Would the Minister tell us how he arrived at 144 members and could he relate that conclusion to the number of people in the country?
Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1961. - Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1961: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
It is the maximum number provided within the framework of the Constitution which gives a ceiling based on not more than one member for every 20,000 of the population as ascertained and available at the last census.
If the Minister looks at the figures of the population, he will find we should not have 144 members, that we should have fewer.
The figure of population on which this is based is 2,898,264 as ascertained in April, 1956.
Does the Minister provide 144 on that basis? Has he done a long division sum?
No. I take it the Senator will do so now.
The Senator might do a long division sum one of these days.
Why should I?
May I ask whether the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party as indicated by the Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, in 1935 progressively to reduce the number of members of Dáil Éireann from 135 to 100 has been abandoned, or if the Fianna Fáil notion of progress is to reduce 135 by increasing it to 144?
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Minister tell us what is the purpose of the section?
This is merely a continuation of a section contained in the 1947 Act.
Would the Minister tell us how this can be a continuation of a section contained in the 1947 Act since it relates to 15th April, 1962? Perhaps when the Minister has listened to his adviser, he may be able to tell us?
If the Senator had the manners that one would expect from one of the members of this House, he would get the information he sought, if he really wanted it. I said it was a continuation in the sense that it is a repeat of the same section.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill".
I have already referred to the repeal of the 1947 Act. As far as the law on the subject is concerned, it is quite clear that the 1947 Act, in so far as it could be repealed, has already been repealed by the Electoral Act of 1959 and nothing that Parliament can do on this Bill can undo what was done by the Oireachtas in 1959. That Act is repealed and not alone is it repealed by the 1959 Act but it is necessarily repealed by the provision in the Constitution which says that within every 12 years, the constituencies must be revised. They have been revised, wrongly, it has been found, but none the less revised. Some of them were correctly revised and others were not.
Consequently, I do not see why in subsection (3) we provide for the repeal of the 1959 Act when part of that Act is already valid. The only thing that is effected by the 1959 Act, the Minister tells us, is that we are repeating Section 6 which is contained in the 1947 Act, presumably repeated, according to his amended version of what took place, in the 1959 Act. The most of this Bill, with the exception of the Schedule and subsection (3), is the same as the 1959 Act. The Minister has not yet indicated to my satisfaction what has been the view of the Government, upon what I fear will be the failure of the Oireachtas to revise the constituencies once in 12 years. If this is an amendment of the 1959 Act, it can be said that the 1959 Act and this Act constitute the revision of the constituencies within the 12 years prescribed by the Constitution.
If we repeal completely the 1959 Act —the first division of the constituencies as far as the law in the statute books is concerned appears in 1961—there is very little doubt that the provisions of the Constitution relating to the revision of constituencies not less frequently than once in 12 years have not been carried out by the Oireachtas. I should like the Minister to consider at this stage whether or not we ought to repeal that portion of the 1959 Act which is good. It may be said that that is all technical. Of course it is technical. It is a very technical matter as to whether or not you are drunk in charge of a car because with the breach of a particular section of an Act, you may perhaps find yourself lodged in jail. All these things are technical.
No amount of arguing that they are technical will get away from the fact that every day we must observe technicalities as, for instance, in the driving of a car. Once we have a written Constitution, the members of the Oireachtas ought to see to it that, in so far as they can, having wrongly revised the constituencies in 1959, they will bring themselves within the terms of the Constitution by amending the 1959 Act rather than by completely repealing it, as has been done in Section 3 of this Bill.
The Senator's point would seem to imply that if there can be a continuation of a legal wrangle on this measure, it would be to his liking and desire. The 1959 Act did exist and as such the revision was made within 12 years. We are again revising the constituencies in 1961. I wonder whether that might not answer the Senator's questions.
I do not understand the abstruse reply by the Minister because it is not a reply to my observations. The 1959 Act, I think his argument runs, did exist and the constituencies were therefore revised within 12 years. The Minister should know (1) that the High Court decision in the action giving rise to this Bill invalidated only certain sections of the 1959 Act and (2) that it is provided specifically in the Constitution that where an Act is challenged and found to be unconstitutional, the Act continues, except to the extent to which it has been found invalid. That is good law.
The 1959 Act, apart from Section 3 (1), Section 2 and the Schedule, is good law. It is the law as of the moment by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution. Consequently, on Section 9, we ought not repeal that which is already good and valid and is the law, particularly if we want to make any kind of a show of conforming to our written Constitution.
The second point made by the Minister is quite childish. When we see the Minister trying to sidestep these constitutional provisions, it can become quite amusing. He says the constituencies were revised within 12 years. When the recent census is at hand, there is nothing to prevent the Oireachtas, say, this time next year, from revising the constituencies again. Probably it will be very necessary to do so. The drop in population, according to all indications, will be so glaring as to require a revision of the constituencies within a year. The 12-year period to which the Minister refers is the maximum period outside which we ought not to go. It is for that reason that I suggest that even at this late stage the Minister should reconsider the position and redraft this so as to leave the 1959 Act substantially as it is.
I think I pointed out to the House on an earlier stage that the suggestion of leaving the 1959 Act, or what was left of it, would merely mean that only Section 1, the definitive section and Section 2, the section dealing with the number of members, would remain of that Bill. Why should we get "het up" about retaining just those two provisions when it is much more workmanlike to repeal the entire Bill and start afresh? Surely that is a much more sensible procedure?
Surely Section 5 would also stand? It provides that the Ceann Comhairle will not have to contest the Clare constituency. I understood from the Minister that this was a repeat of the 1947 Act and presumably it is contained in the 1959 Act. If that be the case, if the Minister is right on that—I did not ask him about the other sections—why are these not also left in the 1959 Act which could be amended by this Bill? The Minister thinks it is much more workmanlike completely to repeal the 1959 Act and re-enact this Bill. That may appear to be the practical thing to do but it is not the constitutional thing to do.
So the Senator says.
Yes.
Then it is agreed.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Cork.
Question proposed: "That the entry relating to the constituency of the County Borough of Cork stand part of the Schedule".
There was a long debate in the Dáil on the question of Cork. The main objection seemed to be as to why the Minister decided to put rural areas such as Rathcooney into the Cork city constituency and to take out what were certainly suburban areas of Cork city, namely, the Blackrock and Douglas areas. Why did the Minister do that and was there any geographical reason? I do not claim to be a master of Cork geography. It would seem logical to group rural people together and city people together. That has not been followed in this alteration. Naturally, the suburban part of Cork houses the people who commute daily into the centre of the city rather than people who commute from farms outside. It would appear that there is a grave mistake here and that Rathcooney should have been kept in a rural constituency and Blackrock-Douglas left in the city.
The position was that in the constituency of Cork city, as delineated by the 1948 Act, there was a population of over 112,000. Five seats require a population in the region of 100,000. Therefore, it meant that between 10,000 and 12,000 should go from that area to some other area. That is what happened in this case. However, the amount taken out brought the constituency of Cork below the limit for five seats and the adjoining area of Rathcooney, smaller in population, was brought in to bring the figure for the new city constituency to the tolerance limit for a five-seat area.
I am not convinced by the Minister's reasons. You find that around the country he has drawn divisions up and down by-ways and has divided streets. All that has been done in the interests of complete equality, we are told. Why then must there be an exception in the case of Blackrock? Why could we not have taken only the portion necessary, in order to leave as many urban people as possible voting in an urban area and, at the same time, leave as many rural people as possible voting in a rural area? The divisions that have been made amply demonstrate the Minister has not followed the line he is now giving us.
Would the Senator from County Louth inform us why the Fine Gael Deputies from Cork did not think it worth their while to move any amendments in the Dáil?
That is a very good point and I am glad the Leader of the House has raised it. There is a suggestion that if this Bill does not pass within a certain time, certain clauses can be invoked whereby an election can be delayed. The Opposition, whether they are Fine Gael or Labour, are in the position that if the passage of the Bill is delayed, they may find themselves without the general election for some period.
That is what they hope.
That has been threatened by the Taoiseach himself. As a result, our Party took the line that outside those concerning Dublin city—and the Leader of the House knows this well—we would not put down any amendments. The purpose is that we are hopping mad to get at you.
Senator Donegan has a very bad memory, an impossible memory, as the record for last week will show. He says now that they decided to put down no amendments except those in connection with Dublin. My recollection of his speech last week was that he told us he went to his Party, asked for permission to put down an amendment about his own constituency and was refused. Confirmation of that will be found in the Seanad Debates.
If the Leader of the House will not only read the speeches but relate them to the inferences, he can work out exactly why I said that. If he quotes from my speech, he will find that I said I did go to my Party and that I did wish to put down an amendment to have Louth and Monaghan one constituency——
The Senator was instructed not to put down an amendment.
—— but because of the fact that amendments would delay the passage of the Bill and since these amendments would not be taken anyway and we wanted to have a general election, the decision was taken to put down no amendments outside those concerning Dublin. It would be quite in order for me to read the particular passage of last week's debate concerning Louth and Monaghan and I shall do so later.
The Senator need not. I have read it.
Could the Minister indicate what are the maximum distances in the borough constituency of Cork?
No, I could not indicate what they are.
Has the Minister got any idea?
I should like to quote now exactly what I said at column 520 of Volume 54:
would have desired to put down an amendment that there should be a Louth-Monaghan constituency but I went to the Leader of our Party and to a Party meeting, and so that this Bill would not be delayed, and knowing the Government would not accept that amendment,
—because they had stated they would not—
I was instructed, and accepted that instruction, not to put down the amendment. The reason I mention that is the accusations levelled across the floor by Senator Ó Maoláin to the effect that we would be very happy if this election were delayed for two years.
—in other words, he is following his leader, the Taoiseach—
No amendment, outside those for Dublin, has been put down expressly so that this Bill would not be delayed because, quite frankly, we are very anxious to get at them.
That is the quotation.
We heard it before, Joe.
Question put and agreed to.
Dublin North-Central.
Question proposed: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Dublin North-Central stand part of the Schedule."
I should like to ask why a ward was divided here. Was it necessary to move out one-half of a ward into another constituency? I do not think it was necessary. What is the reasoning behind it?
The Senator has the wrong information.
It could be that in this case it was a question of putting together again what had been apart in the past.
We will accept that.
Question put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Dublin North-East put and agreed to. Entry relating to the constituency of Dublin North-West put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Dublin South-Central put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Dublin South-East put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Dublin South-West put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Cavan put and agreed to.
Clare.
Question proposed: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Clare stand part of the Schedule."
I notice that the average population per member for the Clare constituency is 19,294. That is 833 short of the national average per member. That is perhaps one of the largest discrepancies from the national average in the whole revision. I suppose the Minister would probably take the view that Clare should probably get the most favourable county treatment, having produced, as it did, the man who was for so long the beloved leader of his political Party, but it does strike one that this figure is not in accordance with the law as it is declared to be at present.
The fact that the Government might have appealed to the Supreme Court and have not done so does not alter the fact that, here and now, as far as the authoritative interpretation of the 1937 Constitution is concerned, that authoritative interpretation is contained in the High Court judgment in the action which gave rise to this Bill. That judgment laid it down that figures of that magnitude were not correct and that it was possible and practicable, on the admissions of the Minister who was called as a witness by the Attorney General, to get a much closer adherence to the national average than 1,000 or even 500 since the populations of villages, townlands and streets were compiled separately and available in the Central Statistics Office.
When one comes to consider Dublin or any other constituencies, and consider amendments, there is evidence that this House should address itself to the problem of getting some information made available to it in order to be able properly to discharge its constitutional responsibilities. On the Second Stage, I specifically addressed a question to the Cathaoirleach, a question which he chose to ignore. The only person who can deal with the business of this House on behalf of members is the Cathaoirleach and the question was what steps the Cathaoirleach would take to see that members were provided with such information in relation to the populations of towns, villages, and streets as would be necessary to put down amendments to this Bill.
As far as Dublin city and county are concerned, it is quite impossible, once you have townlands and streets, to formulate an amendment unless somebody makes the information available. Following on the disgraceful speech of the Minister—about which we shall have something more to say— on the conclusion of the Second Stage debate, no member of any Opposition Party would be encouraged to approach him or his Department for any information. They would never know but that the Minister on another occasion would say: "If you say anything about this or that, I shall tell what you said or that you came to me looking for information in connection with the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1961."
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I do not think that is relevant on this entry. It may be relevant on the Final Stage.
What the Senator is trying to do is obvious.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
If the Leader of the House would cease trying to help me, it might enable us to get the business done more quickly.
The Leader of the House has already provoked Senator Donegan to explain why he did not put down an amendment here and the Senator had to waste valuable time explaining what he had already so clearly said.
We do not want any lectures on time-wasting from the chief time-waster.
We are not wasting time; we are doing our best to persuade various Ministers, without much success. None the less, we cannot give up hope that some time they may see the the light.
If we use the mallet long enough, we might get something into their skulls.
As regards the Clare entry, so far as the authoritative interpretation of the Constitution is concerned at present, it is to be found in the judgment of O'Donovan v. The Attorney General. The Minister, in this case, cannot say that the Supreme Court will deal with this matter. He says he has nothing whatever to do with sending this to the Supreme Court and neither have the Government. That is so. The Minister is clearly not doing this on the basis that the Bill will be tested in the Supreme Court because the Minister has no function, as he correctly said, in regard to sending the Bill to the Supreme Court for a declaration as to its constitutionality. Here we have the Minister, in spite of the clear declarations in the judgment which gave rise to this Bill, doing that which is not in accordance with the judgment.
The Taoiseach, on the first occasion on which he replied to a Question in the Dáil, addressed to him by the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Dillon, said that the Bill would be framed, taking into account—that was was the phrase he used—the judgment of the High Court. I thought at the time that showed a reluctance to accept the restrictions imposed by the Constitution as interpreted in that judgment. That phrase did not find its way into the Taoiseach's reply by accident. It was quite clear that, smarting under the defeat in the courts and being unwilling to accept it, that was the best the Taoiseach would do and that is all they are doing in this Bill.
The constituency of Clare, having regard to the interpretation of the courts in the judgment to which I have referred, is not in accordance with that judgment. If the Minister thinks that judgment was not right in that respect, that it went too far in that respect, then the Taoiseach could have advised the Attorney General that the Government wished to have an appeal taken in the Supreme Court. That would have been the correct way to go about it. This, certainly, is not the way to implement what is the authoritative interpretation of Section 16 of the Constitution in the judgment in O'Donovan v. The Attorney General.
We have had a long dissertation, together with some waspish comments, by Senator O'Quigley in regard to the Clare constituency. Incidental to that—rather was the Clare constituency incidental to what the Senator wanted to say on the Bill generally—we have the Senator pointing out to the House that his interpretation of the judge's interpretation of the Constitution is the correct one and everybody else is wrong. What is now being put to the House is not the judge's interpretation of the Constitution but Senator O'Quigley's interpretation of the judge's interpretation of the Constitution. I do not agree with that interpretation of an interpretation.
Two sections of the Constitution were adjudicated on by the High Court, as the Minister well knows. One section is abundantly clear and a figure of between 20,000 and 30,000 of the population per member is laid down. In the Clare constituency which we are now discussing, there is a figure of less than 20,000 people per member. I do not want to interpret anything; I merely want to make my clear statement. If I interpret that and say it is unconstitutional, the Minister will say that that is Senator Donegan's interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court. I am not going to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court, to any interpretation or to anything else. The Constitution says that we should have one member per 20,000 to 30,000 population and in this case we have not. Will the Minister explain that?
If there is any point in trying to explain it, I shall certainly try. The 20,000 to 30,000 reference is the indicator or the measure by which we can ascertain the greatest or least number of Deputies it is constitutional to have. It does not follow that if a figure departs from 20,000 or 30,000 either above or below, that in itself makes that constituency unconstitutional.
I am not interested in indicators or in interpretations. I am interested in the Constitution which says you can range from 20,000 to 30,000 of population and we have not got the ratio between 20,000 and 30,000 in the Clare constituency. Can the Minister explain why he did not therefore add to Clare constituency a small parcel of votes as he did elsewhere?
I will read the Article of the Constitution and then perhaps the complete nonsense the Senator is talking may be clear to him. Article 16 says:
The number of members shall from time to time be fixed by law, but the total number of members of Dáil Éireann shall not be fixed at less than one member for each thirty thousand of the population, or at more than one member for each twenty thousand of the population.
Even Senator Donegan should understand that.
It might be relevant to point out that the interpretation of the Minister's predecessor in office, the Minister for Local Government in 1935, Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly, was to the effect that no constituency should be allowed to drop below 20,000. The Minister, in 1935, as I read out the other day—there must have been a tremendous sense of urgency and alarm in his voice when he spoke—found that there were five or six constituencies which were actually below 19,000, and, I think, 13 below 20,000. That was the interpretation of an exactly similar provision in the 1922 Constitution and that alarmed the Minister for Local Government in 1935. His successor, the present Minister, now tells us that Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly was wrong in 1935. Senator Donegan says that there should not be one member for 19,000 and if the Minister is going to put him in the category of those who talk nonsense, then he will take his seat with the Minister for Local Government, in 1935, Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly, former Tánaiste and President of Ireland.
I want to add just one word to what I have said. I did not interpret; the Minister did.
I read the Article to the House.
The Minister interpreted it as well.
I read it to the House.
(Interruptions).
Of course, I will not make money out of correcting it, will I?
If it was made, it was well earned and earned in a noble cause.
It is a matter of opinion.
It is a matter of the Constitution, too.
Question put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Mid-Cork put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of North-East Cork put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of South-West Cork put and agreed to.
North-East Donegal.
Question proposed: "That the entry relating to the constituency of North-East Donegal stand part of the Schedule."
It would be quite wrong for us to let this entry pass without a few sentences about it. The natural division between east and west Donegal is a straight line from Carrigart to Ballybofey. I looked at it many times and I calculated the population for the district electoral divisions and so on. Now we have this line turned on its axis, so to speak, and not only turned on its axis, but an axis which has several dents in it. It is like the toys which are made with a "wobbly" pair of wheels. The same can be said for the line which runs north-west to south-east in Donegal. It is only right to say that the axis is in accord with the Constitution. There is no question about it, but it is not the natural axis that would hit anybody studying County Donegal.
In the old constituency, the division line ran fairly straight from north to south and it would have been quite easy to shift that line eastwards so many miles. At any rate, the only criticism I notice in the Minister's remarks in the Dáil of the suggestion that the line should run from Carrigart to Ballybofey was that it would run within a few miles of a large town, Letterkenny—four miles, I think. That is quite an ordinary feature in these constituencies. I am sure Senator Lenihan is aware of one change in that connection at any rate, where the town of Carrick-on-Shannon was formerly on the very boundary. Several of them were on the very boundary——
Some of them have jumped the boundary.
Some of them have, naturally. I think it is fair to say that this axis in Donegal was not drawn in the place where one would naturally be inclined to draw it and that a good deal of thought went into the particular axis that has been drawn in County Donegal.
It certainly is refreshing at this hour of night on this stage to hear Senator O'Donovan educate the Minister for Local Government as to where the axis of any division in Donegal should or should not be. For the Senator's information, the only natural or near-natural boundary that could be said to exist in Donegal, if there is to be a division in it, is the old constituency boundary which was put into the 1959 Act. Two-thirds of its line has in fact been in existence since some time in the 1880's. In addition, if any further weight were needed to indicate that this line, as we have known it for a number of years, was something more than just the whim of fancy of somebody who came to draw the boundary of the electoral divisions for the purposes of local administration, it may be pointed out that the boundary coincided completely with the boundary between east and west Donegal of old.
As for the suggestion that a straight line drawn from Carrigart to Ballybofey would seem to meet the requirements of the Constitution, and also seem to be the obvious line, I do not know where the Senator got the idea that my objection to such a line would be that it came near to Letterkenny. It is true that it would come very near Letterkenny but that, in itself, would not be an argument. What I think is a very definite argument is that Letterkenny is less than a mile from the estuary of the Swilly and if we bring the boundary, as is suggested, from Carrigart to Ballybofey, south of Letterkenny but near it, we will have a small corridor connecting north Donegal with the north-western portion which lies south of Lough Swilly. That invisible line was suggested during the hearing of the court case. That was suggested at that stage—and, in fact, it was even drawn out on the various maps and overlays with which we were provided during the case—and at one stage so ridiculous was the suggestion that if it were carried out, a peninsula would have been made into an island in the south-west constituency, which would belong to the north-east constituency, and one would have to go through the south-west constituency to get to it.
That is a projection of the type of line Senator O'Donovan has been talking about, very good humouredly, I must say, but nevertheless, lest the cold record might seem to imply that that was a sensible line, or that some sinister motive could be attributed to the line that now exists, I want to say here and now that the line that has been drawn —the present boundary—is in all the circumstances the best line that could be found and drawn, while it is far from being, in my estimation, a practical solution to the problem. I do not think it is a practical solution in any sense of the word, but in all the circumstances in which it has been brought about, if it had to be done in some way, I think that is the best way in which it could have been done.
We have heard to-night about divisions in Donegal, and we heard a lot about them when we were dealing with the 1959 Act. I must confess I am a little disappointed that in dealing with Donegal, we are talking about divisions at all. Surely it would have been more sensible and much easier to give Donegal one constituency. There are minorities in Donegal. The Minister knows far more about them than I could ever learn, but it would be much more to the credit of the Government and the Oireachtas, if there were no divisions in Donegal.
It is with reluctance that I would mention the question of minority representation in Donegal or anywhere else, but now that it has been brought up, let us be quite clear about it. The division as it was took care of the minority representation in Donegal. If in the future the situation is that they no are no longer represented, the blame should be put where it belongs, and the finger should not be pointed at the Minister for Local Government, or the Government, who have had regard at all times, in all things and in all ways, to the rights of that minority and of all other minorities in our community.
Senator Murphy suggested that the obvious and sensible solution would be to join east, west, north and south Donegal together. That is not a sensible solution. I do not doubt that Senator Murphy makes that suggestion in good faith, but I should like to point out that the constituency of North-East Donegal as it now is, and with the divide in the county, gives a mileage of up to 100 miles. Has anyone stopped to think what it would have been like in a constituency stretching from the point of Malin Head in the north to the boundary at Leitrim in the south? That is a matter on which I have felt and still feel very strongly——
Naturally. It is near home.
I do not apply it to near home only, but in general. I do not agree that coalescing the two entities into one constituency would be the proper solution. It would not give to the people of Donegal as a whole the best, the fairest, or equal representation. That is why there are two constituencies in Donegal. While we are on that subject, we should not be too sure that the minority as such will not retain its representation in Donegal. That may be information for some of the Fine Gael people who might begin to feel the draught if they felt it might do so. Let us keep in mind that the minority which is talked of, whether or not it has representation elected by itself and for itself, will be completely, fully, comprehensively and fairly represented by those Deputies who are elected in that part of Donegal at the next election.
I do not want to prolong this debate but the Constitution is concerned with representation of the people and not with mileage Deputies have to travel. If the Minister is really concerned about the minorities, he could remedy the situation simply by having one constituency in Donegal. It is all right to say they will be represented, but in this State in which we are living, and with our traditions, we should lean over backwards to ensure that minorities have representation. Even if that made the job of Deputies more difficult in regard to travel, it would be better that that should be so rather than that the minorities should be deprived of representation in Dáil Éireann.
Surely the Senator will agree we did lean over backwards?
I am dismayed by the Minister's reply. I hope that before we move from the section, he will water down what he has said, because that was a perfectly honest suggestion from Senator Murphy, who is connected not with Fine Gael but with the Labour Party. It was an excellent and honest contribution. The suggestion that, because a member of the Fine Gael Party, in his private capacity, took an action in the law courts, it was our fault there was a likelihood that the minority might lose its representation is, in my view, not only dishonest, but mischievous, hurtful and harmful to the country.
That has always been A.O.H. policy.
I did not hear that interruption. I am being serious about this matter and I hope other people are, too. There are various ways in which Donegal could be divided. It has been suggested by some that it should not be divided at all. The Minister is the man who had the means of dividing it. I shall not point the finger of scorn at him and say: "It is your fault if these people lose their representation." I shall not play politics with minorities and I hope the Minister will withdraw his remark.
Withdraw what remark?
That it would be the fault of the Fine Gael Party——
I said to place the blame where it belongs and not on me.
The Minister placed the blame, and it is not on his right. Anyway, what is wrong with the A.O.H.?
What is right with it?
The Minister might be looking for votes from them yet.
The Senator should not be codding himself. I never did, and I hope I never have to.
We all appreciate the difficulty of the Minister's position.
I am worried.
He gets into bad humour and gets a bit nasty. I can understand that and I hope that it will not interfere with the good relations which members of my Party on this side of the House will have with the Minister in the future. It is with a certain sense of delicacy that I rise to speak on the subject of the Minister's home county. I do not intend to make any reference now to anything that has taken place anywhere else.
On every possible occasion that offers, the Minister tries to squeeze in something of advantage to himself and his own Party in discussing this Bill. I should like to refer to the suggestion made by Senator Murphy that Donegal should be converted into one constituency. The Minister professes a hypocritical concern because minorities may lose representation in the next Dáil and he says that the blame for that will not be his and ought not to be placed on his shoulders. If he is concerned about minorities—I venture to suggest that he is not—I should like to know why he did not adopt the policy so clearly adumbrated by the present Taoiseach on the occasion of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill when he said at column 1283 of Volume 51:
It is perfectly true in theory that the larger the constituency the better chance you give to the smaller minority groups to get a representative elected or an individual candidate to become a member of the Dáil. If the sole concern that is to operate in the minds of Deputies is to secure adequate representation for minorities it might be argued that the larger the constituency the better.
If the Minister and the Government are concerned about giving representation to minorities in Donegal, it is perfectly clear from that that the proper thing to do is to convert Donegal into one constituency of six seats.
Another point arises on that. The present representation in Donegal is based on the 1956 Census of Population and warrants two three-seat constituencies. What will happen if the recent census discloses that the population warrants only 5.4 or 5.5 members instead of six? Clearly, there will then have to be one constituency and part of some other county will have to be brought in.
A little bit of Derry.
I gather from the Minister that the natural boundary justifying drawing a line down from north to south appeared in 1800. The Minister said, at any rate, that it was there since 1800. The Minister said that such a line would involve Deputies travelling 100 miles from one end of the constituency to the other. Under the 1959 Act, the greatest distance from the bounds of Leitrim to Horn Head coastguard station was 78 miles and in East Donegal, the greatest distance was 77 miles. Would the Minister tell us now by how much the 78 and 77 miles respectively have been increased as a result of redrawing the constituencies? If the blame is to be shifted about by the Minister and if dreadful things come upon the people of Donegal, and the country in general, as a result of implementing the provisions of the Constitution—that is all it is—I should like the Minister to tell us by how much the 78 and 77 miles have been increased as a result of this new division?
The Senator has taken me up wrongly, and possibly deliberately.
Not on this occasion.
What I put to the House was a counter argument to the two constituencies being joined. That would entail long distances—I accept the figures given by the Senator for the moment—and it was the resultant distances between the two extreme points that I was arguing about. I am talking about the distance from Malin Head to Leitrim, not about the distances within the two constituencies.
Question put and agreed to.
South-West Donegal.
Question proposed: "That the entry relating to the constituency of South-West Donegal stand part of the Schedule."
What is the maximum distance to be travelled in the new constituency?
I think the Senator has already given the answer himself.
In that case, there is no change.
Question put and agreed to.
Senators O'Donovan, Donegan, O'Quigley, Miss Davidson, Murphy and O'Keeffe indicated dissent.
Dublin.
Question proposed: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Dublin stand part of the Schedule."
I should like to emphasise—the Minister has heard it ad lib in the other House—that there is a genuine feeling on the part of many people that some other method should have been adopted with regard to the division of the constituencies south of the Liffey. A position should not be tolerated which allows the greater part of the population of Ballyfermot to be placed in the county. From the point of view of representation, the 1959 Act was better than the present arrangement, because, under it, Ballyfermot was removed from the county and brought into the city, but, of course, the population in South-West was altogether too high. I appreciate that there is a difficult problem involved but I find it hard to believe that some other and better method could not have been found which would not have resulted in an area like Ballyfermot being included with agricultural areas in County Dublin.
The only comment I should like to make there, and possibly it is only fair that I should, in order that confusion may be removed, is that we are not putting Ballyfermot with this allegedly agricultural area in County Dublin. We are, in fact, taking part of Ballyfermot out of the agricultural County Dublin and bringing it into the city because up to the present the total area of Ballyfermot ward has been part of the County Dublin constituency. In this event, we are taking only part of it in and part of it remains where it was. It is the part that is remaining where it was that has been complained of.
There are difficulties, as the Senator has suggested, but we should be quite clear that we are taking in part of Ballyfermot, rather than sending part of it out to the wilderness of the agricultural area of County Dublin.
Question put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Dun Laoghaire and Rathdown put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of East Galway put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of West Galway put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of North Kerry put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of South Kerry put and agreed to.
Kildare.
Question proposed: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Kildare stand part of the Schedule."
Does the Minister feel that there could not be a better method than the method he adopted in relation to Kildare and surrounding counties? It does not seem to me that the method adopted is logical. If the Minister can convince me that there was no other way he could have done it, I shall be very much obliged.
The Senator, I am sure, will have perused the various figures in so far as this new Kildare constituency is concerned. He will also, I am sure, have found out by now the figures of population that are being taken into the Kildare constituency from Meath and Westmeath. From that, he will be able to agree with me that Meath as it stood and as it is as a county constituency under the 1947 Act was too large by approximately 7,000 odd of population for the three seats which it has. It follows also that if it was too large by 7,000, it was too small by approximately 13,000 to add a further seat to it.
Westmeath, which is part of the constituency of Longford-Westmeath, would again show that the population of the present Longford-Westmeath constituency would be too small for five seats by roughly 12,000 or 13,000 and too large by 6,000 or 7,000 for four seats.
So, we had the situation arising that Longford-Westmeath was being reduced to four seats, that it has approximately 7,000 too many to be allowed to remain in, that Meath also had 6,000 or 7,000 too many to be allowed to remain in, that the two lots put together and added to Kildare would bring Kildare up to a point where an additional seat could be added to it.
That is exactly what has been done and the present situation is that Meath retains the three seats, which is the minimum it can have; Longford-Westmeath has four seats, to which it had to be reduced, and the surpluses of population from both of these constituenies under the 1947 Act have been added to the Kildare county constituency, giving us the present Kildare constituency with an additional seat.
I am not convinced that it was the only way of doing it or the logical way of doing it.
Of course, the obvious way to dispute this being the right way would be to show a better way.
I think I spoke enough on Second Reading about it.
Question put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Laoighis-Offaly put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of East Limerick put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of West Limerick put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Longford-Westmeath put and agreed to.
Louth.
Question proposed: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Louth stand part of the Schedule."
I have made my main contribution on the position in Louth and Monaghan on Second Reading. On that occasion, the Minister made the statement that if he had taken this number of votes from Louth, he would almost have to dissect the county, that he would have to go right into the centre of the county to take the number of population he required for Monaghan. I do not at all accept that. There are two things that must be considered. One is that, if the Minister had not done what he did with regard to Kildare, if he had, perhaps, taken from other surrounding counties— Kildare is not a seaboard county—he would have left himself in the position that he would have had 3,000 to give Meath and 3,500 to give to Louth, without disturbing the town of Ardee.
Neither do I accept that he could not have gone farther north if he needed to give portion from Louth. I believe sincerely it would have been better, if he had to take portion from it, to take a rural portion because an entity such as Ardee, as I have explained, should in fact relate to the county in which it stands because it does so much business with it. It would have been quite possible, if he had preserved for the county of Monaghan a portion of the excess in Meath, to have given a small portion from Louth which would have brought the number required for Monaghan up to the desired figure.
I also believe that it would have been much easier to go north than to take the town of Ardee. I believe an injustice has been done here and, no matter what the Minister may say, I think it would have been practicable, and I have shown that it would be practicable and possible, not to have removed from Louth the town of Ardee and at the same time to give Monaghan its proper quota.
I should like for a moment to refer to a matter which has a direct bearing on this constituency. I submit that it is against the etiquette, custom and procedure of this House to cast aspersions on persons, whether by name or in a way that enables them to be readily identified. The persons to whom I refer are two very distinguished public representatives, very well and widely known, as well as being extremely active. They are also known as being more than diligent in the discharge of their public duties.
How is this relevant?
I relate this to a statement which was made here on this Bill.
When? We are not on the Bill now. We are on an entry in the Schedule. The Senator is wasting the time of the House.
The Senator understands that it is not in order to cast aspersions on people who are not members of the House but it has not arisen on this Stage.
It has not, a Chathaoirligh.
Senator Donegan rose.
I am not giving way to the Senator.
On a point of order. Is it in order to have a series of cross-conversations of which the subject matter is not given and on which I am being indicted?
The Chair is trying to prevent these cross-conversations.
Senator Donegan has a guilty conscience.
Senator Donegan should know Louth pretty well but he suggests that there is no difficulty whatever in taking 3,500 from Louth, leaving Louth the town of Ardee. Has the Senator bothered to consider that taking 3,500 from the Louth population of 69,194 would leave a figure of 65,690 odd? Has he considered that that in turn would give a ratio per member for three seats in the remaining part of the county of 21,890 or 21,900, that the national average of which we have been hearing so much to-night is 21,127 and that the amount by which the national average is exceeded in this case is much greater than the greatest amount by which any other constituency ratio per member exceeds that national average at the moment? In other words taking only 3,500 from the Louth population would leave us with a member ratio in Louth which, in the circumstances of this Bill, could not be tolerated.
The objection has been made that Louth should not lose anything at all. I put it to the Senator that he differs far from the Deputies he complained about the other night in that he did not think it worth his while to go to the High Court—although he has made plenty of noise about it since— voice his belief that Louth should be left as an entity, whereas one of the Deputies slandered by him the other night, Deputy Faulkner, did go and give evidence to back up his beliefs and his convictions. Furthermore, he is not going around now crying because this calamity has come upon Louth. He did his best to avoid it but the Senator did nothing about it. He would like now to make it appear that he is the only man who is sorry about it and that nobody else bothered about it. The suggestion he has made is absolutely without basis and certainly would not stand up to the legal eye of his colleague, Senator O'Quigley, when it comes to comparing it with national averages, and so on.
I did not start being waspish. The Minister started it and those who start it must also expect to get it. The Minister is very good at taking something one says out of its context and pinning it down very firmly. What I said was that it would be simple for the Minister, if he wanted to go further north into Louth, into the soft belly of Louth, to quote a well-known phrase about a different area——
To get away from the Senator's door.
The Senator will be quite all right. It would be quite easy to do that. However, there is another thing the Minister could have done. He could have given to Meath a slice of rural Louth right beside the Senator —for the information of Senator Carter. He could have given from Meath to Monaghan and on the Meath-Monaghan border such parts as would give him his correct figure in Monaghan, in Louth and in Meath. There would have been no difficulty about it at all if he wanted to get down to national averages. Again, I do not accept that the Minister is tied to this national average.
Good.
And I do not think the court has decided that. I must take up this question as to whether or not I went to the High Court to object to Louth being interfered with. In the first instance, I did not know nor did the Minister know—unless he had made up his own mind, as he probably had— how Louth would be interfered with. Secondly, I was not called as a witness by those who were seeking to have this Bill declared unconstitutional. The Minister called Deputy Faulkner as a witness—and it is relevant for me to tell you that he did call him as a witness—and the Deputy gave good evidence. The Deputy was called as a witness for a set purpose. It was to prove that this area of Louth which at the time had only one T.D. for 23,165 people, could be served by a smaller number of T.D.s in relation to the number of people, even though the Minister for External Affairs had been away for 93 days—I think that was the quoted number—on his duties overseas. The purpose was to prove that while Louth was one of the places where there were fewer T.D.s in relation to the people, that was quite permissible.
That was the reason why Deputy Faulkner was taken there. He gave good evidence. He did not succeed in his evidence but he was taken there for the purpose of showing that Louth should not be bisected, that Louth should be left as it was. He was brought there for the purpose of showing that because of the absence of the Minister for External affairs, it was possible with fewer T.D.s in the county to serve the area.
Senator Donegan would seem to know the minds of everybody and what motivated everybody and anybody in connection with matters about which otherwise he alleges he does not know anything. Senator Faulkner volunteered to go along to the court to give evidence as to what he believed to be the situation in regard to the constituency of Louth.
The Minister should have said "Deputy." I did not volunteer.
Anyhow, Faulkner is the name. If I should have mistakenly appended "Senator" to him, I apologise to Deputy Faulkner lest he might be confused with the Senator who took it on himself to think it was he who volunteered. He volunteered and came along for the purpose of showing that, in his belief, the people in Louth could be better served, better represented by Louth T.D.s than by having the county sundered and part of it put in with another county. That is a very different thing from what Senator Donegan has attributed as the motive for Deputy Faulkner's evidence when he came to court or rather when he was brought to court.
He did not volunteer? He was brought?
It is Senator Donegan who alleges he was brought.
The Minister said so.
I have stated he volunteered to come to court in order to give his knowledge and the benefit of his experience to the court, to convince the court, if it were possible, that Louth would be better left as an entity rather than broken up as it is now. Senator Donegan did not so volunteer. The Senator now would say, in respect of the original idea of 3,500 being sufficient to take off and to leave the town of Ardee in Louth, that for some peculiar reason, he would not mind getting rid of part of Louth which lies south of his own home stamping ground, that it should be "hooshed" into Meath and that we could further imbalance the population ratio in Meath to the degree that we could then break Meath and put part of Meath into Monaghan. Surely the Senator does not expect the House to take that suggestion seriously? Surely the two breaks he suggests would ultimately be a greater upset and a greater nuisance to more of our population than one group going into the adjoining county of Monaghan? He suggests taking a portion of Louth and putting it into Meath and then taking some part of Meath and putting it into Monaghan. Why not adopt the easy approach of giving part of Louth to Monaghan where they adjoin each other, which is what is being done? The Senator has no argument when he says that less could have been taken, because the area suggested to be taken by the Senator would not have brought about the situation wherein the ratio per member would come within the permissible limits.
I want to take up the question that less could not have been taken. If the Minister had followed what he said were Deputy Faulkner's reasons (1) in going to court, (2) in being brought to court and (3) in volunteering to go to court——
He volunteered. As a matter of record and misquotation, I want to make it quite clear that I said, and I still say, that Deputy Faulkner volunteered to go to court and was not brought, as Senator Donegan has alleged.
There were no chains on his hands. I can confirm that.
Then I must accept the Minister's correction of his own words.
That is not so. It is a misquotation and well the Senator knows it.
I remember a famous misquotation of the Minister before. It was most interesting.
Would the Senator like to quote it? Does the Senator want to start quoting that again?
The Minister is the most misquoted man in Ireland.
My advice to the Minister was to go outside and sue the people outside.
If the Senator has something to say, why has he not the guts to say it?
Certainly, I will say it if the Minister wishes me to say it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
No. The Senator must not say anything the Chair might have to take action on.
Am I allowed to make this contribution?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Order!
The Minister knows well what I could say but I shall not bother about it.
The Senator has not the guts.
Very well, then. I shall say it. Sue the Irish Independent and see what will happen.
The Senator has not the guts to do it.
The statement was that less could have been taken. The number of persons per Deputy has been fixed by the Minister. If the Minister desires a lesser number of Deputies, he need not touch Louth at all. The number of Deputies is his decision and nobody else's decision. When that court case was at hearing, there was no question of anybody knowing who would or would not be interfered with. Some people may think I am making a political case out of this on a personal basis.
Ah, no.
I should like Senators to understand exactly what the position is. When this Bill goes through, nobody in Ardee town, the place I am defending, can vote for a Louth Fine Gael candidate. No one person in Ardee town can do so. I suggest that the Minister could quite easily take from the Louth-Meath border a slice of rural area and so allow part of Meath to go to Monaghan. What we are talking about now is people who could vote for a Louth Fine Gael candidate. Therefore, in fact, if you talk about personal politics, I am talking all the time against myself. I sincerely believe that the Minister did not have to remove the town of Ardee from Louth. I am quite certain he need not have done so.
It is removed now, anyhow.
He need not have done it. I believe it is quite improper and incorrect. If Ardee were in Donegal, I do not believe it would have been removed into the county next door.
The Senator now says that there was no need to touch Louth at all, that we could have looked at Louth and said: "There are 69,000, odd, people in it. What should the average be? We will divide Louth by three, which gives us 23,000. Now we will divide 23,000 into the total population of the country and mulct the rest of this country's constituency boundaries so long as we start off with Louth and settle it and its needs."
Next, it is said the Minister is responsible because he fixed the total number of Deputies, which has some relation to this matter but a rather vague relationship, as the Senator put it. Section 2 deals with this matter. I did not hear the Senator object. I did not hear any opposition to it. I do not see any amendment down to throw it out or to amend it, nor was there any challenge in this House on the Committee Stage. Let us stop talking nonsense.
The Minister can play all the tricks he likes but he does not have to look at Louth and decide not to touch it and then mulct the rest of the constituencies for that purpose. He has to decide the proper number. If he had decided on a greater number of persons per Teachta Dála, Louth would have been left as it is. Nobody knew what would be the position in the court case. There is no use in saying to us that an amendment was not put down or this or that was not put down. All Fianna Fáil wanted us to do was to create so much trouble over this Bill and to delay it so long that the general election would be delayed for two years. Is that not so? We will not do it for you.
You cannot delay it, baby.
We want it.
Only lately.
Question put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of North Mayo agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of South Mayo agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Meath agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Monaghan agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Roscommon agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Sligo-Leitrim agreed to.
North Tipperary.
Question proposed: "That the entry relating to the constituency of North Tipperary stand part of the Schedule."
I should like the guidance of the Chair as to whether I am speaking on the right item in the Schedule. I refer to the South Tipperary constituency. North Tipperary is one of the constituencies that has been adjusted, having a bearing on South Tipperary, and the Waterford constituency also has been adjusted, having a bearing on——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think it would be in order for the Senator to deal with it on this entry.
The three constituencies impinge on one another.
I mentioned the last day that I thought the conception of the old Principality of the Decies had been gravely damaged by the way the Minister had divided up that constituency. He took 6,411 of the electorate of West Waterford and put them into South Tipperary. Afterwards, I read his speech here in the Seanad. He told me, at Col. 541 of the Seanad Debates of 25th May, 1961, that the population of Waterford was only 74,000 and that he would be brought before the courts if he did not apply the provisions of the Constitution in this matter. He did not refer to the fact that Carlow-Kilkenny had a surplus of 6,160 on the basis of the figures in Clare. Would not the sensible way of dealing with that matter be to put some of the northern suburbs of Waterford into the Waterford constituency? That would be an area whose people work in factories in Waterford and for whom Waterford would be their centre. They are at present in the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency. The Minister had 6,160 to play about with there.
The population of South Tipperary constituency is four times 20,674, which is even higher than the Carlow-Kilkenny average. There would appear to be a surplus of about 5,000 in South Tipperary on the basis of the Clare assessment. Therefore, if the Minister felt he was taking too much from Waterford, he could have taken a thousand from South Tipperary and it would not have affected the situation. But what he did was to take a long, narrow finger of land and go as far down as Youghal Bridge. In consequence, he made many of these people vote for people on the other side of the large range of the Comeragh Mountains, away altogether from their natural boundaries and associations.
The Minister in no circumstances can justify what he has done to Waterford, except purely on the basis of political expediency. You need only get a sixpenny map at Woolworth's to see how ridiculous the thing is. The two constituencies touching Waterford — Carlow-Kilkenny and South Tipperary—both have surpluses on the basis of the Minister's Clare estimates. He could have made some minor adjustments which would have allowed the traditional Palatinate of Tipperary, which afterwards became the county of Tipperary, to remain a six-seat constituency and Waterford to remain a four-seat constituency. But that would not have suited, because there are five Fianna Fáil Deputies in Tipperary and there never would have been five Fianna Fáil Deputies elected on that basis again. It is so obvious that there is no good trying to put a skin on it, because there is no skin to cover it. The 6,411 people in Waterford have been completely disfranchised as a result of the Minister's action, and we will not be without telling him that when the time comes to tell him.
Senator Burke is like all the others——
I am not. I have facts.
No amendments.
With all the wisdom and knowledge we hear from the Opposition, they have not made the slightest effort, if they were convinced of their own arguments—which I do not believe they are—to bring in amendments designed to get over the objections they raise.
And have the Minister reject every one of them.
Perhaps, if they followed up what they are saying, they would not have a leg to stand on, unless it be their own political purposes. They seem to see a sinister purpose in every line that has been drawn and every boundary, old and new. I suspect strongly that in every instance these objections are based on their own political motives—that it is politics from the Party point of view which is motivating these criticisms. However, all these words sound empty on the Committee Stage of a Bill on which no amendments have been put down as an alternative to what is proposed.
Senator Burke, like others who talked about Tipperary and Waterford, is now shedding copious tears for the sundering of part of the constituency of Waterford from the remainder. There may be method in this approach. Being concerned about the welfare of these people being transferred to South Tipperary might lead them to believe that the person who makes the most complaint on their behalf is their best friend when the election comes around.
But let us look at the alternatives to Senator Burke's suggestion which, in the last analysis, means the creation of a further six-seat constituency by joining the two Tipperarys together. Leaving that aside, there is the suggestion that we should have added part of Tipperary to Waterford in order to retain the four seats in Waterford. Is Senator Burke one of those who believes that would be the proper thing to do? Is he satisfied that part of the town of Clonmel should be brought into Waterford and that the people in that part of the town should henceforth vote for Waterford Deputies and that they should not be allowed to vote for anybody from Tipperary? Would he, on the other hand, have Carrick brought in or would he have part of the country north of Carrick brought into Waterford along with Carrick? Would he go within four miles of Tipperary town to avoid taking in part of Clonmel or would he take in any part of south-west Tipperary? Would he agree that we should go northwards in South Tipperary to within four miles of Tipperary town and add it to Waterford to retain the four seats in Waterford? Unfortunately for the people making these arguments without backing them up, there must be an alternative. Does Senator Burke like any of these alternatives? Does he prefer any of them to what is being done? Would he be as voluble in South Tipperary pushing any peculiar alternatives as he would appear to be here? Possibly he will have something to say about that.
The Minister referred to amendments. Senator O'Quigley asked the Cathaoirleach what facilities would be given in regard to the statistical data necessary for Senators to put down amendments in the precise manner demanded in the House. The Cathaoirleach did not give the Senator any assurance that this material which was necessary for that purpose would be made available to members of the House. I believe it should have been made available. I spoke to Senator O'Quigley about putting down an amendment and he said it would be ineffective, without having the resources that should have been made available to the House. That is why I did not put down the amendment.
What I suggested to the Minister was that the sensible thing would have been to put the north suburbs of Ferrybank in with Waterford. They are normally part of Waterford city. The people of Ferrybank work in Waterford and it is their own environment. Only 3,000 people need be taken over and very minor adjustments are all that would have been necessary to give Waterford a number in line with the number which was thought sufficient for County Clare. There would have been no necessity to put the 10,697 in Clonmel urban into Waterford because Waterford would then have a very considerable surplus of about 7,000 over the ratio that was used in Clare. If the whole of Carrick urban were put in, there would still be a surplus on that basis.
Putting in the northern suburbs of Waterford would have been a normal method of meeting the situation. Any solution I suggested would have been far better than that which was adopted. From Clonmel town to Youghal bridge is 38 miles and the people of that part of West Waterford are very disappointed with the arrangements made. That does not apply to supporters of any political Party in particular but to Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour supporters in general. All of them vehemently condemn the way in which the constituency is divided.
There has been considerable resentment in West Waterford about the manner in which the constituency was carved up. I was in the difficulty that I could not put forward any real alternative for what has been done but it seems Senator Burke has made a reasonable suggestion. He made his point to-night and the Minister did not meet it in his reply. The Minister criticised Senator Burke and made what I thought were rather cheap political points. He did not deal with the suggestion that Ferrybank—which I had thought was in Waterford constituency—could have been put into Waterford in order to retain the four seats. Would the Minister now deal with that point and give us some guidance on it?
Certainly. First, I must sympathise with the members of this House who could not find sufficient information available to them to put down any sensible amendment. Senator O'Quigley and Senator Burke apparently consulted together and decided that, in the absence of this information or the impossibility of getting it there was no point in trying to put down any amendment. The Census of Population which, I am sure, would be the first volume that anybody seeking population figures would think of, is in fact not unknown, I believe, in the country. Further, in the explanatory notes which appear very early in that volume, it is clearly stated that populations of individual towns and townlands and any other information which is not already available in the volume may be had on request from the Central Statistics Office.
Of course Senator O'Quigley would not know anything about the Census of Population being available and even if he had stumbled across it, he would not know that such information as detailed figures for the various small groups of population would be available, nor would he know of this clear invitation to seek further information from the Central Statistics Office which is there for the benefit of Senator O'Quigley and any other member of the public who requires this information, assuming it is genuinely needed.
Regarding Senator Burke's point that Ferrybank should be included in Waterford constituency, this would, in fact, encroach on County Kilkenny. Carlow-Kilkenny constituency, as the House is probably aware is already getting a few thousand of population from County Wexford, a number which is not only surplus to Wexford's requirements for the purpose of retaining its four seats, but which is also necessary in order to bring Carlow-Kilkenny up the little bit it needs to retain its five seats. The idea of bringing Waterford up from 73,000 to approximately 80,000 by dipping into Kilkenny— which in itself was just under the line but it was fortunate that there was that little bit adjoining in Wexford that could be brought in to leave Carlow-Kilkenny with five seats—would not be feasible. If we were to take away Ferrybank from Carlow-Kilkenny to bolster up Waterford, we leave ourselves with an unresolved problem of some thousands of population in Wexford.
These things have a chain reaction. If you put into or take from any par ticular constituency and if that con stituency is thereby put out of line, no only does it affect the constituency pu out of line but in order to mend the damage done there, further damage is done to an adjoining constituency and so on. I think this is a matter that is either wittingly or otherwise not within the knowledge of the people who make these criticisms so widely and so volubly.
Adjusting one constituency, as suggested by Senator Burke would, if we could isolate it, appear to meet the situation and give us four seats in Waterford by taking in this bit of its northern suburbs. If, as has been said, we dip into the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency and take out of it approximately 6,000 in order to build up Waterford, we reduce Carlow-Kilkenny below the figure which would justify five seats and we leave them with more than would justify four seats. What are we to do with the surplus? That is the type of problem that immediately arises when you try to take a single constituency in isolation. There is a consequential upsetting of other adjoining constituencies in the chain reaction I have indicated. This chain reaction may be overlooked when the problem looks so simple in isolation and anybody talking here may be forgiven if he can think only in a personal sort of way about the problem as he sees it on his own doorstep. Just have a thought for the difficulties—the almost impossibilities —that will be created if what may appear to Senator Burke to be a reasonable suggestion, were to be followed and where it would end before we had done with it.
On a point of order, before we proceed. It is now 12 o'clock. I think as far as to-day is concerned we have worked from 5 p.m. until midnight, the same number of hours as if we had worked from 3 o'clock until 10 o'clock. It is now 12 o'clock and I do not think the House can object— short of some kind of emergency— to carrying on for very much longer. In addition, the staff have worked from 10 o'clock this morning until 12 o'clock —a 14-hour day. We cannot reasonably expect them to go any further. As far as I and a number of other Senators are concerned there is a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges at 11 o'clock to-morrow morning and those of us who have to attend to religious duties in the morning must get home and get to bed at a reasonable hour. I suggest we adjourn.
The Senator should have thought about that this evening when I first mentioned this at 6 o'clock. I am sticking to the agreement which was made, that we complete the business tonight. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice has been waiting since 6 o'clock and it is unfair to him. He had to wait on the last day also. I do not see any reason why we cannot sit to complete the business as arranged.
The Minister seemed to think that the suggestion——
Are we going to decide whether we are going to adjourn or continue?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I understand the question of the House sitting on a Church holiday—and we are really sitting on a Church holiday now as it is after 12 o'clock—is a matter for the House to decide. I take it that the suggestion from the Leader of the House is that we should sit to complete the business.
I suggest that we sit until we complete the business. Anyhow, it is summertime and so it is not yet a Church holiday.
The Leader of the House would chance anything.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think we should complete this Stage of this Bill.
We can complete this Stage because the election-thirsty heroes will object to giving us the remaining Stages. They are afraid to face it.
I only begin to wake up at night time.
If we are only to finish this Bill, an indication should be given that that is as far as we are going so that people will not be detained here.
Senator O'Quigley should not be whinging now——
I am not whinging.
——he brought it on himself. He should realise that so far as the business of the House is concerned there is an agreement and I am adhering to that agreement.
I can say that as a leader of a Party—admittedly, a small Party—I am not a party to that agreement at all.
I do no know whether Senator Murphy was here at 6 o'clock——
I was.
——when I referred to the agreement made with Fine Gael and Senator Murphy did not object.
I am objecting now. I am not an unreasonable person but when you go on into the dawn, I object.
I was interested in this chain reaction. It reminded me of the atomic bomb but I have no intention of throwing any missile of that sort at the Minister because he would try to catch it and throw it back at me. There are 6,160 more people in the Kilkenny-Carlow constituency than required by the average to elect a Deputy in Clare and just less than half that number would bring the Waterford constituency up to the amount required, and which is stated to be constitutionally correct, to elect a member in the Clare constituency. Therefore, no chain reaction would result. There is a story told that when a Kilkenny man crosses over the bridge at Waterford, he takes a penny out of his pocket and throws it into the river. If the penny floats, he will go back but if it sinks he will stay in Waterford. That is an illustration of how much the people of Kilkenny like Waterford, to allay the Minister's fears that 3,000 of the people in the northern suburbs and the immediate environs of the city of Waterford would object to being brought into the city. I think the Minister's argument does not hold water.
I should like to say for the record, and in order to cut down to size the agitation and anxiety of Senator Burke and his colleagues, that it should be remembered that when this amendment was in the Dáil, the House which is directly concerned, and the Deputies who are directly concerned with the fate of these constituencies, only 14 members of the Fine Gael Party could be mustered and only five of the Labour Party, in opposition to this proposal. That is the exact number.
We were not responsible for the muster on that occasion.
That is the number that could be found to defend these people.
If there is only one man found to defend the right, he will have to do it.
Question put and agreed to.
Senators Miss Davidson, Murphy, O'Quigley and Burke were recorded as dissenting.
Entry relating to the constituency of South Tipperary put and agreed to.
Senators Miss Davidson, Murphy, O'Quigley and Burke were recorded as dissenting.
Entry relating to the constituency of Waterford put and agreed to.
Senators Miss Davidson, Murphy, O'Quigley and Burke were recorded as dissenting.
Entry relating to the constituency of Wexford put and agreed to.
Entry relating to the constituency of Wicklow put and agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 7th June, 1961.