I understood that they were sent the Bill and said that this was all right. I did not understand that they said that this was the limit and the Minister could not go beyond that. That is my understanding of it. In other words, the Bill was sent to them with this 1,000 tolerance and they said this was a good Bill. There was an election coming up at that time and it was a very rapid job. I feel that if a Bill had been sent up with 18,000 to 22,000 and worked out properly, I suspect they might have accepted it. However, it is a highly academic point because we are faced with the position of having these ridiculously small tolerances of some 19,000 on the one hand and some 21,000 on the other. I will accept completely that this causes difficulties. It makes it impossible to adhere completely to county boundaries but that is the limit we are working inside. This was the problem, therefore, the Minister had to face.
The question arises of precisely what type of policy the Minister should have set himself. He said at the beginning of his speech that this Bill proposes to fix the total number of Members of Dáil Éireann and to revise the Dáil constituencies in order to take account of the increase in population and of the changes in the distribution of population as recorded by the census taken in April, 1971. To my mind that is precisely what he has not done. If he had he would have left county boundaries as near as possible to what they were before making such changes as were necessitated by changes in population. He has, in fact, done quite the opposite. In various parts of the country the changes in population were quite small—in one or two cases they were substantial— but in the vast majority of cases the changes were quite small. The Minister has taken advantage of these small changes in population to make very radical alterations in constituencies throughout the country, including alterations in a number of constituencies which did not require alteration at all and which under the close tolerances by which we are now bound could have been left alone. In spite of this the Minister has taken these constituencies and others which required very minor changes and has started from scratch changing the entire constituency set-up of the country for purely narrow party political advantage.
I am again referring to the crocodile tears of Senator Horgan. This is an approach to a Bill of its kind which has never, in fact, been used before on this scale. There are many examples. Take first of all the situation in Dublin city. One thing about the borough of Dublin is that its total population in the five years from the census in 1966 to 1971 increased by 64. Taking the borough of Dublin the convenient situation was that there was no need whatever to take in from outside. It was a self-sufficient entity and it was a matter merely of reorganising the constituencies in the city of Dublin. We find, looking at these present constituencies still in existence until the next general election, that in the case of Dublin North-West and Dublin South-Central, only very minor changes would have been required to leave them as they are at present. In the case of Dublin South-West slightly greater but still very minor changes would have been needed while in Dublin South-East only minor changes were needed. The really substantial change was needed in Dublin North-East which has had a very big increase in population and needed to lose around 28,000 votes.
This would have involved substantial additions and losses in both Dublin North-Central and Dublin Central. The majority of the constituencies in the city of Dublin could have been left relatively unchanged. Of course, the Minister has not done this. The Minister, as we know, has divided Dublin city into three-seat constituencies. I have the impression, and here I think he is quite wrong, that he is misjudging the air of frustration that exists among the people of Dublin about the policies or lack of policies of this Government—the constantly rising prices, the breach of undertakings given and so on. Nonetheless, he has divided Dublin city into nine three-seat constituencies under, I think, the rather innocent impression that this would result in Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour each having 13 seats. It is very significant that by some sort of accident of fate, if one can use that term, my own constituency of Dún Laoghaire, of all the 14 constituencies of Dublin city and county, has four seats, not three. The population of Dún Laoghaire in the 1971 census was 98,000 odd. The Minister does not need me to tell him what that means. It means that without any alteration whatever in the existing boundaries of the constituency of Dún Laoghaire it could have been made into a five-seater as he made Cork into a five-seater. This, of course, would not do. I said from the start, when the Minister was framing this Bill, knowing the kind of attitude with which this Bill was being approached, that the one constituency in the entire country which would not be changed under any circumstances would be Dún Laoghaire. If it were made a three-seater, the result would be a loss for the Coalition whereas to bring it up to five seats would mean a Fianna Fáil gain. Therefore, it must be left a four-seater. It could have been left with its existing boundaries and five seats. But it is the odd one out. All the other constituencies in the Dublin area are three-seaters but not Dún Laoghaire. This is the procedure of the Minister who claims, whether he expects to be believed I do not know, that this has been an operation conducted solely in accordance with the Constitution; solely in accordance with the requirements brought about by changes in population, giving fair play to all, treating all areas equally. This is the attitude that the Minister would like us to think he has had. I would like to know why the simple straightforward step was not taken of leaving Dún Laoghaire with its existing boundaries and allowing changes in population to take their effect by simply adding one seat.
We can go to Cork. I am sorry Senator Quinlan is not here because he is a great champion of the rights of all Cork men. The Minister, in the course of his speech, pointed out that Cork was one of the few counties which was self-sufficient in the sense that the population was such that it did not need the addition of territory or the loss of territory to other areas. Its population, while it changed, did not change very drastically. It increased from 339,713 in 1966 to 352,883 in 1971—an increase of about 13,000, which on a marginal basis could have been said to justify an extra seat but it was legitimate to say: "No, we leave it with the existing number of seats." The Minister, in fact, did not leave the Cork constituencies the way they were. In 1971 the two existing Cork city constituencies each had a population of about 64,000, marginally over the allowable number for three seats each. Mid Cork and North-East Cork had again about 1,000 more than the marginal amount allowable to keep their four seats in each case. South-West Cork while it was within the Constitution limits was somewhat below the average for the country as a whole. All that was needed in Cork was to hand over a couple of thousand votes from Mid Cork and North-East Cork to South-West Cork and thus give a very small marginal addition of votes from the two city constituencies to the various county constituencies. Very little change was needed in Cork. The Minister who was, in fact, observing his constitutional duty to make such changes as were required by the Constitution provision and changes in population, could have dealt with Cork city, borough and county by making very minor changes. Indeed, this would have been in accordance not only with the constitutional principles he should have followed, but the two three-seat constituencies in Cork city fitted in very well with his principle of dividing Dublin into three-seat constituencies. This, of course, is not what he did.
Cork city, which has had an increase in population of 6,500 since 1966, has gained 6,500 votes in the five years and has had a seat taken from it. From the city of Cork some of the most historic and oldest parishes were taken such as St. Finbarrs, The Lough, Ballyphehane and Togher. Nearly all the corporation housing estates were pushed into Mid Cork away from Cork city. University College, Cork is now in the area of Mid Cork and not Cork city. There is an enormous wedge of Mid Cork sticking way up almost into the centre of the city of Cork. This is a procedure which could be justified under other circumstances if there was no alternative to it. These things sometimes happen under this unfortunate, very close tolerance with which we have to work.
In the case of Cork county, there was absolutely no necessity for any radical changes, solely the Minister's feeling that whereas Fianna Fáil in the two three-seat constituencies of Cork city gained two votes out of three in each case, clearly they could only get three out of five. Further the Minister had the feeling that whereas it was difficult for the candidates of his own party to get a quarter of the votes necessary for a quota in a three-seat constituency it would be considerably easier for them to get one-sixth of the votes to gain a quota in a five-seat constituency.
This to my mind is an indefensible piece of gerrymandering. In replying I would like the Minister to tell us openly and straightforwardly why he divided Cork borough and Cork county in this fashion? I do not want smart cracks or anything like that, or remarks about what anybody else did or could have done. I would simply like an answer. Why was Cork dealt with in this way? When the city of Cork had an increase of 5,500 in population why was a seat taken from it? Why is this enormous wedge of Mid Cork put into Cork city? Is it not simply an exercise in political gerrymandering?
We can go on from Cork to the interesting situation in Clare-Galway. We have heard a good deal about that already today. The population of County Clare in 1971 was 75,008. The addition of another 1,000 or so votes would, in fact, be adequate to give four seats. The Minister told us, even as late as yesterday, how anxious he was to preserve county boundaries as much as possible. All he had to do with Clare was to take 1,000 votes or so out of Galway—even 1,500— and there was a perfectly good constituency with four seats.
What did he do instead of that? He shoved a very large part of Clare, going down to within a couple of miles of the county town of Ennis, into West Galway, making in geographical terms an impossible constituency. All the way down from Ennis through Galway city and way up into Connemara, into Clifden and the islands beyond is an impossible constituency. You have a very large number of Clare people pushed into a neighbouring county instead of the very small number it would have been necessary to bring from outside into Clare. The reason, as we all know, was that it was feared that in a four-seat Clare constituency Fianna Fáil might get three seats, whereas in a four-seat West Galway constituency Fianna Fáil would presumably only get two. There was also the possibility—a possibility that many people doubt very much and I am inclined to agree with them —that the Minister's own party might gain a seat. At any rate Fianna Fáil clearly would have great difficulty getting three out of four in West Galway. Even there I think the Minister might be surprised.
There again you have an operation which in no way could be justified on the basis of the Minister's brief, on the basis of the spirit of the Constitution, or on the basis of what the Minister should be doing. The Minister should be making the minimum necessary changes, keeping as closely as possible to county boundaries.
We have an even more interesting situation if one takes the west as a whole. A number of Senators, particularly those from the west, have complained about the Minister taking two seats from that area. There have been the smart cracks from our silent brethren opposite. They say that it was the incompetent Fianna Fáil Governments during 16 years who lowered the population of the west and so on and as a result lost some seats.
The interesting thing is that in Galway and Clare as a result of the happy and beneficial results of Fianna Fáil policy the population has not been falling. It has been rising. The Minister's attitude to these rises in population and the unfortunately still falling population in other parts of the west has been very interesting. We have the position that in Clare the population rose by 1,400—I will not quote the exact figures because it complicates things too much, but I can if anyone wants them. These are rounded figures. In Galway the population rose by about 900 in the five years from 1966 to 1971. In these two areas combined the population went up and the Minister has taken a seat from them.
In Mayo, on the other hand, in the same period the population went down by 6,000 and the Minister has left them with six seats. I do not want to be misunderstood on this. I think that whatever his reasoning may have been the Minister was right; a far flung, very remote, very large and thinly populated constituency like Mayo should have been left six seats. Nonetheless it seems significant that in an area such as Mayo, where the Fine Gael Party are very strong, they are left with six seats in face of a falling population of 6,000. On the other hand in Clare-Galway, where Fine Gael are weak and Fianna Fáil very strong and where there is a rising population the Minister takes a seat from them.
You have the position also in the counties of Leitrim, Sligo and Roscommon. The population of Leitrim fell by some 2,200 votes in the five years. In Sligo it fell by 1,000 and in Roscommon it fell by 2,700. This is a pattern of falling population in each case. As we know, the existing representation of Sligo-Leitrim was left the same as the existing representation of Roscommon-Leitrim. Going further north-west, the population of Donegal was static —it fell by a mere 205, so for all practical purposes, there was neither fall nor rise in the five years, but a seat was taken from them.
Donegal, also, I need hardly say, is an area where Fine Gael are weak. So, in Clare, Galway, and Donegal, the population is either rising or static and the Minister deprives them of seats. In Mayo, Sligo-Leitrim and Roscommon, where the population is falling, sometimes quite rapidly, the Minister leaves them with their existing representation.
Let me take some of the constituencies in more general terms. There were 21 constituencies in the country that on the basis of the census of 1971, could have been left unchanged. They were within the narrow tolerances that we are now allowed. I accept that, taken individually, each of these 21 constituencies could have been left unchanged. Naturally, there was a possibility that as a result of changes which were made inevitable elsewhere some of these constituencies might have had marginal changes required in them. These 21 if taken by themselves could have retained their existing representation and their existing boundaries. What did the Minister do?
In nine of the 21 he completely changed the constituencies. In the case of eight, he changed the whole basis of representation—he either took a seat from them or added a seat. In the case of one, Clare, as I have already mentioned, while leaving them three seats for reasons which we all know, he entirely changed the geographical basis of the constituency. So nine of the 21 were changed. That left 12 which were unchanged essentially in their existing boundaries and with the same number of seats as they had before.
On which basis did the Minister make the decision that nine were to be changed and 12 left unchanged? Of course we cannot know the Minister's mind at any particular time— only he can know that. However, I think there are some significant clues to this. There were, as I mentioned, 21 constituencies which under the Constitution, and on the basis of their population in 1971, could have been left unchanged. The Minister changed nine. Nine, to the Minister, were not satisfactory. We find that in none of these nine constituencies was there a Coalition majority of seats. Not in one of them. Eight out of the other 12 had a Coalition majority. Three were level pegging—that is, two seats each in four-seat constituencies; and one had a Fianna Fáil majority. And which was that one? West Limerick.
You have heard a lot about West Limerick. I must confess that when I first heard the rumour about West Limerick I thought it could not be true. Here we have a situation where as the Minister, I am sure will assent, the Limerick constituencies were self-sufficient: the number of votes in each was such that it did not need any addition or subtraction—each constituency was satisfactory as it stood.
I said it was impossible that any Minister would be so crooked that he would reverse them and have West Limerick as the four-seater, to gain an extra seat for the Coalition, and East Limerick as a three-seater to lose a seat for Fianna Fáil. This matter has been raised on a number of occasions in the Dáil.