Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Hanafin

I will have to refer to my notes because of the unexpected interruption. I have things to say which I feel are of some importance and I would like to deal with them even at the risk of repetition. At the same time, I get the feeling that all my suggestions or, indeed, any suggestions which were made from this side of the House, will be all in vain. The attitude of the Government side seems to be one of "Let's get rid of this Bill as quickly as possible." They apparently even resent the time that the Opposition are given to make what I would hope is responsible criticism. This is, of course, a deterrent at all times to anyone who wants to make a responsible contribution.

I have, in some small way, dealt with the constituencies which I feel are not being given the representation to which they are entitled. There are constituencies which from one end to the other exceed or are close to 100 miles in length. It is unreasonable to expect that few public representatives could give such a constituency the attention it deserves. It was said at one time that the function of a Deputy or a Senator was merely to legislate. Perhaps that was the original intention but all of us are aware that a public representative's time is taken up not alone with legislating, or preparing for legislation, or doing one's homework so that he can contribute to a Bill, even though after all the hours spent on homework in the hope that he might make a responsible contribution he is running the risk of——

Mr. McGlinchey

On a point of order, as a result of the precedent created a short time ago by the Leader of the House in asking that the House continue to sit until 1 a.m., I am going to create another precedent. If the supporters of Fine Gael and Labour want this House to sit until 1 o'clock the least they can do is provide this House with a quorum. We had the hypocritical situation a few minutes ago of this House being forced to a division to continue this debate and then Members on the Government side left the building. I feel that Senator Hanafin is entitled——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is entitled to call for a quorum but not make a lengthy speech in doing so.

Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,

Mr. Hanafin

I was dealing with the sizeable constituencies in rural areas where we might have few representatives to look after the needs of the constituents. It was said at one stage that I was guilty of repetition but I must do so to pick up where I left off. It was said that the only function of Oireachtas Members was to legislate. I do not, of course, subscribe to that view nor could I possibly subscribe to that view any more than any other Member here. We are all aware that it is traditional in this country for Oireachtas Members to be approached to use their influence in many matters. It is refreshing when one meets a case of injustice or discrimination in some sense that the public representative can bring it to the notice of higher authorities. They, irrespective of what party the representative may belong to, if they recognise the injustice and discrimination—or whatever it may be—do everything that is possible to rectify the situation. That is one of the functions of a public representative. It has become traditional for public representatives to open an office or, as it is described now in political terms, "a clinic", to deal with the complaints of constituents. This work consumes many man hours. Generally the Oireachtas Member finds that he is fortunate if he has Sunday free to be with his family. I am not at this stage attempting to describe what hard-working people we are or how over-worked we are. I am making the point that the public representative in rural areas has always to be available to his constituents. That is part of his work. He can also be the leader of his community in promoting matters that can only improve that community. He is called upon to lead deputations relating to industry and often, as has happened to myself, has to travel far in his efforts to be a good representative. Where you have constituencies, like my own, which is 40 or 50 miles long—and there are constituencies that are 70, 80 and, at least in one case, close to 100 miles long—these are the very constituencies in which a TD or a Senator can do so much good work for the community.

One would think that the Minister and his advisers—and that includes his impartial advisers—would be promoting more representation in those areas so that the people would have the benefit of it. Instead of that being the case, we have in this Bill a situation where Munster would be entitled —and one could argue about its entitlement on figures—to one more seat while the west, which is to be reduced by two seats rather than getting more representation, is having these seats taken away and given to the city of Dublin. No one could argue against the increase in population in Dublin.

Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,

Mr. Hanafin

I was comparing the country areas with the city areas. I was making the point——

Mr. Russell

Of no return.

Mr. Hanafin

I stressed the need for increased representation in rural areas. I now wish to deal with the population increase in what might be described as greater Dublin. Even though the population increase is a fact, and one cannot dispute it, I still find it difficult to justify the Minister's decision to give increased representation to the city of Dublin.

A representative's work in the city is quite different from the work of a representative in a rural area. First of all he would not be more than three, four or five miles from the farthest point of his constituency. He has the advantage of living at home. The rural representatives are away from their constituencies for two or three days at a time. He also has a regular office system and can give the representation required to his people without any difficulty regarding travel with which the rural Deputy has to contend. The Minister, as a rural Deputy, should have taken that into account.

Besides the work required of any representative there is also the work of preparation for those who want to participate in the debates in the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is worthwhile work as far as the representative is concerned. It is tiring but nevertheless a pleasure to give this type of preparation as much time as he can spare. But what is frustrating is that having given that time to preparation and staying in the House all day waiting to make his speech, he should be accused of filibustering. That, in itself, is frustrating and annoying but it is particularly annoying when one takes into account the fact that the charge of filibustering was made at approximately 6 o'clock this evening and, at that time, we had been dealing with the Bill for a total of only 10½ hours, all the speakers from this side, for a total of 10½ hours. I would remind the Seanad that, when the House was dealing with the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1968, the debate lasted far in excess of 10½ hours. My figures are in excess of 10½ hours. I got them from a responsible official of the House. I am not using them just because they are suitable but because I believe they are true figures. However I got indications— not verbal indications—from the Government side of the House that my figures are not accurate. If they are not accurate, I would be pleased to get a verbal account from any Member of the Government side as to how many hours were spent in dealing with the 1968 Bill. There being no offers, I must assume that the figures I have given are accurate.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McCartin)

Would the Senator please continue with the subject of the Bill before the House?

Mr. Hanafin

I respect what you say, Sir, but I feel I am well within the scope of the Bill.

Acting Chairman

The Senator appeared to be awaiting a reply from somebody on the other side.

Mr. Hanafin

Yes, indeed, waiting for a reply.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Hanafin

Since the last Seanad election I have held the position as Chief Whip of the Opposition group. As such, I was unable to speak as often as I would have liked in the House because I like to give every job I am doing as much time as I think it is worth. I am going to deal only with what I consider to be important. I had various points which I could not make due to the interruptions at teabreak time. I was pleased, even though we spent an hour dealing with the motion, that it gave the Minister an opportunity to have his tea and be back here again because it is he to whom we want to refer our points in the hope that he will take some of them into account and do something about them.

One point that has been raised all day today and all day yesterday is why the urgency of this Bill, why the emergency. Not one Senator, although all of them, by their very actions and by various things that they proposed, showed that there was an urgency. In fact, they were nearly desperate to get this Bill through but not one of them has told us why. We have been asked to sit this week. That in itself is unusual. There is no precedent whatsoever for that. They asked us to sit this week to deal with the Bill. We cannot see anything urgent about it perhaps because we are not as politically wise as we should be. What does this emergency, this rush, this sense of urgency, this desperation mean? We may not be wise enough to see that this, in fact, could mean something that would be hoped to take the country by surprise in the near future. If that is the reason, I do not expect the Minister to tell us. The fact that he is telling us nothing at all leaves us to form our own opinion on the matter.

Another point was dealt with, not by me but by other people. Members of this Government, when in Opposition, spoke about setting up a commission to deal with boundary changes. I am not going to refer to Dáil debates or any other debates to prove this point because it is not at all necessary. Why do the Minister and his colleagues—who promised that there would be a commission set up to deal with boundary changes —not do so now that they have the opportunity? Is it because they were dishonest in their criticisms the first day? Is it because they feel insecure in their present position or are they trying to consolidate their position in the fear that we may well have an election in the near future? The reason they did not avail of the opportunity to use a commission for this purpose can only be because of the circumstances I mentioned—that they were dishonest in their criticisms the first day or they feel absolutely insecure in their present position or they are consolidating their position in the fear that there may be an election in the near future. I believe the only possible reason they did not avail of the commission is that they wanted to use this Bill for their own political advantage. On that point I have no criticism. If they are using it for their own advantage, and if they say so, it is a political reality that we must accept. We would find it difficult to criticise but we would accept it as being a political fact. However, do not insult our intelligence and that of our people by presenting imaginary pure motives for this Bill and not availing of the commission. Let us not say that we are doing it for pure motives in order to cloak the real motive.

The only part I picked out of the Minister's Bill which might, even in some little way, have been made use of by members outside the Government party was when he mentioned "impartial advisers". These are two words which mean absolutely nothing without the back-up of who the impartial advisers are. They mean absolutely nothing otherwise. Again this reflects the credibility gap. When one promises something, one must fulfil that promise. If, however, one cannot fulfil it people are always ready to accept an explanation. We had a case recently of a Minister in the other House promising something on a certain date. He was unable to fulfil his promise. He said so. He gave the reasons. The people accepted those reasons because they were right reasons. He was not getting the co-operation he needed. He was, perhaps, hasty in giving dates and he admitted his weakness. He was unable as a Minister to get the co-operation of the people involved and he admitted he made an announcement without the proper back-up knowledge.

Honesty is the one thing that people are looking for at the present time. Certainly, honesty must always be seen in high places. In that regard, I am referring to all of us, whether we be Deputies or Senators. All society goes wrong when things are wrong at the top. We have had examples of that in other countries where there would seem to be corruption—I am not suggesting there is corruption here—and society itself is being destroyed. That is why we must be absolutely honest at all times—honest in speech and honest in action. If a mistake is made at Government level, then admit that mistake and the explanation will be accepted.

To suggest this Bill is brought in for other than political advantage, no matter what words one uses or how brilliantly one uses them, or what pure motives are suggested, if that is a lie then the people will see through it.

Insincerity is not a word that I use lightly. I have respect for any man in a Government position who seeks to get work done, appears to be interested in his work, works hard and introduces new legislation. My advice is to be sincere always in the reasons given for bringing in new legislation.

Fianna Fáil, who introduced the 1969 Bill, were accused by all sorts of people of doing all sorts of things. May we now accept, now that this Government, who were so critical of that Bill and who have now presented us with a similar Bill, carved up by their own hands for their own political advantage, that the Fianna Fáil Bill of 1969 was not so bad after all from their point of view? Must we accept this now?

I find it difficult to understand why —in this I am repeating myself— representatives and representation is being taken from rural areas. I quite accept that the increased representation will do good in city areas. I do not accept that, because it will do good in city areas, that justifies the taking away of representation from rural areas. Many public representatives in city and country areas give all their time to working for those they represent and sometimes they get very little appreciation for what they do. I appreciate that there are great representatives in the city of Dublin. We have had some excellent men in this House. We had Jimmy Dunne; he was one of the finest men that one could possibly hope to know in this House. It is the function of public representatives to lead and guide and help and I would hope that members of the Labour Party would think of Jimmy Dunne, of Jim Larkin and of the other great socialists of the past and the kind of work they did. Some of these were people who never got any recognition, who were never public representatives in the sense of being Members of the Oireachtas or even county councillors. I am including Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fáil people in all this. I know one Labour man from my own constituency and I have no hesitation in saying that the work he did for the people in North Tipperary was never fully recognised and appreciated; I am speaking of Jack Murphy, a county councillor and a member of the Labour Party.

With representation being taken from country areas there will be less and less of these types of people available. Dublin may benefit. I understand from people more knowledgeable than I am about the city of Dublin that the constituencies have been drafted in such a manner in the city of Dublin as will benefit only the Labour Party.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Hanafin

It is so difficult to pick up where you left off with these interruptions that if I do go back over what I said again, please forgive me.

Acting Chairman

I will remind the Senator——

Mr. Hanafin

I understand that the reason for the three-seat constituencies in the city of Dublin is to protect and further the interests of the Labour Party. That is something we will not or cannot criticise. If the Minister says this is the reason he carved up the constituencies the way he did, we will not fault him, but I would remind the Minister that in Dublin he is dealing with a very sophisticated electorate. In Dublin one is dealing with a very highly sophisticated electorate who have noticed, and are commenting on, this terribly important word, credibility. They are losing, as I understand it, faith and confidence in the present Administration. Take care Minister that you have not created a monster because the Dublin people, as I meet them are deeply resentful of broken promises. It could well be Minister that this is a monster you will find hard to live with.

The Government side have decided to sit until 1 a.m. so I presume they have plenty of time to sit here. Because I was speaking at the time the Government side moved that we sit until 1 o'clock I took it as a compliment that they did not want me to be curtailed in any way. They considered my advice as something to be appreciated. Now I see that the Government side meant it as a compliment when they moved the motion seeing that I was on my feet at the time. However, I regret I cannot speak until 1 o'clock and give the Government side the benefit of my advice and suggestions because there are some who apparently do not want to listen or to act even on responsible criticism of the Bill.

Integrity in high places. I have already dealt with integrity in high places. Integrity must start in high places before one can expect integrity elsewhere. I am serious about that. I am not at all satisfied with broken promises. When the word is broken people become suspicious. When promises are broken people become suspicious and in the constituencies in Dublin——

Acting Chairman

The Senator has already made the point about honesty sufficiently well.

Mr. Tully

The Senator is about 13 months behind the time talking.

Mr. Hanafin

I am not behind time. I am serious when I say that there is a wave throughout the world of complete irresponsibility because of lack of honesty and broken promises in high places and I am quite serious about that.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Senators, please give the House the respect it deserves. I would ask Senator Hanafin to continue with his speech. He seems to invite this sort of interruption by facilitating it in every way. He should try to ignore those whispered remarks and continue with his speech.

Mr. Hanafin

A point of explanation. I certainly respect the dignity of the House, but when there are interruptions it is difficult to continue. I have suffered more than my share of interruptions tonight. I am sorry to appear as if I am facilitating people here or inviting interruptions because I certainly do not intend to do so. But I am dealing with a very serious Bill and I want to give consideration to every word that I use. If I am slow in speaking or slow in presenting my case it is because I want every word to be fully understood; fully explained by me and fully understood by others. It is an important Bill. Because I see weaknesses in the Bill I want to give consideration. If I appear slow it is because of the consideration that I am giving to this ill and to each sentence that I utter.

I should like to deal with other constituencies. The Minister has justified three-seat constituencies in Dublin but he changes the constituencies in Cork. He justified the three-seat constituencies in Dublin on the basis that it is "a built-up area". What is Cork? Is that not a built-up area? They were the words the Minister used and if I am misquoting him I invite him to tell me so at any stage while I am speaking. I will not take it as being rudeness on his part if he interrupts me at any time. I should like to be so advised because I should not like to misquote or deliberately misinterpret anything he says. I certainly would not do the latter. The Minister used the words "built-up area" to justify the three seats in Dublin. What is Cork? Is Cork not a built-up area? Is that not the same thing?

I have some figures to illustrate my point. There is nothing new about them; the Minister knows them well. In Munster, excluding Clare, the population was shown in 1971 as 806,994, an increase in population of 21,257 since the 1966 census. Having regard to the increase in population one might reasonably expect an increase in representation of one Deputy. I charge in this instance that there was definitely a case of political bias. There is no way that that can be explained away. Because it was Cork and because Munster generally is known for the high esteem in which it holds the Leader of the Opposition, as was evidenced in the Mid-Cork by-election. I presume everyone remembers that election. It is political bias to deny the people of Munster one extra representative.

There is an increase in population of 13,180 in Cork city and county. The city area increased its population by 6,499, a total of 128,000 people live in the Cork County Borough area but only 100,000 of those will be represented in the new constituency, which is a five-seat constituency, while 28,000 are being placed in the Mid-Cork area, which is a rural constituency. How does the Minister justify that? There were two three-seat constituencies in Cork. The Minister has justified placing three-seat constituencies in Dublin and I accept that because it is a built-up area he has a good point. He says that was the main reason for his action in relation to Dublin. Why does the same argument and the same principle not prevail in Cork? Is it for the reason I mentioned, that is, the high esteem in which the Leader of the Opposition, together with the strength of the organisation in Munster? I hope the Minister will show respect to me by replying to that question and explaining the reason for his action in so far as Cork is concerned.

We have a situation in Cork where there is a population increase of 13,180, but there is to be no extra seat. Yet in Dublin County Borough, Dún Laoghaire Borough and Dublin County, where in all there is an increase of 57,171, there are to be five extra seats. In other words, for a little more than 10,000 Dublin County area is to get one more seat. Rather than be misunderstood I shall repeat what I said: for an increase in the population of Dublin of 57,171 they are to get five extra seats. In other words, for a little more than each 10,000, Dublin County area is to get one more seat. Why then refuse a seat where there has been a population increase of 13,180 and grant five seats on the basis of one for a little in excess of 10,000 of an increase in population? If there is any way of explaining that away other than political bias, I should be delighted to hear it. I have given it deep thought, I like to be fair and try to understand the weakness of people in Government but if I could find any reason that would justify their doing things of this nature other than political bias, I should be delighted and the reason for my delight would be because they are the Government.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

It would be the first time the Senator ever saw anything other than political bias.

Acting Chairman

Perhaps Senator Hanafin would address the Chair.

Mr. Hanafin

I should be delighted to know that they were more honest than people think they are. It is becoming monotonous to have people asking all the time "Why is it that the Government of false promises are still there?" It would be refreshing if at some stage I could say to them: "Gentlemen, at least you are wrong on one point concerning the Government: they are honest".

This does not look like a normal contribution to a debate any longer. I must ask the Senator to continue with his speech.

Mr. Hanafin

I will show all the deference required but I cannot speak with all the interruptions. One requires such concentration on this Bill it is difficult to speak when there are interruptions. The present population west of the Shannon, including Donegal and Clare, is 574,254 which justifies 30 seats. I have difficulty in understanding the silence from the Senators from the west on this point. There is no voice of protest. I must take it that they are satisfied to have less representation in the west. Not one voice of protest has been raised by any Senator from the west.

The Chair would remind Senator Hanafin that he has already said this more than once.

Mr. Hanafin

I do not know how one replies to that. All I can say is that I am getting interruptions from all over the House. I would not mind the interruptions if I knew what the Senators were saying but I cannot hear them.

I hope that in all that I said I have said something useful, something the Minister will take note of and something that the Minister will act upon. I believe the Minister is a good man who would like to do a good job. I hope that, despite the note of urgency, or emergency, or desperation attached to pushing this Bill through—particularly the note of emergency, or desperation from the Leader of the House when he proposed the motion that we sit until 1 a.m.—our amendments on the Committee Stage will be seriously considered. The Leader of the House is without question a responsible man. He was responsible in Opposition; I hope he will be responsible when he is Leader of the House in Government, but he still has not explained the emergency, the desperation or the urgency attached to this Bill.

In spite of all that, I hope that on the Committee Stage the amendments we will propose to the Minister will be taken as being proposed for the right reasons, because we believe you cannot promote a regional policy in the EEC for underdeveloped areas on the one hand and deny them representation on the other hand. That is dishonest in itself. At the same time I repeat: never try to fool the Irish people. They are too wise. Take care. This Bill is being prepared for the next election. When that will be I am not in a position to know; but when it does happen the contents of the Bill as we have read them here and the suggestions that the Minister has made will be law and the constituencies will exist as the map here shows. The present Government are afraid to meet us again on the previous battleground, but we will welcome the opportunity of meeting them on their battleground. The sooner this happens the better because we know the people are tired of broken promises. To try to fool them any further will widen the credibility gap even more, and God knows that is saying something.

Mr. Horgan

I propose, if I live long enough, to vote against the Second Stage of this Bill. I propose to do so for a number of reasons. The first is because of the total lack of any offer by the Government to take the whole business of drawing the constituencies out of the hands of political parties and put it into the hands of an independent commission. This point has already been made with considerable force by Senator Robinson. At this point I should like to add my voice to hers, to echo the points she has made and to express my deep disappointment that the Government of which so much was expected should have fallen short in this respect.

There is provision in the Constitution, which allows the Dáil to extend the lifetime of any Parliament up to a maximum of seven years. At the moment legislation fixes the maximum lifetime of any Dáil at five years. But if the kind of attitude we see in this Bill is any guide to the intentions of the Government I would not be at all surprised to see, on some pretext of national emergency, the life of the Dáil prolonged by legislation to the maximum allowed by the Constitution. I hope I am wrong in this but the sort of attitude that is behind this Bill does not give me any great confidence.

Anybody looking at what is going on in this House or at what has gone on in the other House over the past few weeks would, I think, agree that very few people here have enhanced their reputations or the reputation of the institutions of government in this country. If an outside observer had a sense of fair play he might derive a momentary sense of satisfaction from seeing a political party which had itself redrawn the constituencies twice, to my knowledge, to its own advantage, now after 16 years at the other end of a loaded stick. Part of me shares that sentiment but the way in which the punishment is being meted out and the lack of what the catechism used call "a firm purpose of amendment for the future" is something to be regretted.

Even if it is admitted in terms of fair play that the present Government should have the right to try to redress the balance of the last two constituency revisions, it is not too much to ask that this Government should also make clear an intention to take the matter completely out of the hands of party politicians.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I take it the Senator did not read the Minister's opening speech?

Mr. Horgan

I was not present at the Minister's opening speech. If he has already made such a commitment I should be delighted to withdraw the criticism.

It is very unpleasant to say this about the Government, but I believe it to be true: firm and irrevocable steps to put the business of constituency redrawing and electoral management generally into impartial hands should have been part of the policy of this Government. I know it is not part of the policy of this Government and it was not part of their election policy, so one can hardly accuse them of not fulfilling it. But, at the same time, as the fair-minded Administration that people hoped it would be, many people would have reacted very positively to this kind of step.

On the other hand, I find myself with a considerable lack of sympathy for the crocodile tears that have been shed on this side of the House. Perhaps "crocodile tears" is unfair; I am sure they are genuine tears. From my very scanty understanding of the working of the Electoral Act tears will flow even thicker and faster at the next general election and there will be less of the crocodile about them.

I should like to remind the House that when they attempted to abolish proportional representation completely one of the proposals of the then Fianna Fáil Government was to take the whole business of redrawing of constituencies out of the hands of the Government of the day. I quote from a Tuairim pamplet which was published in 1959 the following précis of the proposal by the Government of the day:

The Government, however, has provided, as part of its proposal, for the establishment of a Commission to decide on the constituency boundaries.

This Commission is to consist of three TDs from the Government benches to be appointed by the Taoiseach, three TDs from the Opposition benches to be appointed by the Chairman of Dáil Éireann and a judge from the High or Supreme Court to preside over the Commission, and to be appointed by the President.

We all know the fate of the attempt by the Fianna Fáil Government of the day to get rid of proportional representation. It is a black mark against that Government that having failed to get rid of proportional representation, they also failed to introduce into the electoral system the type of commission which they would have proposed for single member constituencies. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I find it extraordinary that this commission should have been proposed by them for single member constituencies and rejected by them for multi-member constituencies. As I said, I have something less than total sympathy with the Senators who are shedding tears on this side of the House.

I have one minor point of objection to the Bill which I do not propose to go into in much detail. It has often occurred to me that there are huge numbers of people who were born and achieved their maturity in this country and who have been forced by economic circumstances to leave this country and it is unfair that these people should be deprived of some sort of judgment on the political and economic system which has forced them often unwillingly out of their own country. A Bill like this, the general title of which is "An Act to provide for the number of Members of Dáil Éireann and for the revision of constituencies and to amend the law relating to the election of such Members" could and should have provided if not for a complete postal vote of Irish nationals who may be living elsewhere at least for a widening of the categories of postal vote which exist at the moment.

One of the ironies of our electoral system was that when we held the referendum to join the Common Market a small but important group of people who were totally denied the exercise of the franchise were the members of our diplomatic missions in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe who had played a major part in negotiating the terms of entry and in providing information on which the policies of the Government of the day were based. I choose only one of the more obvious anomalies. At the moment only the armed forces are entitled to vote by post. It seems to me that there is a very strong case for a general postal ballot for all Irish nationals wherever they may live and an even stronger case for at least a partial widening of the franchise to include people in other categories such as the diplomatic corps who are temporarily resident outside the country.

Another objection which I have to the Bill is that it is a measure which effectively gives marginally less representation in the rural areas west of the Shannon compared with the richer and more populous areas on the east coast. In the lifetime of the last two Parliaments it seemed strange to me that a country which is rapidly becoming industrial should have been dominated, electorally speaking and in terms of public representatives, by people from that part of the country where the population was dwindling and where the former activity was largely agricultural. It seemed to me strange and anomalous that a rapidly industrialising country should still be ruled by a rural minority. It does not make any sense to simply reverse that situation in the hope that two wrongs will make a right. One of the unfortunate consequences of the way in which the tolerance mechanism has been used is to drive a wedge — an even greater wedge than existed before — between country and city in Ireland. There are enough divisions in Ireland already without adding more or reinforcing the ones that exist, in particular divisions based on the sort of area where you live or the sort of industry pursued. This attitude is only likely to increase a sense of competition between the rural part of Ireland and the industrial, urbanised part of Ireland.

At a time when we should be encouraging co-operation between both parts of Ireland, at a time when, perhaps, certain elements in the rural population are entitled to more help than ever before from their urbanised, more wealthy brethren, it seems very sad to me that we should be in danger of enacting something which will set these people at each other's throats.

My final objection to the Bill relates to the organisation of constituencies, in particular to the way in which the Bill is effectively, in common with previous Bills introduced by other administrations, reducing the validity and effect of proportional representation. I should like to read a quotation from a book called Elections Abroad edited by David Butler which will show how the situation has been remorselessly developing over the past few decades. The quotation is from the article in that book by Professor Basil Chubb dealing with the election in this country in 1957. I quote:

The 1947 revision left the Dáil with 147 members, elected from 40 constituencies (9 returning five members, 9 returning four members, and 22 returning three members). In 1923 there were 153 members and 30 constituencies and in 1935, 138 members and 34 constituencies. In other words, the three revisions have seen the number of members returned from each constituency drop from an average of 5.1 to 4.1 and then to 3.6. Since it is generally recognised that ‘the decisive point in PR is the size of the constituencies', the deliberate reduction in the size of constituencies, and in particular the dismemberment of all returning more than five members was significant. It also was deliberate.

In 1957, according to Professor Chubb's figures, the number of Members returned from each constituency was 3.6. In 1974, according to my calculations, it has dropped even further to 3.5 something. Certainly, that is what it was at that particular time.

I should like to give added emphasis to this point by quoting what is perhaps one of the standard works on PR, Election and Representation, by James Hogan, then Professor of History at University College, Cork. One of the phrases in Professor Chubb's essay is taken without acknowledgement from Professor Hogan's book. The phrase reads:

... the decisive point in PR is the size of the constituencies.

Incidentally Professor Hogan pointed out that logically the best possible way of ensuring representation for everybody in the country in the fairest possible manner would be to have the entire country as one constituency. He did however recognise that there were certain practical difficulties in the way of organising this type of election and agreed that one had to depart from this system of full proportionality in order to reconcile the principle of numerical representation with the territorial principle. Professor Hogan says:

... the larger the constituency, that is, the greater the number of members which it elects, the more closely will the result approximate to proportionality. On the other hand, the smaller the constituency, that is, the fewer the number of members which it returns, the more radical will be the departure from proportionality. When the number of seats in a constituency is less than five there ceases to be a real proportionality between votes cast and seats obtained. For example, in a constituency of three seats any party which polls more than 50 per cent of the total valid vote — 52 per cent will do — is certain to obtain two of the three seats. From the fact that in a three-member constituency the party obtaining a simple majority of the votes cast elects its candidates in the ratio of 2 to 1, it is evident that the three-member type of constituency is as near to the majority system as it is to PR proper. This consideration has a significant bearing on the question whether the PR we have in Éire does not in fact represent a radical departure from the principle of PR. For it is to be borne in mind that since the Electoral Act of 1935 we have had as many as 15 three-member constituencies.

The state of affairs which Professor Horgan is bewailing in which there were 15 three-member constituencies, has now changed greatly. In the Bill presented to us today there are to be 26 three-seater constituencies. The fact that he wrote at that stage that there were 15 three-seat constituencies means that 45 of the 137 seats of the Dáil are contested on a basis as near to the majority as to the proportional method of voting.

Again, 26 multiplied by three is 78. We are now in a situation where, thanks to the Government's decision to have such a large number of three-seat constituencies, approximately half of the total number of seats have effectively been taken completely out of the PR system. Approximately half the total number of seats might just as well be fought on the straight vote system as in this sham, which is proportional representation in name only.

Professor Quinlan

The Liberals would like that sham.

Mr. Horgan

I find it very strange that this Government and the parties which compose it who fought so diligently and such a successful campaign against the attempt of Mr. de Valera to abolish proportional representation, should now by this process of erosion and attenuation be achieving the very same effect.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

There was a later effort of Mr. de Valera's to abolish PR.

Mr. Horgan

I am quite conscious of that. I am also conscious that it was again on the part of the Fianna Fáil Government. As I say, in this respect, I see this Government in direct line of descent from Mr. de Valera and Mr. Lemass and I find it very strange. This leads to one particular consequence of which I certainly would be very glad to have the Minister's opinion when he is replying to the debate. It seems to me that the decision to utilise so many three-seater constituencies, especially in Dublin, betokens a belief on the part of the party of which the Minister is a member that they will invariably get at least one of these three seats. It appears to me that there is another consequence which may or may not have escaped the Minister's attention and that is that if the system remains like this there is also the very strong possibility that his party will never get any more than one of these three seats. It seems to me to be a recipe for remaining static. If this is so, does it mean that the Minister's party have abandoned any intention they may have had of forming a majority Government? I can assure him that his partners in Government have not abandoned any such intention. They would be far happier to form a majority Government than take part in a Coalition Government. This is perfectly natural and, indeed, I would have every sympathy with anybody in any party who thinks this.

It seems to me that the mathematics of this exercise would, in return for some short-term gain, condemn the Minister's party to a permanently junior role in any Government in which they participate. There has been considerable criticism of this within the Minister's own party, which he must be aware of; and, as a dispassionate outsider, I would be interested to know if the Minister thinks that my reading of this situation is correct.

To come back to the point I was making about the size of the constituencies, I should like to reiterate my total opposition to the slow, creeping growth in the number of three-member constituencies and the devastating consequences this has for representation in the country as a whole. The whole benefit of proportional representation has always been that it has given fair representation — certainly much fairer than many other systems — to minorities. We are a country which has many minority problems. Are we going to get rid of all our minority problems by pushing them under the carpet of the three-seat constituency? It seems to me that this is a time when we should, instead of pretending that minorities do not exist, instead of copperfastening our political system into a three-party system — two up and one down — we should be instead extending the proportionality of our electoral system, increasing the number of five-seat constituencies and bigger constituencies as part of a philosophy of democracy designed to ensure that minorities, however troublesome, however awkward to deal with, have an effective voice in the running of our country. I believe that the consequences for minorities of this slow erosion of the proportional representation principle will be disastrous. Because of this, and because of the Government's unwillingness to put the whole matter into the hands of an impartial and permanent commission, I object to this Bill.

Mr. Cowen

Like Deputies in the Dáil and indeed my own colleagues in this House I welcome this opportunity to criticise this Bill. I recall statements from Ministers in this Government and senior spokesmen in the Fine Gael and Labour Parties in regard to Electoral Bills brought before both Houses under Fianna Fáil Government in which they advocated — and when they got the opportunity they did not put it into effect — that a Commission should be set up, that the feelings and thinking of the people in regard to Electoral Bills would be governed and controlled by this commission, and that proposals would be brought before both Houses of the Oireachtas to be passed. They were given this opportunity to put their words into effect. They did not do that. They have criticised Fianna Fáil Electoral Bills in the past as gerrymandering the constituencies, but I believe that this Bill illustrates the greatest gerrymandering job that was ever done on the constituencies.

If he directs it on a Coalition basis surely he feels that his own party should get some recognition in a five-seat constituency. If you take Laois-Offaly as representative and if we had all five-seat constituencies and if the trend in regard to Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil was in all areas something similar to Laois-Offaly, the fact is that Labour would not have anyone representing them in Dáil Éireann. It is as simple as that. The position is, as I have pointed out, that the future of the Labour Party in this constituency is nil. They will never get anywhere. I am within my rights in speaking of the constituency I come from.

Mr. Killilea

And of the neglect of the Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Cowen

I feel a bit ashamed being a Fianna Fáil representative to have to come into the House and speak on behalf of the Labour supporters.

In regard to the re-arranging of the constituencies in Dublin so that each constituency is now a three-seater, the Minister's hope is to consolidate the positions of Labour candidates. As Senator Horgan pointed out, he could see Labour in most of those constituencies getting a seat but he could never see them improving themselves beyond that position.

I would not say that. My own honest opinion is that a three-seat constituency is the nearest thing you can get to a single seat constituency. If there is a swing away from the present Government, which there is as we all know, and even allowing for the coalescing of the two major parties in the present Government the position may be — as Senator Hanafin pointed out — that the Minister may have created a monster for himself in regard to the future of Labour in the Dublin constituencies. It is quite possible that a future election with a swing in the Dublin areas towards Fianna Fáil would give us two out of the three seats. I can guarantee the Minister that the third one will not be for the Labour Party.

I am not sure, but it is the Galway Higgins. He referred to him as the pal of the Minister. There will be no mix up when a future general election comes around. People are not that gullible. They will see in effect what the Minister and the Government are trying to do through this Bill and that they are trying to consolidate their own parties and help their own personnel. As is the case in Laois-Offaly there will be a revolt against the coalescing aspect of Fine Gael and Labour. People are not going to come out and vote one, two and three Fine Gael and four Labour to ensure that a Fine Gael man is elected in any area.

My own honest opinion of the feelings and thoughts of the vast majority of the Labour supporters is that they would like to have Labour representation. That does not mean Fine Gael representation from their point of view. This is the case in my own constituency. A Labour representative may happen to get elected in another five-seat constituency, -Carlow-Kilkenny, but there is no guarantee that the Labour Party man in that constituency will hold that seat. The thinking of the people seems to be that they are not, by voting Labour, going to ensure the election of any Fine Gael representative.

Next week?

Mr. Cowen

By accepting some of them he may ensure that the people in the rural areas will not have the feeling that they are being neglected by this Bill, and that it is very much urbanised. It is a Bill that will ensure and consolidate the election of Coalition candidates.

I shall finish on the note that, when the next general election comes around, in Dublin in particular, the sway will be towards Fianna Fáil. Labour particularly will suffer and the National Coalition will suffer by what they are doing in this Bill. They will suffer more so in the rural constituencies and, irrespective of what the Government parties think, I am quite confident that, when given the opportunity, the people will give them their answer in regard to this Bill and see to it that Fianna Fáil are returned to power.

Professor Quinlan

I did not intend to intervene in this debate until I was quoted rather extensively by Senator McGlinchey on the question of constituencies. In the past I took rather an active part in the debate which, at the time, was indeed, a very drastic and gerrymandered effort by the then Minister, Mr. Kevin Boland. It was aimed at undoing the verdict given so decisively two years previously on the Referendum on the amendment of the Constitution.

We should look at the Bill in perspective. It has to be in accordance with the Constitution, which lays down that when census reports are available due note should be taken of them in adjusting the boundaries of the constituencies as required. When the present Government came into power, Fianna Fáil had already embarked on that task and a Bill was available setting out what they intended to do. Therefore, I do not see why there is all the fuss and excitement about this Bill. It is largely just playing around with the three and four-seat constituencies in a way that will lose some of the advantages which the previous subdivision gave to the Fianna Fáil Party. I suppose the Minister is entitled to some advantage from that; that is in accordance with what is expected. Indeed, three-seat constituencies, while they appear to give some advantage can act decisively against the majority party when the vote swings. The situation can quickly change from having two out of three to having one out of three.

The Government did not have much time to do anything. There was an ongoing Bill there which had to be brought in rather speedily. If an election was called — and an election is likely at any time with the slender majority of the Government — it would have to be fought on the old constituencies. It was obviously necessary for the Government for practical reasons to bring in the Bill as quickly as possible. We have to look to the future, to think and plan for a drastic revision of our whole approach to this. In our approach to it, if we look at Northern Ireland, we see what we applauded there. We applauded the large, multi-seat constituencies, the seven and the nine-seater constituencies, that have been created there. That is the pattern we require to aim at in the future, where we aim at representing the various strands of opinion in Parliament.

Having said that, we must also look at the other side. We were very familiar with the argument in the PR campaign of the almost inhuman burden of work that the present arrangements place on Deputies. Obviously we could not contemplate larger constituencies than three-seaters until such time as all parties combined and faced up to the task of studying how the burden of work on public representatives could be lightened. It must be lightened; it cannot continue as it is. There will have to be drastic development which will mean that individual Deputies will have to be provided with office facilities and full-time, paid secretaries, in their constituencies, to deal with most of the representations made to them as Deputies. Deputies would then concern themselves only with what would be referred to them by their secretaries. That is what we must aim at but it calls for a great development. It would be well worthwhile if, on the one hand, we could lighten the task of the Deputies, give them more time for parliamentary work and, at the same time, broaden the representation base of our Parliament. Then we would have achieved a lot.

I would ask the Minister if he would consider setting up in the near future a joint committee, or an all-party committee, to look at this specific task and at the task also of aligning the system broadly with the multi-seat constituency system that has proved successful in the North. When this comes about I suggest there should then be a constituency commission to draw the boundaries. If there are large constituencies there should be no need to redraw the boundaries from time to time. A seven-seater constituency today would have a population of 140,000. The only adjustment necessary in that area, as the population increased or decreased, would be to round off the figures by dividing, say, the total population on the census by the number allowed per Deputy — say 20. It could be rounded to the nearest whole number. If the figure were 7.6 or 7.7 it could be rounded up to 8 and the constituency gains a seat. On the other hand, if it went down to 6.2 or 6.3, the constituency obviously loses a seat. The whole thing could be made automatic. There would be no use tinkering around at present with the three or four-seat arrangement. We certainly could not go to a system of five-seaters, much as we would like it, without giving the necessary aid to Deputies to carry out their work.

We must also look at the matter of Deputies who are members of the European Parliament and who are discharging a very vital role in representing our country in Europe. We must see how these fit in. In large-seat constituencies, they should be entitled to automatic re-election. But we must study this. In short, there are a number of problems to be gone into but it is not reasonable to blame the Government for not having solved all of them in their first year of office, especially when they could not be expected to have got down to the planning of investigation necessary to carry it out. This work must be carried out on an all-party basis. I suggest that this Bill, by and large, is as good as can be had at this stage. I am expressing my own hope, and I think, the hope of all parties, that we will now get down to tackling the system and try to evolve a system which, on the one hand, will give a very wide measure of representation through large constituencies—I would suggest seven-seat uniform representation— and, at the same time, reduce the inhuman burden our Deputies carry today. As an Independent, I marvel how they stand up to the work imposed on them. Everyone wants to see his TD, whether it is in regard to an old age pension, a grant or a letter that has not been replied to and all this has to be tackled. We have not modernised our system and it needs modernisation. The Minister might indicate his agreement, at least in principle, with setting up an all-party committee of the Dáil to study these matters.

Mr. Yeats

I must say I was rather amused to hear Senator Quinlan describing himself as an Independent Senator. In the speech that he has just delivered, he has shown once again that he is anything but an Independent Senator; that he never supports anything that Fianna Fáil have done and never opposed anything that Fine Gael have done.

He mentioned voting with us. I once wasted my time—I admit it was a foolish exercise but I did it for what it was worth—looking through the division lists. I got as far as 120 divisions and then I got tired. In all of those 120 divisions the Senator voted only once with Fianna Fáil and that time, I suspect, it was by accident. However, leaving aside the question of Senator Quinlan who, on the last occasion, spoke eloquently in favour of having a commission to arrange the constituencies, on this occasion, because a different Government are in office, he was not going to bother coming in at all until Senator McGlinchey quoted him.

We get then to the rather extraordinary—I think quite unprecedented —background to this Bill. We must remember that this Bill, which has, of course, been in preparation with a good deal of assiduity for some 12 months now, has been hailed not merely by Coalition supporters but also by the newspapers, particularly those friendly to the Coalition, as a means by which the Coalition hope to copperfasten their hold on the country and, as The Irish Times said in relation to the Bill, they hope to remain in office for many years to come. It is this background to the Bill that is so unusual. It has been hailed almost openly, almost frankly, not as an exercise in re-arranging the constituencies to meet the constitutional formalities but as a political gesture on the grand scale.

In recent weeks we have had the progress of this Bill through the Dáil ending with the guillotine motion in the Dáil last week and the rushing—I can only describe it as rushing—of the Bill into the Seanad in the middle of Holy Week at one week's notice. This meeting in Holy Week is quite unprecedented. The only other time we may have met—I do not remember it, but I believe there was such an occasion—was a one-day meeting on a Tuesday of Holy Week to deal with a Money Bill which was urgent and had inevitably to be dealt with before the end of March. A Bill of this kind of no great urgency has certainly never been brought before us in Holy Week. It is the custom to take a recess of two weeks on each side of Easter. This tradition, going back as far as my memory goes, has been broken with this Bill which, as the Minister said in the Dáil, has no urgency whatever but has been rushed into the Seanad. We were told officially by the Coalition that we were to meet three days this week— Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday— in order to deal with this Electoral (Amendment) Bill.

We meet here on Tuesday and debate the Bill. We meet here on Wednesday, debate the Bill, and, half way through Wednesday, we suddenly find a Government rush to get the Bill through today. We have this very strange decision in the middle of what had been advertised and officially announced to all Senators as a threeday sitting to deal with this Bill. We have the even stranger and apparently officially inspired silence by Government Senators. I do not want to sound like the "old man of the sea", constantly dredging up memories of past years but, as far as my memory goes, I cannot remember such a scene. I do not know if the Minister was referring to the last time a Bill of this kind was discussed in the Seanad but he was so unwise as to mention this earlier so I took the precaution of looking it up. If the Minister is really interested in the Second Reading of what one might describe as the "Boland Bill" there were eight speeches from the Coalition parties and six from Fianna Fáil, which is about average for a Bill of the kind. We must, apparently, be looking at different Bills and I suggest the Minister takes another look at it.

I never remember an occurrence of this kind. The debate in question took place in the Seanad in March, 1968. The opening speech—I am referring the Minister to this—was made by the Minister, Mr. Kevin Boland. Senator Garret FitzGerald made the opening speech for the Fine Gael Party, followed by Senator Miss Davidson for the Labour Party, followed by Senator Sheehy-Skeffington for the Independents, followed by Senator McElgunn of Fianna Fáil, followed by Senator Quinlan—who, of course, spoke on that occasion because it was a Fianna Fáil Government were introducing the Bill and he had to oppose it—followed by Senator Nash of Fianna Fáil, followed by Senator Rooney of Fine Gael and Senator D.J. O'Sullivan of Fine Gael—he spoke for quite a long time—followed by Senator Seán Ó Donnabháin of Fianna Fáil, Senator Crowley of Labour and Senator Murphy of Labour, followed by Senator McHugh of Fine Gael——

Mr. Hanafin

Now we know why you were keeping quiet.

Mr. Yeats

——followed by Senator Flanagan of Fianna Fáil from Mayo, followed by Senator McDonald of Fine Gael, Senator Honan of Fianna Fáil, Senator P. O'Reilly of Fianna Fáil and finally the then Minister, Mr. Kevin Boland, finishing the debate. This was the kind of debate we had on that occasion.

Mr. Tully

I should like to ask the Senator how long did all that take— five hours?

Mr. Yeats

It did not take very long. I propose to draw the Minister's attention to certain aspects of his Bill which I think are unprecedented. Mr. Kevin Boland's Bill certainly was in no sense a gerrymandering exercise on a par with the Minister's Bill. I was diverted by the nod from the Minister; these nods are very significant. Indeed, it is rather dangerous for the Minister to nod because all kinds of things can happen. We have an extraordinary situation in this debate. I repeat again that, in my memory, this situation is unprecedented; we have had on a Bill of this importance the whole Government party sitting there, saying absolutely nothing except for making a few interjections from time to time, but not one of them made a speech.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

That is not correct.

Mr. Yeats

I am sorry. I can remember only one from the Leader of the House.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

Two. Senator Higgins and Senator O'Higgins.

Mr. Yeats

The O'Higgins situation is complicated. I thought the speech made by Senator Michael O'Higgins from Wicklow was particularly significant because he answered a point made by one of our speakers but he was at great pains under no circumstances to say anything about the Bill. He is the Leader of the House. The point he raised was a side issue and had nothing whatever to do with the Bill. He did not say one single solitary word about the Bill and I should imagine that Senator Higgins was on the same lines—he did not refer to the Bill either. There was complete silence on the Government side.

I do not know whether it is that in spite of their, I think, mistaken pleasure at the terms of the Bill—I think they are mistaken in their hopes for political profit from it—they are at the same time ashamed of the rather disgraceful terms of this Bill.

Senator Horgan spoke earlier, he is not here, indeed there is not anyone here——

Mr. Boland

No one from Fianna Fáil is in the House.

Mr. Yeats

I agree. Indeed there are not many on the Government side —there should be more—and I will call for a quorum now that it has been mentioned. I may as well have an audience from somewhere.

Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,

Mr. Yeats

I was referring to Senator Horgan who spoke of what he looked upon as the crocodile tears of the Opposition about this Bill. I was not quite clear what he meant by crocodile tears but I took it that his general line was, well after all did not you do the same thing when you were in power. The point I make in reply is that this is the only occasion in which a Bill of this kind was discussed in the newspapers on the basis of the extra seats that the Government of the day hope to get as a result of it. The entire discussion of this Bill in the public Press, including the public Press friendly to the Minister, has been on the basis of the number of seats which they think the Government would win—and, mind you journalists are almost always wrong about these matters. The discussion all through has been about the number of extra seats that these newspapers think will accrue to the Government as a result of this exercise in legalised gerrymandering. This has never happened on any previous occasion. It certainly did not happen with regard to the 1968 Bill. My answer, therefore, to Senator Horgan is that it is not a case of crocodile tears; it is simply a case of justified disgust at the type of exercise the Minister is indulging in.

One thing we have to consider with any Bill of this kind is the obvious point; why is such a Bill necessary? As we all know the Constitution provides that there must be a redistribution of constituencies at least once every 12 years. As a result of the decision of the High Court we now are in the position that successive Governments have apparently felt obliged, on the basis of legal advice, to make these changes after every census, which in fact take place every five years.

This is a point which is not directed at any particular Government; it is a general thought I had about these things. But we are now in a position of extreme inconvenience as a result of that High Court decision. It is obviously inconvenient, and I accept that now. I will have many criticisms to make of the Minister's decisions with regards to this Bill, but obviously one must accept that a Bill of this kind involves any Minister with very great problems and difficulties. These difficulties, these complexities, now recur at approximately five-year intervals. Not only that, but we have the suggestion made by the court, not as I understand it the decision— though the Minister tended to refer to it as a decision, even as a decision of the Supreme Court on one occasion in the Dáil last week—it was a kind of obiter dictum of the High Court that perhaps 1,000 up or 1,000 down from the average figure would be about right for the tolerance.

This seems to be an altogether too small figure. As far as I know there is no other country in the world that has constituencies of our kind; there is no country that arranges its members in constituencies with a tolerance range as small as that. It is ludicrously small. It involves us in this ridiculous exercise of topping up counties, adding a hundred here and taking a thousand off there. Not only does it involve this kind of thing but it also means that frequently, where a county might be perfectly well off within its normal boundaries, just because there are 500 too few or too many one has to start all over again changing the county at maybe five-year intervals instead of, perhaps, another five if the tolerance was somewhat larger.

I had often thought that it would be worthwhile for some Government putting a Bill of this kind through the Dáil and Seanad with a somewhat larger tolerance—perhaps from 18,000 to 22,000—a tolerance based on traditional county boundaries, rivers or natural formations, a tolerance one could stand over on that type of basis. Then before the President signed it it could be sent to the Supreme Court to see if it was all right.

Mr. Tully

The Supreme Court have ruled on this.

Mr. Yeats

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.

Mr. Tully

Could I interrupt the Senator? There is absolutely not one scintilla of truth in the statements which were made in the Dáil that there was not any schmozzle about those two constituencies. He was right first. The constituencies did not need to be changed and I did not change them.

Mr. Yeats

I am very happy to hear that, but I cannot understand why it has taken him until now to say this.

Mr. Tully

I did not think it was worth commenting on, but when someone like Senator Yeats makes a comment of that kind I thought it was only right that I should.

Mr. Yeats

I am happy to hear this because I have been getting increasingly worried that there were no denials of any kind about it. So we will give the Minister credit then, on the basis of the 12 constituencies that he left unchanged, that he allowed us one in West Limerick. That left eight with a Coalition majority, three with level pegging, and of the ones that were changed that were not satisfactory, none had a Coalition majority.

It seems to me we have a pattern all through the thing. You have a pattern in Dublin and Dún Laoghaire, a pattern of extraordinary, unnecessary and uncalled for changes in Cork; you have a pattern in Clare-Galway; you have a pattern all through the west where areas with rising population lose seats and areas with falling population gain seats. You have the whole situation where these 21 if they had not Coalition majorities were changed drastically. It seems to me that this pattern is one of sheer gerrymandering —that the Minister has taken advantage all round of what in most cases were very small population changes to bring in extensive countrywide changes in constituencies.

One of the great advantages of economic progress in recent years has been the massive fall in the enormous emigration that used to take place— though to our great regret, there are certain areas, for example, Leitrim, Roscommon, Sligo and other areas where the population is still falling. Even there, the changes are much less than they used be and in other areas the population is now rising and the overall pattern is nothing like as drastic as it used to be in former years. Therefore, in many cases the actual changes needed were marginal. The facts do quite clearly show that in almost all cases where extensive changes were made there was a hoped for political advantage involved.

I should like the Minister to reply to a query. There is the interesting comparison of Counties Meath and Clare. The Minister stated:

A Minister for Local Government must weigh up the competing claims of all the areas and strike a balance which is fair to all. The whole spirit of the Constitution requires an even spread over the whole country without favouring or penalising any area. This is what I have tried to do; to provide fair and reasonable representation for the people of every area.

He mentioned several times, both here and in the Dáil, that he had, so far as possible, tried to preserve the existing county boundaries.

On the basis of all this, I find it very difficult to understand why, if one compares Meath and Clare, Meath which in 1971, had a population of 71,729, was given four seats; and County Clare with a population of 75,008, was given three seats. You have Clare with a population of over 3,000 more than Meath, very near the number required to have four seats, and Clare was given only three seats and Meath was given four. It may not have occurred to the Minister when he was thinking of Meath that it might be easier for him to get a quota of 20 per cent in a four-seat constituency as opposed to 25 per cent in a three-seat constituency. I do not know. Perhaps it did not. I should like to know why Meath, on the basis of population, was treated so much more favourably than Clare.

Mr. Tully

When replying I will be glad to give that information.

Mr. Yeats

The Minister introduced this Bill in a rather aggressive tone. Indeed, it was a rather unusual Second Reading speech. Normally Second Reading speeches by Ministers are fairly formal affairs. They go through the sections of a Bill, explain them, perhaps make a couple of points at the end, ask us to pass it and so on. I cannot remember a speech such as this, argumentative all through, referring to events in another place. At the end of this interesting speech the Minister spoke of the impartial observers who had told him what a fine Bill this was. I really would like to know the name of even one of those observers. Certainly the newspapers, which in most cases can hardly be said to be basically unfriendly to the Coalition, have looked at this Bill, and some of them with some approval, as a naked exercise in politics and have with some pleasure in some cases, spoken of this Bill as copperfastening the hold of the Coalition on the country and as the semi-permanent ruination of Fianna Fáil. I think they are wrong.

Nevertheless, it has been the general public attitude. I know of no impartial observers, certainly no informed impartial observers, who look upon this Bill as a genuine effort to play fair with all parties or with all parts of the country. Even if I did think it was such I would have been disabused by the typically candid remarks of the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Kelly, Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, in the Dáil. Deputy Kelly was a respected Senator, a colleague of ours for several years, given to making vigorous speeches with a good deal of candour. Reading with interest his contributions in the Dáil one sees he seems to have retained this ability. He was discussing the Minister's Bill on 15th November, the day it was introduced for a Second Reading, and he let quite a few cats out of the bag. He had a fairly excellent and accurate explanation as to why the Minister had dealt with Cork in the way he did. Deputy Kelly said at column 2030 Volume 268 of the Official Report:

The situation in relation to Cork is a special one because one would expect a good Fianna Fáil vote there by reason of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition comes from the constituency.

This is an interesting sort of doctrine for Ministers for Local Government. The leader of the Opposition comes from a constituency so, therefore, it needs special attention in a constituencies Bill like this.

In Cork in 1973 Fianna Fáil won four seats for which they paid 7,591 votes each. Fine Gael won two seats at a cost of 8,071 votes each while the Labour Party did not succeed in returning anyone to the Dáil although they succeeded in winning 4,715 first preference votes. The Minister for Local Government is not St. Francis of Assisi and it would be asking a superhuman virtue on his part to permit that situation to continue.

Alas, the Minister has not superhuman virtue and certainly he is no relation of St. Francis of Assisi. I think the Minister is more likely to be a remote cousin of that well known former Governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Gerry.

Mr. Tully

The Senator's colleague who made the long speech was not quite sure where the governor came from.

Mr. Yeats

So far as I know it was Massachusetts. The Minister does all right, even not knowing that. At column 2032 Deputy Kelly discussed the sad situation, from the Fine Gael point of view, in North-East Galway, West Galway, Clare-South Galway, East Mayo, West Mayo, Clare, Roscommon-Leitrim and Sligo-Leitrim and he went into detail on the number of seats in Connacht and the number of votes per seat. Having assessed the situation he said:

How could the Minister be expected to maintain that situation?

In other words, the result was good for Fianna Fáil and on that basis how could the Minister be expected to maintain that situation. It is apparently on that kind of basis that this Bill has been framed.

We have had this extraordinary and unprecedented debate in this House. I am not sure if "debate" is the correct word. The word "debate" whether in Parliament or elsewhere suggests some interchange of opinions, that one side gives its views and is replied to in due course by the other side. I can only conclude that the silence of the Government side reflects essentially the knowledge that this Bill, by any normal standards of public behaviour, is indefensible. It is quite clear that in no genuine way has there been an effort to fulfil the constitutional obligations laid upon the Minister. It is a naked exercise in power grabbing.

However, the Minister has made a serious political miscalculation. We are not, of course, discussing the Minister here as a political judge. I think he is not a very good political judge. We are discussing his conduct as a Minister. For what it is worth, I can assure the Minister that he has made a serious miscalculation. His plans, particularly in the Dublin area, are very dangerous ones. A very slight shift in public opinion, a shift which I think has already taken place, would be sufficient to turn the whole ship around the other way. Politically, we are not worried. The sad thing is the damage that is done by a Bill of this kind to our political institutions and in particular to public confidence in politicians. It is a sad thing, where the public, encouraged by the newspapers, get the impression that this is the kind of thing that is expected of a new Government coming to office. It is assumed as a matter of course apparently that when the Minister goes into office he will try to scupper the Opposition in this legal way. That is bad. It is dangerous to our political institutions. This is a grimy little Bill. The Government Senators, by their attitude during the past two days have shown quite clearly their own view on it.

Mr. P. Browne

We in Waterford are delighted that after 13 years we have got back our four-seat constituency. I think that in 1969 we could have got back this four-seater with a little bit of pressure.

Much has been said about other constituencies. I am not worried because I am convinced that no matter what way those constituencies are chopped up it will not make any difference in the long run. In 1966 the farmers were protesting in Merrion Street and turnover tax had been introduced by the Fianna Fáil Party. Everything was against the Fianna Fáil organisation at that time. Nevertheless, they were successful in the South Kerry by-election. I am fully convinced that no matter what way constituencies are carved up you cannot dictate to people.

In 1969, when we had a three-seat constituency, it was against all odds that Fianna Fáil would not, or could not, get two representatives out of three. I thought when I came in in a by-election in 1966 I had no possible chance of retaining the seat in 1969. Here, again, the people made up their minds and I was re-elected. I do not mind what other Senators said here. It is the people who will make the difference and not the Minister for Local Government.

We have only heard speakers from this side of the House. I am sorry that we did not have contributions from the other side so that I could judge for myself who is right and who is wrong. There is no doubt that somebody is wrong. Listening to the contributions from this side of the House, I am fully convinced that it is the Government side who are wrong. How could I say anything else when I heard nothing from the other side? I have been a politician all my life but nobody knows what my politics are. I never discuss politics because to my mind everybody in this House and in the other House is entitled to his views.

We had a six-hour contribution by one of our own gentlemen. It would be very hard to contradict what he said but I was hoping that somebody on the other side of the House would do so and give me an insight into whether he was right or wrong. I cannot compliment or congratulate the Minister. Being in Opposition that is only natural. However, I thank the Minister for the fact that after 13 years we have got back our own again. I am convinced that no matter what a Minister will do it is the people who decide in the end.

We had the first Coalition Government. After three years there was a general election. Subsequently there was another general election. The Coalition were not defeated by any means. They just left office and walked out. I thought I would never see a Coalition Government again. Perhaps I am not the youngest or the oldest here but I heard a very prominent Fine Gael Minister for Agriculture advise the farmers at a meeting in Waterford city to hold their corn until the next year when there might be a better price for it. A very prominent Fine Gael man who had invited him to Waterford city asked the Minister: "Is that the only thing you have to offer to the people of Ireland—keep your barley, oats and wheat until the next year for the rats and mice to eat. I say I was always opposed to Jim Ryan, God rest him, but he was a decent man."

No matter what Deputy Tully as Minister for Local Government can do or what he intends to do he will not convince the people to vote for what he wants. The people of Ireland are very perceptive. I am not in the least worried about the slicing of constituencies. I am fully convinced that Fianna Fáil will not beat the present Government but I am convinced that they will beat themselves. If they last for four-and-a-half years there is no reason why we should not have the Fianna Fáil Party back in power.

In 1932 when Fianna Fáil took office for the first time they stayed in office until the advent of the first Coalition. Then after a break of six years they came back. Many people said that Fianna Fáil were too long in power. How many business people are there in the House? Why are they business people? They give service to the public and that is why they are in business. If you have a man who is not able to look after his business he will be a very short time in it because if he does not give satisfaction to the public he will not remain. Many people to whom Fianna Fáil are anathema told me they were fully convinced that a Fianna Fáil Cabinet are the only Cabinet that can rule this country. Needless to say I was glad to hear them say that. It is not my policy to offend anybody. Everybody is entitled to this view.

No matter what the Minister might try to do, no matter what anybody here might try to do, the people will decide whenever an election takes place. I do not know. That is up to the Minister for Local Government and the Taoiseach. I would like to thank the Minister for giving us back our four-seat constituency. To me it does not matter a damn.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Alyward

These are my first words here today in the Seanad. I am not very long in the Seanad, but I spent many years trying to get into this House. Now that I am in, I am glad that the people who elected some of the Members here are not here today to hear what is happening. You can blame our Senator if you like for speaking for six hours, but it is a good man that can stand up here in this assembly and speak for six hours. The man who has brought this position about is the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Hanafin

The Leader of the House.

Mr. Aylward

Mr. Halligan

It was taken out of a five-seat Wexford constituency to take a second seat from the Labour Party and well may it serve you.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Aylward to continue on the Bill.

Mr. Aylward

Carlow-Kilkenny is my constituency. It is down here in black and white that a Minister said there were five counties in Ireland that could stand on their own. One of them is Kilkenny. Why did he not leave Kilkenny stand on its own? I will tell you the reason if the Minister wants to know. He could not do that——

Mr. Tully

He could not make a show of Fianna Fáil after all their years.

Mr. Aylward

Mr. Aylward

Meath has a population sufficient to get four and a bit of other counties in order to make sure that the Minister for Local Government would be elected. He would be elected anyway if there were only two seats perhaps. Why give people a chance to say these things? Why did you leave Kilkenny with Carlow? The reason is you wanted your own man elected again. Are Fine Gael all asleep or what is wrong with them? They cannot see further than their noses, I think. We do not care in Fianna Fáil whether you make it a three-seater or not. I would like to see the whole country in three-seaters. I would not be worried about that. Why is the constituency of the Taoiseach left as a four-seater? Why is a bit of Wicklow gone into Dublin? Why is a bit of Kildare gone into Dublin? Dublin will still have more TDs than all the rest of Ireland together.

Why not bring them out of Dublin instead of bringing them in? Why not start with Cork? Cork would have five seats. Kilkenny has sufficient for three seats and still you are afraid of your lives to leave them together. Why not give back Ferrybank and Rockingham if you are as honest as you say? Mr. Boland and Mr. Blaney took them from us. Now is your chance to prove your honesty. There is no use in laughing about it. Did Mr. Boland in 1959 do the wrong thing? The Coalition have been talking about this for so long. The Minister has an honest face. I often heard it said "Look out for the man who is smiling the whole time because he is dangerous." Is something happening we do not know anything about that we have to stay here until 1 a.m. to debate this Bill during Holy Week? Is there a crisis between you we know nothing about? Are you hiding something from us?

Mr. Killilea

They have found Littlejohn.

Mr. Aylward

If they found Littlejohn there is another Littlejohn they will not find for a long time. There are many Littlejohns they should worry about. With all due respects to the National Coalition, I am surprised at Labour men sitting here so quietly and clapping on the back the men who 20 to 30 years ago took a shilling from the old age pensioners.

Mr. Tully

He is now in Fianna Fáil, of course.

Mr. Aylward

No. Excuse me. If the Minister can prove I am wrong then I will sit down.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Garrett

He was in Cumann na nGaedheal in 1929 when this happened.

Mr. Aylward

They cut the old age pensions from 10s. to 9s. If the Minister can prove I am wrong, I will sit down.

Mr. McAuliffe

What happened in 1932?

An Cathaoirleach

I would ask Senator McAuliffe and others not to provoke Senator Aylward to further irrelevancies. I would ask Senator Aylward to address himself to the Bill.

Mr. Aylward

Senator McAuliffe asked me what happened in 1932. There must be some other people here who can remember that year. While the Leader of Fine Gael after——

Mr. Tully

Does the Senator want a reply?

Mr. Aylward

What are you afraid of? Why, when there is no need for it, should any county boundary be split and voters put into another county? Everybody has a pride in his own county. I have a pride in my own parish, in my own townland. I would not vote for a man who put me into another county. Could the Minister not have left the boundaries as they were? For instance, in the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny, Kilkenny is a three-seater constituency. Why not take part of Paulstown and Graiguenamanagh, which is on the border of Carlow, and make two three-seaters? Could the Minister not have left us Kilkenny and given Waterford their own part back and left it as it was? Perhaps he had other reasons. That is no good to the local people who were born and reared in South Kilkenny who have to go in with Waterford. I know the reason—he wanted to save a seat for Labour. We are not all as green as we look. I will conclude by wishing the Coaltion the best of luck. I hope they will be here for four years, but I am afraid they will not.

I think you should be.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Garrett

This was the O'Reilly's method of contraception. The Labour Party in East Mayo—keeping to constituents and leaving out the urban councillors—happened to have one member elected to a public body. He said at a meeting of that body: "All the itinerants in the Ballina area should be castrated and put on to the Aran Islands".

Acting Chairman

Senator Garrett, it is not a question of the Chair being afraid. The Chair is ruling.

Mr. Garrett

West Galway and Galway and Clare have been tied up in many and various ways. I humbly apologise to Senator Higgins. Mark you, I did not say "O'Higgins," because I was warned here about three weeks ago on the contraception issue not to mix his name up with that of Senator M.J. O'Higgins because the two Senators were at extremes on that issue. I am very, very sorry to have to inform the Minister now, who is a member of the Labour Party, and all the other Labour Party people, that it is on the cards that, instead of making a safe seat for Labour in West Galway, or for Senator Higgins——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Garrett

The Bill is a genuine endeavour by the Minister to satisfy the various groups that make up the two parties who form the Government. He has done a fair lot to satisfy them. When the 1968 Bill was being debated the most castigated man was the former Minister for Local Government of the Fianna Fáil Party, Mr. Kevin Boland.

Debate adjourned.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 10 Apr 1974