat constituency of Leitrim —Sligo stretched and still stretches from the gates of Ballina to the gates of Cavan.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is not as big as the new Cork constituency.

Mr. O'Reilly

From Bonniconlon to Arva is a very great distance. It is more than 100 miles.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is not.

Mr. O'Reilly

It depends on the way you go. If you go as the fly crows—I say that quite deliberately— and not as the crow flies, it is 100 miles. I was rather surprised at Senator O'Donovan's case—and he went much further than Senator Hayes in the matter—about what he referred to as "a rural bias". He tried to work out the mathematical proportion: "as five is to eight", and I expected him to add "so FG is to FF" to complete the proportion. If he were to complete his ratio, he should have said "so Fine Gael is to Fianna Fáil" and then it could be argued what the result would be. It would depend on whether you put the eight first or last.

I honestly think that it is desirable to weight representation in favour of the rural areas. I think that is the opinion of most Deputies and that is why this Bill was received reasonably well by all sides. Now it is left apparently to a number of people, because it may suit a particular political equation, to try to destroy the measure by suggesting it is unconstitutional.

In regard to this matter of representation from the rural areas, surely reasonable people will agree that a Deputy in Kerry, Clare, Donegal or Galway has a much harder task to give that representation than those in non-rural areas. Mind you, I do not argue that representation is the first duty of a member of Dáil Éireann. The Government of the country is the first duty of the Parliament and representation comes second. But it is an important duty and because of the pattern of our public life here, it does appear that Deputies and Senators do give that representation to their constituents.

The position has developed here that rural Deputies and Senators—I am not sure whether this is true of city members—find themselves in the position of being public relations officers to every Department of the State. They have to do that job well and fairly efficiently and their ability as public representatives seems to be judged by their efficiency as public relations officers to the different Departments. Because of the distances from Government Departments, it is a necessary service in rural areas and when people argue that it is unfair, unjust and unconstitutional to weight representation in favour of rural areas, it proves that those people really have a bias, that they have a city mentality and they are not interested in affairs or people outside the city area.

There is one matter which I feel I should mention before I conclude. It is the question of that lovely scheme produced by the Department of Local Government for redesigning the constituencies. I heard it being described by Senator O'Donovan and I gathered it was a scheme considered by the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy O'Donnell. I take it that was the implication of the Senator's statement. If I am wrong, I am sure the Senator will correct me. To me that scheme seemed so nice, so precise and so accurate that it could have been drawn with a set-square. It reminds me of the right-angle triangle of Pythagoras. It had straight lines, set angles, and corners in the right places. I felt that the Senator did not want to be taken seriously, and he said something about the Minister not implementing it at that time.

Does the Senator know why it was not implemented at that time? It was possible for the Minister to frame a Bill along those lines, to bring it to the Dáil and to the Seanad, if it had all the virtues suggested by Senator O'Donovan. I suggest that agreement could not be found because of the very structure of the Coalition Government. It was impossible to find agreement among the different members of that Government.

Mr. L'Estrange

It was bound to come out.

Mr. O'Reilly

That is why the scheme lay in abeyance, to use a very much-used word, when there was an onus on the Government to comply with the terms of the Constitution. The reason was that a majority could not be found, even in the Government, to undertake that scheme, which, in the words of Senator O'Donovan, seemed to be a very good scheme.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

In speaking on this Bill, like Senator O'Reilly, I shall dwell a little on rural bias. I am sure if the Minister and Senator O'Reilly went down to North or South Cork, they would have extreme difficulty in convincing the people there that there was any kind of bias, as far as Cork county is concerned. One has only to look at the figures to find that in East Donegal there is 17,990 of a population per Deputy, and in West Donegal 16,700. In Cork South, the figure is 19,382 and in Cork North 19,448. Will anybody try to convince the people down there that whoever was the architect of this Bill had a rural bias? There is no answer to the figures. We will invite Senator O'Reilly down to Cork, and I do not wonder that he is disturbed by this word "bias". I would be, too, if I were in his position, but I can assure him that whoever was the architect of the Bill—some say it was the Minister and I should not be surprised, because he has looked after his own so very well that he has not interfered with the representation of Donegal; in fact, he came further down to look after other counties in his neighbourhood—had not a bias in favour of Cork. Some people tell me that the chief carver of this was a Corkman himself. I do not believe it. I am not sure, but it was stated around this House that the chief architect is a Corkman.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Who is he?

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

I could not tell you.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

I do not know him at all.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

I should be very worried if a Corkman were responsible. It is just not fair to the rural population of Cork. The two constituencies of South and North Cork are merged together in one, running from Clonakilty Bay to the Limerick border, a distance of well over 110 miles. Surely there must be some reason other than rural bias for creating this constituency?

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

It is 64 miles.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

Come down with me, we will travel it tomorrow and it will take us all day. In the case of two constituencies that had well up to the population required per Deputy, surely there must be some other reason for amending their boundaries? Mind you, if one examines it closely, the reasons are very apparent. The people down there are well aware of the reasons. They are well aware that they are being denied the right to get a Deputy to represent them. They are well aware that they are having 11 Deputies instead of 12 and, if you take in the city, you will find between the city and county, if the votes were divided between 12 Deputies, there would be 22,000 odd of population per representative. Surely there must be some discrimination in favour of some place else as against Cork?

I am sure that Senators on the other side who are Corkmen will stand up and say that we in our county have been denied what has been given to other rural areas. I would appeal to the Minister, to the civil servants, or to the Corkman who I said was the head carver, to give Cork what it is entitled to, in the same manner as it is given to other constituencies.

Mr. L'Estrange

In my opinion, this Bill is a talented piece of gerrymandering, and is partisan in the worst possible way. Article 16, 2º of the Constitution states in subsection 3:

The ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.

That is what the Constitution says but in this Bill there is over-representation in the west of Ireland, and under-representation in the city of Dublin. I stand for parity, equal rights, and equal powers for all Irish men and women, no matter what part of the country they may be living in.

Mr. Murphy

Even Cork.

Mr. L'Estrange

Even if they are living in Cork. There is no doubt that this Bill is punishing the citizens of Dublin because they dared vote against Fianna Fáil in the recent referendum and in the Presidential election. It is bestowing more power on the people of Donegal, Galway and Mayo, who have consistently voted for the Fianna Fáil Party. We all know that Fianna Fáil would lose at least four or five seats if they did their duty and obeyed the terms of their own Constitution, that is, if they reduced, as they should have, the number of seats in Donegal, Mayo, Galway and other parts of the western seaboard.

If you take the whole county of Donegal, you find that one representative represents 17,437 people; if you take West Donegal, you have a representative for 16,700 people; if you take Cork borough, you find a Deputy at the present time representing 22,420 people; if you take the whole of county Cork, you have one Deputy representing 19,800 people. Yet Cork is to lose a seat and Donegal is not to lose a seat, and we wonder why. The counties of Roscommon, Westmeath and Cavan are to lose a seat and we know that in those counties it is one of the opposition who will lose the seat in each constituency.

Fianna Fáil now seem to have a fatherly love for rural Ireland. Senator O'Reilly a few minutes ago criticised those Senators who stated that the Bill was unfair, unjust and unconstitutional he said they were biassed and had a city mentality. Some of the Fianna Fáil Party have stated that because Ireland is an agricultural country, everything is dependent on rural Ireland. I should like to bring their minds back to 1947 when the city of Dublin was different from what it is today, when it supported Fianna Fáil.

According to the 1947 Act in one constituency in the city of Dublin, 21,700 people elected a Deputy; in another, 14,100 people; in another, 20,200 people; in another, 18,300 people; in another, 17,300 people. In other words, the people who now claim to have such a love for rural Ireland at that time found that between 16,000 and 17,000 people were sufficient to elect a Deputy in the city of Dublin. That was when the tide was in Fianna Fáil's favour here in the city of Dublin.

Now the tide is going out and in the Dublin constituency where it took 21,700 people to elect a Deputy, it will now take 22,700; where it took 14,100, it will now take 22,600 people; where it took 20,200, it will now take 22,500; where it took 18,300, it will now take almost 22,000; where it took 17,300, it will now take 22,200 people to elect a Deputy. When the tide was in Fianna Fáil's favour, when the city of Dublin was consistently voting Fianna Fáil, a Deputy could be elected by between 16,000 and 17,000 votes, but now when the danger is that they will vote against Fianna Fáil, it will take, on average, 22,000 votes to elect a Deputy in the city of Dublin. I do not think that is correct or right. The people in the Fianna Fáil Party are not living up to the terms of their own Constitution.

The western seaboard is to retain the same number of seats, though we all know that the population is dropping and has dropped very much in the past three years. The Government should look forward. This Bill is designed to deal with the next 12 years. We all know that in 12 years' time, if emigration continues from the west as it is proceeding at present, you may have 13,000 or 14,000 people electing a Deputy in the west of Ireland and here in the city where you have a growth of population, 23,000, 24,000 or perhaps 25,000 people electing one representative.

Although I come from the country myself, I claim that that is unfair. Fianna Fáil know that they would lose if they did their duty and took the seats, as they should have taken them, from the western seaboard. If the same mathematical calculations were applied to Galway for example as were applied to Cavan, Roscommon and Westmeath, there would be two seats less in Galway, but Fianna Fáil did not do that in case they would lose—they have six seats at the present time out of nine in county Galway.

The Preamble to the Constitution begins, "In the name of the most Holy Trinity from Whom is all authority..." The whole tenor of the Constitution is that it spreads "evenly"—I would quote "evenly"—among the Irish people the power that comes from God to all people. But this Bill states that the people of Dublin are to have only three-quarters of the power given to the people in the rest of the country. That is altogether wrong. As far as our Constitution is concerned, there is no room for bias. I will not mind if there is a difference of 1,000 or 1,500 in certain cases, but it is different when it is deliberate as it definitely is in this case. I claim that it is the duty of this Government or of any other Government according to the terms of their own Constitution to hold the scales as evenly as possible between all sections of the community, irrespective of creed, class or politics, whether they live in the north, south, east or west of the country.

I further claim that before Parliament can govern properly, we must have a democratically elected Parliament on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage. We have not equal suffrage in this Bill. We all remember the fanfare of trumpets with which the new Constitution was announced in 1937. I should like to think that this Bill was another addition to the many Articles of the Constitution to which lip-service is now being paid by Fianna Fáil and by the Fianna Fáil Government. In this very Bill which we are discussng to-night, however, the high ideals and very basic rights enshrined in the Constitution are being compromised and sacrificed on the altar of expendiency and all for the political gain of one Party. I claim that the rights of our people and the obligations of the Government or of any Government in power in this country are rooted in natural morality and what is morally wrong cannot be politically right. I stand for democracy and for equal rights and voting powers for all our people and definitely they are not getting these in this Bill.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

There seems to be some lack of geographical knowledge amongst several Senators who seemed to think that they had a point to score in referring to the Donegal mountains. All I should like to say to those Senators is that I walked those mountains from north to south and from east to west and that both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Local Government are quite correct in describing them as mountain ranges which run from north to south and east to west. I wish the Senators who seem to lack the knowledge which a physical map of Donegal would have given them would have equipped themselves, before they took part in the debate, with such a map. Then they would not have wasted their time in cheap sneers of that nature.

Several references were made by Senators to the motives which inspired this Bill and suggestions were made that there was something diabolical about the way in which the constituencies which were affected were dealt with. I do not intend to act the part of a constitutional lawyer or to follow Senator O'Quigley into the by-lanes of constitutional law, nor do I intend to follow the other Senators into every point which they made, but I should like to refresh their minds on the point which I was glad to note Senator Hayes, in his very reasonable approach, emphasised, that this Bill is a matter principally of concern to the Dáil and in the Dáil, the House which is directly affected by it, Senators will find, if they look up the Dáil debates on all Stages of the Bill, that the leading figures did not seem to see in it the same dire conspiracy as some of the Senators alleged here this evening.

I should like to remind the Senators of what Deputy M.J. O'Higgins, who spoke for the Fine Gael Party in the debate, said at column 385, Volume 177 of the Official Report:

...this Party recognises the fact that the introduction of this Bill is a constitutional requirement...

That is completely different from the insinuation that it was introduced in a spirit of spite, malice or revenge for events which might have happened somewhere, some time in the recent past. Deputy P. O'Donnell, a former Minister for Local Government, whose name we heard mentioned here to-day as having asked for the heads of a Bill when he was in control of the Department of Local Government, answered in advance the insinuations which were made here of gerrymandering. At column 415 of the same volume he said:

I...agree with him...

that is, the Taoiseach—

that no matter what Minister is in charge of a Bill such as this, he will be accused of political gerrymandering.

Therefore, out of the mouths of those gentlemen are the Senators who used those expressions condemned.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Senator should quote the rest of that.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The former leader of the Farmers' Party, Clann na Talmhan, in Dáil Éireann, who comes from the constituency much mentioned here—county Galway and who is a dyed-in-the-wool opponent of the Government and of the Government Party, had no hesitation whatever in regard to this Bill when at columns 401 and 402, Volume 177, he said:

I welcome this Bill and I will vote for it as it stands because it gives consideration to rural Ireland.

Later on, he said that all the members of his group supported the Bill.

Speaking from the Labour benches, Deputy Corish, at column 429, declared:

It is only right for me to say at first that in about 80 per cent. or 85 per cent. of this Bill, the Minister did reasonably well.

Deputy Corish proceeded to make an analysis of the Bill and he did not seem to depart from his original statement that, to his mind anyhow, 80 per cent. or 85 per cent. of the Bill was reasonably satisfactory.

With regard to the tears which we saw shed over the Independents and the minority who might be penalised, I noted that Deputy Sherwin at column 444 declared:

Broadly speaking, I have no great complaints to make about this Bill.

And then, condemning the Senators who spoke here, from the Fine Gael side was their leader, Deputy Dillon, who at column 498 endorsed and approved of the idea of maintaining what he described as a rural bias.

The Bill, as was stated, sticks pretty well to the county boundaries and involves the fewest possible changes. It was carefully considered by the Dáil and by all the Parties in the Dáil. No amendments were moved to it. There was no division on the Second Stage of the Bill or on the Committee Stage. There was no division, except on the question of whether Wexford or Cork should have this seat.

Following the discussions which took place in the period from the Second Stage on 29th October to 19th November, Deputy M.J. O'Higgins summarised in his speech the feelings which actuated him and, I take it, the majority of the Dáil when he said:

...I feel it right to say, particularly to the Taoiseach, that I feel the Government have certainly gone a distance within the framework of the Bill ... to meet the points of view put forward here.

That shows that when criticism was made by the Opposition Deputies in the Dáil and when requests were made for consideration of the points, those who made them were quite satisfied that due consideration had been given by the Government to their points of view and expressed themselves as satisfied that the Government had gone a long way to meet their views. The proof of it is that no serious amendment was put down, either by the Fine Gael Party or the Labour Party, and that the Clann na Talmhan Party accepted, approved and supported the Bill.

With regard to the penalisation, as it was stated here, of Dublin, Deputy M.J. O'Higgins, speaking on behalf of his Party, at column 407 urged that the two additional seats which were offered by the Taoiseach should be given to Dublin. After discussion and on the next Stage of the Bill, Dublin was allocated one of the seats and in order to achieve that purpose it was necessary to redraw the constituency. I might mention that that is one constituency which gets an extra seat and which did not, as some of the Senators suggested, prove favourable to the Government point of view in the recent referendum.

On that point, by the way, Senator Sheehy Skeffington asked for information as to the difference between the number of votes required in the country and in the city to elect a Deputy. It took more votes to elect a Deputy in the country at the last election than it did to elect a Deputy in the city. In fact, in the 1957 general election, taking the Dublin city constituencies, the number of votes per Deputy was 11,795. The number of voters who voted per Deputy and who elected a Deputy was 7,202, while in the country it took 8,105 voters per Deputy to send a representative to the Dáil.

I do not think it is necessary to follow the Senators down all the byways of this Bill but I should like, in connection with the figures given here in regard to the voting strength in Dublin, to give the ratio per member as it is now under this Bill. It does not show such a great discrepancy as has been insinuated here. In Dublin South (West), there will be 23,128; South (Central), 22,383; South (East), 22,958; Dún Laoghaire, 23,024; Dublin County, 22,366. That is a fairly even division and a fairly reasonable solution to the problem presented by the decision to give a second seat to Dublin.

Mr. L'Estrange

What about Galway in 1947—17,000?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I think Senator Murphy suggested that he did not believe the Government had done a very satisfactory job on this Bill. The verdict of Dáil Éireann which is the House most concerned, which is the House directly concerned, does not at all coincide with Senator Murphy's views.

I believe the Bill is a good Bill and that, in the circumstances, it offers the least interference with existing boundaries and causes the least upset consistent with the requirements of the Constitution. I believe the Dáil showed its wisdom in facilitating its passage in the expeditious manner in which it did. I trust we shall have the same result in the Seanad.

Mr. Blaney

There are not really very many points of particular note that I feel called on to reply to. Might I say at the outset that, in general, I want to reply to insinuations, innuendoes and statements in regard to the question of whether or not these proposals are in conformity with the Constitution. The Government are satisfied that it conforms with the Constitution. I should not say that all the speakers here did so but all the speakers of a particular view continued to misquote me, as I had been misquoted in the Dáil, in relation to what I had said and how I had mentioned the words "rural bias". Let me, just for the sake of accuracy, quote the two phrases containing those words. First, as I mentioned these words in the Dáil on the Second Reading speech: "It is for these reasons that the proposals in the Bill may appear, if viewed in a purely statistical light, to err on the side of leniency so far as rural representation is concerned." That was the text of the actual words I used in the Dáil and from which so much misrepresentation followed thereafter from so many of the Opposition speakers who could find nothing more concrete to talk about than misrepresenting what I actually had said.

Here, in the Seanad this afternoon, in my Second Reading speech, I said: "In the proposals now before the House, it may appear that there is, in a purely mathematical sense, a slight bias in favour of rural constituencies." I have been misquoted, misrepresented and accused by at least five or six Senators here this evening of admitting, or saying or agreeing that in fact a rural bias has been implemented in the terms of this Bill. I had the same experience in the Dáil last week. Why it should have been followed up this week, I fail to see, as the records are there in which the actual words can be found.

Mr. Barry

Our case was that there was an uneven rural bias.

Mr. Blaney

I have been listening very attentively, believe it or not, to practically all the Senators. I actually took down in those cases, where there was this misrepresentation, the words which were attributed to me.

I say now that five or six of the Senators have attributed words to me in a context in which they were never used by me, either in this House this afternoon or in the Dáil on any previous occasion so far as this Bill is concerned.

Mr. Murphy

I should not like deliberately to misinterpret the Minister. I still cannot see the difference between "rural bias" and a purely mathematical——

Mr. Blaney

I did not say there was. I said there may appear to be, which is quite a different thing altogether from saying that there was or is.

Mr. Barry

We shall have to get Senator O'Reilly to correct——

Mr. Blaney

Senator O'Reilly may stand corrected so far as I am concerned in the same way as the other Senators who have used or misused what I said. These are really the two generalisations I wanted to talk on. The first is that the Government are satisfied that the measure now before the Seanad is Constitutional.

Professor Hayes

The Minister will agree that it is open to people to have another opinion. The opinion of the Government does not decide it.

Mr. Blaney

Quite. Nobody would hold with that expression of view more fully than I. Generally speaking, I want it to be known that I should like all those who disagree with my view on the matter at least to admit that I have a view.

Mr. Murphy

The Minister has not attempted to explain it.

Mr. Blaney

Which?

Mr. Murphy

Why the Government are of that view.

Mr. Blaney

Surely the Senator is not so naive as to expect a sensible answer to such a question?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

He is.

Mr. Murphy

All right. In my innocence, I stand corrected.

Professor Hayes

Only a Corkman, after all.

Mr. Blaney

Possibly, as I move along to the various matters raised by Senators, which I hope to explain, if possible, more fully to them, we may get some of the points more clearly understood by the Seanad generally than appears to have been the case up to the moment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I wonder if we could decide what to do now as it is 6 o'clock.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I suggest we should finish this Bill now and the motion for earlier signature and adjourn until 7.30 or 7.45 p.m.

Professor Hayes

I do not want to interrupt the Minister. How long does the Minister require? I am prepared to agree to all Stages of the Bill and to the motion for earlier signature. If we adjourn until 7 o'clock I suppose we would be sure of having the Taoiseach on the motion at 8 o'clock. How long does the Minister contemplate he will need? I do not want to restrict him but it might be better if he resumed at 7 o'clock. He has a lot of notes there and if he were refreshed, it might be better.

Mr. Murphy

It would suit us better if the Second Reading were concluded now.

Professor Hayes

It is not fair to the Minister.

Mr. Blaney

I am quite happy.

Professor Hayes

May we take it that the motion No. 7 on the Order Paper, will not be taken until 8 o'clock if we do not adjourn now and all Stages are concluded?

Mr. Blaney

Would it help the House, since we are proposing to take the Committee Stage immediately, if I did not deal with the points raised on Second Reading but waited until Committee Stage, rather than repeat myself?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

It might be better if the Minister dealt with them now.

Professor Hayes

That is not the advice I would give the Minister but let him go ahead.

Mr. Blaney

I did not think it was but however, the offer was made, As I said, apart from those two points, it does not appear to me that any really important points have been pressed home with any sort of convincing proof that requires much elaboration from me. However, as I look through my notes at the moment I am just trying to pick out what requires an answer and what there seems to be an answer to.

The question of mileage which Senator Barry raised was raised in the Dáil in regard to the new Mid-Cork constituency. Deputy Norton quoted 110 miles as being the greatest distance between the extremities of this new constituency and Senator Barry quoted the same figure to-night. I have gone to some pains to try to find out exactly where this journey would take us to and where it would begin and I am afraid as yet I have not found—if we take a reasonably direct route—a journey that would extend over 110 miles within the boundary of the proposed new constituency. Lest there be such a journey, let me say that there are five Deputies to represent the constituency—or there will be if this House passes this measure.

Earlier to-night, I mentioned my own constituency the mileage of which I know very well—that is why I used it. It is a four-seat constituency and some people would have us believe it should be a three-seat constituency. Allowing that there may be a 110 mile journey, there will be five Deputies to look after the mid-Cork constituency, whereas in mine, there are four Deputies to look after a constituency in which there are many journeys up to 88 miles, so we can divide four into 88 and five into 110— one figure I am sure of and the other I doubt. Nevertheless, giving everybody full benefit of their own case, I do not think anyone could dispute the fact that the four-seat constituency in East Donegal is no better, no more fully represented or more adequately represented, than the Mid-Cork constituency will be, if and when this Bill becomes law.

I may say in regard to that matter that just as happened in the Dáil, those who made the case for Cork—and I admit that if I represented Cork I would make just as good and possibly a better argument— pointing out what Cork was not getting, have evidently forgotten that West Cork is still a part of Cork county and that West Cork is dealt with in the same manner, and for the same reasons in a manner exactly similar to all the other western seaboard counties which stretch from West Cork to North Donegal. No one has raised the argument that West Cork is being left with more than its share of representation.

A case has been made with regard to the other western counties and it is a significant fact that those making the case for more representation for Mid-Cork should ignore the fact that West Cork was dealt with in a manner consistent with the manner in which the other western seaboard counties have been dealt.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

There were approximately 2,000 votes added in the West Cork constituency.

Mr. Blaney

The Senator, I take it, is fully aware that despite that addition, the average number of population per seat will be somewhat slightly over 18,000 and the national average is slightly over 20,000.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

We are comparing the seaboard average.

Mr. Blaney

Possibly that is what the Senator intended, but, listening to the Senator as I say, it struck me as peculiar and significant that the points made by those who made the case the Senator is making should be repeated here and that West Cork should be forgotten and not mentioned at all. Senator O'Donovan said—I do not know if it is quite fair to the Leas-Chathaoirleach or myself——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is quite all right.

Mr. Blaney

He referred to our putting all our eggs into one basket so far as the referendum was concerned and said that was the reason for neglecting the preparation of this Bill and because of that neglect the Bill in the form in which it now appears is, to the Senator's mind, anything but good. At a later stage, he said that the general reasons why we would not amend this Bill were that it was such a bad Bill. I want to say, as I already said elsewhere, that the Second Reading of this Bill in the Dáil was passed without a division. When it came to Committee Stage, despite various points made by Deputies from all over the country, including the cities, practically no amendments were even put down to be considered on Committee Stage, apart from the amendments which I had put down in agreement with, and at the request of, the two major Opposition Parties, Fine Gael and Labour. That is very strange if there was all this antagonism to the Bill and if it was considered so wrong in so many places. It is either an admission that these people did not really see what was in the Bill at the time—which I doubt—or that they really were pretty well satisfied with the Bill, as I think they were, and that that is the real reason why there were no major amendments put down. The statement made here that the Bill would not be amended because it was so bad and so much out of line cannot be taken in all seriousness.

There was just one other matter which was mentioned by Senator O'Donovan and I should like to get it straight. It is being said that the proposals the previous Government, the Coalition Government, had with regard to this matter have been very much altered. It may surprise some of the Senators to hear me say that in fact I did not see these detailed proposals. I do not say that there were not such proposals in the Custom House, but I did not go looking for proposals that were already half-baked—and I deliberately say half-baked—by my predecessors. I had to take responsibility finally to try to get this matter into this House.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister wanted to cook.

Mr. Blaney

I just want the matter to be quite clear. I also want to ask the question how a Senator could have intimate knowledge of these proposals since no such proposals, and no such Bill in final form, had ever gone to the Coalition Government, so far as the records that I have available to me show. Now, if that is so, I cannot see from what proposals, in the first instance, we could have departed and in the second instance—allowing that there were such proposals—I have not seen the proposals, so that if I have departed from them, I have departed from them unwittingly, unknowingly and completely innocently. I feel that without having seen them that what I now have before the House is as good as, if not better than, whatever purports to be in that draft. I am saying that without knowing what is in it, if it exists.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington had something to say about queer shaped constituencies and generally gave me the idea that these queer shapes led one to the rather disagreeable conclusion that there was something of the gerrymander about them. I do not think it is possible to gerrymander in this country at all. "Gerrymander" is a word I do not like, as I do not like anything that savours of gerrymandering. My reasons are that I am in such close contact with the best and most extreme example of gerrymandering——

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Exactly.

Mr. Blaney

——and it would be far from my mind, if it were possible and I do not think it is in this country, to try to initiate or perpetrate that state of affairs which I so detest.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

On a point of explanation, what I meant was that from the look of the new shape of the constituencies, it might appear to be something moving towards gerrymandering and I instanced the case of Ringsend which is now in Central Dublin and used to be on the coast.

Mr. Blaney

Possibly the Senator's reference to this is all to the good in that it should have been put here to bring out this question of queer shapes. If Ringsend is now in Dublin South (Central), we have to have regard to the general lay-out of the city. We have got the Liffey dividing the city into north and south, as we know it. It is not stretching the imagination too far to regard that part of it which lies along the river, either north or south, as being central Dublin.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

It used to be in Dublin South (East).

Mr. Blaney

I am not disputing that. We come to the point that along the River Liffey towards the sea is central Dublin. I think that must be admitted. The next thing that must be clear is that in the South (Central) Constituency, by virtue of a slum clearance operation which has been going on there over the past 12 years, the population figures have fallen very substantially. They have fallen to such a point that if we were to retain the old names of all the constituencies, and I think we had good reason to do that, particularly in Dublin, in order to keep the people's minds clear as to the various constituency names, and maintain the same number of seats, and disturb as few people, or as few Deputies for that matter as possible, it was necessary to make a substantial addition of population to Dublin South (Central). I could not go out to County Dublin and bring it in. That would really justify the charge of gerrymandering. I had to go to wherever was nearest and to whatever part seemed to be most part of it.

If we take Ringsend, which the Senator said was taken from the South (East), I think nobody will disagree with me when I say that the Ringsend portion of Dublin South (East) is certainly more of the character of Dublin South (Central) than it was ever of the South (East) constituency. I put that to the Senator as one of the arguments which I had in mind, and which my advisers had, when we were studying how we could disturb the least possible number of people particularly in relation to the constituencies and the boundaries and, indeed, the number of representatives. Taking those things as a sort of guiding line, and seeing that the Liffey divides us north and south, and also seeing that there is a canal which presents us with a very convenient and easily distinguished new boundary, and also taking in the character of Ringsend—which, as I may say, is much more akin to the character of the remainder of Dublin South (Central) than it ever was to Dublin South (East)—if it now looks odd in shape, I do not think it is inconvenient nor do I feel that the Government, if the matter is looked into properly, can ever be charged with any attempt at gerrymandering in the slightest degree. I am not putting that to the Senator in any sort of embittered manner. Actually, I am glad that he should have mentioned it in that context lest others outside the House might at a later stage say that it was gerrymandered because of the queer shape. I do not think it is such a queer shape but others may think so.

There is just one other point which I should have mentioned in regard to the position of Ringsend and that is in regard to the Pigeon House Road. There is an area here which is in the existing South (Central) constituency so that the taking from the South (East) of that further bit of Ringsend is not really so startling a departure from the present position. As I said, if I were to try to add to the figures for South (Central) not by going to the adjoining areas, but to County Dublin, then if I was charged with gerrymandering, I could not in conscience have any defence. I feel that the explanation of our approach to this matter will be accepted by this House in all the good faith in which it is given.

There was also the usual mention of the mountains which will not stay in the one place and keep moving around in Donegal. I do not want to dwell too much on our very beautiful mountains, which we call hills up there. One might say that the Senators who do not seem to understand the difficulty of negotiating some of these mountains would tend to make molehills out of our mountains, rather than the reverse. I would advise them, as Senator Ó Maoláin has done, to go up there some time. I would advise them further to be careful to have somebody with them when they go to the most extreme of those mountains, to make sure they get back, because they are not just as easy and as movable as some Senators would lead us to believe.

There is something else I should like to deal with. It has already been replied to—I forget by whom—but Senator Sheehy Skeffinngton said he did not believe that T.D.s went around their constituencies much except before elections. I should love to take Senator Sheehy Skeffington with me one weekend in the middle of winter, from now until next March, and I can assure him that unless he is pretty well used to travel and to long hours of waiting around, long discussions and long meetings, he would be very tired after one weekend foray of mine, or of any other Deputy from the country. It is not really appreciated and understood but our week-ends are, in fact, entirely given over—and I say this deliberately —to trying to get to the various points to facilitate people who, due to the distances, may not be able to travel to their T.D.s because of the large sprawling constituencies. In rural areas, we have to do it.

In fact, the Deputy who does not do it, unless he is occupying a very peculiar and special position in the people's minds, will not be very long in the Dáil. That is very true of present-day T.D.s who are new coming into the House. Such a Deputy will not remain a T.D. unless he gives the people the service they feel they are entitled to get. Candidly, I feel they are entitled to get that service, and I should like to add my voice to the voices of those who have already spoken covering this point in defence of rural T.D.s. Their lot is not an easy one. It is not a question of a few gallons of petrol and driving through their constituencies to get votes at election time. The people in the country are far too bright to be caught out by a potential candidate whom they see only at election time and who resides outside his constituency, in Dublin or anywhere else. If we have that type, we shall not have many of them in future. People are much too bright for that any more.

Senator L'Estrange talked at quite some length, and the only thing that clearly emerged to me was that he had mixed up population numbers with voters' numbers and, knowing Senator L'Estrange, I doubt if it was just purely accidental because it did help his argument. Furthermore, he mixed up something else. He was relating the figures of population as revealed in the last census in 1956 and referring those to the provisions of an Electoral Bill, passed in 1947. In other words, he talked about the figures as we know them to-day, or in 1956, and related those figures as brought out in the last census to the number of seats and to the representation which was given by the 1947 Act and which has been in existence since then. Again, without any reflection on Senator L'Estrange, I wonder very much whether that was just an accident, or whether it was to make an argument pretty good. It does help the argument undoubtedly.

Mr. L'Estrange

I gave the 1947 figures and said they were 1947, and I gave the 1956 figures and said they were 1956.

Mr. Blaney

I can only say to the Senator that this is the only thing that clearly emerged to me from it. If I have misread him, that is another matter.

Mr. L'Estrange

I cannot be responsible for the Minister's mind.

Mr. Blaney

The Senator is quite right. I quite agree with him, and that is rather mutual. As I said at the start, I find it difficult to get anything really worthwhile to get my teeth into, to reply to, apart from the few points on which I have generalised. With regard to the Bill as received by the House, despite the various points put up by several of the Senators, considering the type of Bill it is and all the difficulties it must give rise to—indeed, which it is admitted it will give rise to by my opposite number in the Opposition, Deputy O'Donnell—I feel that the criticisms, the objections, both in this House and in the Dáil, have been so slight really, when we look at the type of measure it is, as to give me a feeling of satisfaction that it is not so bad at all.

Question put and agreed to.

Senators Mrs. Davidson, Sheehy Skeffington, Murphy and L'Estrange were recorded as dissenting.

Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.

Bill considered in Committee.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister, in his opening speech, and again in his reply, dealt with the mountains of Donegal, the mountains of the western seaboard.

An Cathaoirleach

I wonder would the Senator be agreeable to postpone discussion on the question of constituencies until we come to the Schedule?

Mr. O'Quigley

I think what I have to say arises more appropriately on this section.

An Cathaoirleach

I am concerned only to ensure that there will not be duplicating of debate.

Mr. O'Quigley

I certainly shall not be raising anything on the Schedule. The Minister talks about mountains, rivers and canals and, as I mentioned earlier this evening, there is no reference to geographical features of that kind in the Constitution. It seems to me, from what was said earlier this evening, that the Government in this Bill are seeking to do what they failed to do in the referendum on the Constitution, and I propose to refer to Part 2 of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958, which was passed by the Oireachtas; in particular to sub-section 2 of Section 4 which appears on Page 13 of the Bill. It states:

As soon as it may be after the receipt of the request from the President, the Commission——

that is, the constituency commission which was to be established if that Bill went through and was passed by the people—

——shall proceed to determine or to revise the boundaries of the constituencies on a fair and equitable basis, having due regard to geographical features and established administrative and territorial divisions and, subject to those considerations, in such manner that the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.

Everything the Minister has said this evening in justification of the departure from the provisions of the Constitution as still enacted—it is still the Constitution of this country— is reproductive of what the people rejected in the referendum. That is what the Minister is trying to bring in here. These are the provisions which the people objected to. He is trying to use them as justification for a departure from the strict provisions of the Constitution—which has nothing whatever to say about geographical features. In this way the Government are trying to circumvent the will of the people so clearly expressed only a few months ago. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say. I think he must have been reading out of the wrong Constitution.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 4 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."

Dr. O'Donovan

I do not propose to carry any further the proposals I sought for the city of Dublin. I saw them all right. The Minister indicated how he did not see them. It is easy enough to read between the lines.

In view of the considerable emphasis the Minister and, later, the Leader of the House, Senator Ó Maoláin, laid on the hills of Donegal, I should like to read something in respect of the Donegal constituencies. There is no difficulty in having two or three-seat constituencies in county Donegal.

In reply to the debate on the Fifth Stage in the Dáil, Volume 178, column 230, the Minister said:

In going through some of them...

that is, the arguments.

...one thing that keeps recurring —although I notice that Deputy McGilligan who first raised the hare later kept away from it—is the reference to how the mountains run in my county. Very astutely Deputy McGilligan kept away from that subject. Deputies may have recourse to this map when the proceedings here are finished. There is no conflict whatever between the Taoiseach's statement that the mountains run North to South and my statement at a later stage that mountains run East to West and that this had a very big bearing on the actual boundaries of the constituency.

Of course if the mountains run from east to west, obviously North Donegal must be separated from South Donegal and existing Deputies have to cross these mountain passes. But Deputy McGilligan did not keep away from the subject. In fact he dilated on it at some considerable length. The Minister's point was not correct because Deputy McGilligan said at column 188:

Donegal was taken as the pivotal constituency and we are told that there is appalling difficulty up there from the point of view of Deputies getting in touch with their constituents or constituents getting in touch with Deputies. This we are told is caused by a tremendous mountain range in that area, a range which according to the Taoiseach divides the East from the West with only four passes by which people can travel from one part to another. One immediately gets the picture of the Himalayas or some such range. One gets the view of the officials of the Department of Local Government setting out with provisions to last them for a fortnight or so and getting the native Sherpas up in the area to guide them through the four passes which alone allow for communication over this mountain range which splits Donegal, according to the Taoiseach, from East to West.

At a later stage, of course, the Minister told us that this range of mountains practically divides the northern half of the country from the southern half.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Here is a map.

Dr. O'Donovan

I do not know the mountains of Donegal as well as I know the mountains of Kerry but I have been on holidays in Donegal.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Surely you have seen the mountains.

Dr. O'Donovan

Both cannot be right.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

They run from north to south and from east to west.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Minister claimed that Deputy McGilligan ran away. If that piece of Deputy McGilligan's is running away from anything, I should like to know what standing and fighting is.

Question put and agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.