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

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

Mr. McGlinchey

Before the House adjourned last night I referred to the support given by the media to the present Government. This was demonstrated to me this morning in a special way in The Irish Times. In that paper I am quoted as saying:

Mr. McGlinchey detailed the situation for local elections in Derry and said that, when it came to gerrymandering, the present Minister for Local Government was only an altar boy to Sir Basil Brooke.

I think the House will agree that what I really did say was:

that when it came to gerrymandering Sir Basil Brooke was only an altar boy to the present Minister for Local Government.

There is a tremendous difference between what I said and what I am quoted as saying.

Before the adjournment last night I was giving examples of the support that an independent, impartial committee on boundary revision had from members of the present Government while they were in Opposition. I note also in one of this morning's papers that, when Senator Mary Robinson was quoting a speech made by the present Minister on this subject in 1968, the Minister laughed throughout the entire quotation. While I was not here when Senator Robinson was speaking I can only conclude that the Minister's laughter was due to his embarrassment, embarrassment on being reminded that he had changed his views on a very important subject from his Opposition days to his days in Government. If the Minister was sincere in 1968 he, more than any other man, is now in a position to put his words of 1968 into action.

In Dáil Éireann on 27th November, 1968, the present Minister for Lands, and a former Member of this House, is also on record as advocating an independent impartial commission to do this work. In column 1241 of volume 237 of the Official Report of the Dáil, he said and I quote:

The only conclusion I can draw from the refusal of the Minister for Local Government to accept a commission or to seek the advice of all parties in this House and to insist on doing the job himself, with the assistance of his own henchmen, is that he is interested in arranging constituencies in a fair manner but rather is he interested in arranging them or rigging them in a manner which he considers best calculated to give an advantage to the Fianna Fáil Party. It would not be possible for me to make these allegations or to make this type of speech if the Minister had sought the advice of an all-Party commission of this House.

I wonder what the views of the Minister for Lands are today. Seated, as he is, at the Cabinet table he is in a position to influence the decisions of the present Government. No one could blame me for suggesting, as the now Minister for Lands suggested in 1968, that the only reason the present Minister is not prepared to accept a commission is that he is not interested in arranging constituencies in a fair manner but rather is he interested in arranging them or rigging them in a manner which he considers best calculated to give an advantage to the Fine Gael and to the Labour Parties.

The present Government have two bites at the cherry. Not only have the Fine Gael Party during the last six months tried to protect their interests but the Labour Party have been doing likewise. When it was suggested in Dáil Éireann that certain constituencies in Dublin would now be in a position to return one Fianna Fáil, one Fine Gael and one Labour Deputy, the point was overlooked by supporters of the present Government that that would mean two Government Deputies and one Fianna Fáil Deputy. The Labour Party know perfectly well that their only hope of participating in a Government of this country is by Coalition with Fine Gael. To protect themselves against the possibility of the day that Fine Gael would decide to go it alone the present Minister for Local Government in arranging the Dublin constituencies so as to ensure that there will be sufficient Labour Deputies there to prevent Fine Gael from ever getting an overall majority. Labour are concerned naturally that in the next election Fianna Fáil should not get an overall majority. That is what politics are all about and nobody can criticise members of the Labour Party for those views. But I submit that the Labour Party are equally concerned that Fine Gael should not get an overall majority either, because if by chance—and I admit it would be an odd or very far out chance—Fine Gael did get an overall majority then the days of the tail wagging the dog would be at an end.

Therefore, when the Minister for Local Government within weeks of the National Coalition resuming office set about the task of rearranging the constituencies he had two primary objects—one, to ensure that Fianna Fáil would not get an overall majority and, two, to ensure that his friends, his partners in Government, would not get an overall majority either. He could best achieve these two objectives by arranging where possible for the election of extra Labour Deputies. During the debate in the Dáil supporters of the Government, both Fine Gael and Labour, were not ordered to keep quiet, as apparently Fine Gael and Labour Senators are in this House.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McCartin)

The Senator is making a reference to proceedings in the Dáil, which is out of order.

Mr. Yeats

On a point of order, the Minister himself referred almost exclusively to proceedings in the Dáil, and I think Senators must be allowed to continue on the lines on which the Minister started.

Acting Chairman

In the rules there is a distinction between references to "argument" and references to "proceedings". I must, therefore rule that Senator McGlinchey is talking about proceedings in the Dáil, which is out of order according to the rules. I was not in the Chamber when the Minister was speaking.

Mr. Yeats

Did the Acting Chairman read the Minister's speech?

Mr. McGlinchey

I take it that I am in order in observing that, judging by the silence of the Fine Gael and Labour Senators, instructions have been given to them to remain silent? I consider it an insult to this House that on an important Bill such as this, which either directly or indirectly affects every man, woman and child, which affects every townland, district electoral division, electoral area, constituency, county and province, the Government of the day should instruct their supporters in this House to remain silent and not to comment on this legislation. On reading the speeches in the other House I noticed that there were supporters who did speak. One by one, they glibly said that it was a pity that we must have this legislation, but the Constitution so ordained and the High Court decision of 1960-61 laid down that these changes should be made.

Their friends in the media have given them full support in this regard. I wish to state clearly and categorically that I believe it is wrong and misleading to suggest that this legislation, framed in the manner in which it has been, is necessary because of the Constitution or the High Court ruling. I agree that legislation of some kind is necessary because of the Constitution and the High Court, but it is wrong to give the impression that constituencies have to be changed in the manner in which they are changed, where streets are taken from certain areas and given to other areas, because the Constitution or the High Court ruling so lays down. This is grossly misleading and the day is not too far distant when the Irish people will realise this.

There is agreement that there is a tolerance ratio of 1,000 people up or down on the national average. I submit it was not necessary for the present Minister for Local Government and the Government to deprive the county of Clare, the province of Connacht and the county of Donegal of two seats. Thirty seats could have been left in this area without breaching either the Constitution or the High Court ruling of 1961. Two seats fewer could have been provided in the city of Dublin without breaching either the Constitution or the High Court ruling. We have to consider the climate that existed when supporters of the present Government sat down to discuss these measures. I remember a famous week in this House, when the two Houses discussed the Offences Against the State Bill. A day or two later I was speaking to a very prominent member of the Fine Gael Party. I said to him that I was surprised at his opposition to the Offences Against the State Bill. What did he say to me?

Mr. McGlinchey

I would be delighted to hear the Senator. Deputy White made his position very clear. It could be said that when these people spoke to the Minister he told them he must try to get a Labour seat in Sligo-Leitrim. It is possible the Minister believed that if he fixed the constituency properly he could get a Labour seat in it. I have no doubt that when he went back to whatever grassroots Labour have in Sligo he discovered that no matter what he did in that area a Labour seat was simply not on. But what had it to do with Deputy White? They could not send him to Brussels. They already had sent Deputy Thornley to keep him quiet for fear he would topple the Government. They could not appoint him Ceann Comhairle. That had been already done.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Tully)

Is it right for the Senator to attack the Ceann Comhairle in this House?

Acting Chairman

I think the Senator is out of order.

Mr. McGlinchey

Is it in order for a Minister to rise on a point of order?

Acting Chairman

I think we can take a point of order from the Minister.

Mr. McGlinchey

I can quote statements by former Members of this House which suggest that points of order could not be raised by anyone other than a Member of this House. My authority is no less than the former Senator Garret FitzGerald, now Minister for Foreign Affairs. I am not attacking the Ceann Comhairle, nor have I cast any reflection on the Ceann Comhairle. I fully realise that it would be disorderly for me to do so. I merely said that Deputy White could not be appointed Ceann Comhairle, that that post was already filled. While the Minister may have thought that I was going into the reasons why that post was filled by the occupant, I fully realise that it would be disorderly for me to do so.

They could not send Deputy White to Brussels. Perhaps they could wait and give him one of the four new jobs, with State cars, that are being created to keep a few happy, but the Deputy would not wait. There was only one thing to do and that was to change the original plan of the constituency and put the town of Ballyshannon back into the Donegal constituency.

It would be an interesting exercise for any Member of this House who has any sense of justice and any sense of fair play to study the change that was made to keep Deputy White happy. According to his own words in Dáil Éireann during this debate, his constituency ends a quarter of a mile from his home. I am sure that during the coming summer many Members of this House who want a really good holiday will visit County Donegal. I would ask them to take particular note when they cross the Sligo or Leitrim boundary into the county of Donegal. They will find that in Bundoran they are in the Sligo-Leitrim constituency and if they drive for a mile past the military barracks at Finner Camp they will discover they are in the Donegal constituency. If they drive through the town of Ballyshannon, the home town of Deputy White, they are still in the Donegal constituency. If they continue their drive towards Ballintra and if they inquire where they are, a few miles from Ballyshannon they will discover that on their left is the Donegal constituency but the right hand side of the road leading to Cashelard, for some peculiar reason, is in Sligo-Leitrim.

It would be the same as re-arranging the Houses of the Oireachtas so that we would find Seanad Members sitting on this side, Seanad Members sitting on the far side but the middle corridor a portion of Dáil Éireann. If an official in this House was foolish enough to create such a situation I believe he would not be an official for very long. The Sligo-Leitrim constituency enters Donegal in a lizard-like fashion and anyone who reads the map will agree that the whole purpose of this operation was to preserve the political future of a Fine Gael Deputy.

It reminds me of an area in County Monaghan. For years I drove through it and did not know that a village called Culloville, which stretches across into Monaghan, on the main Monaghan-Omagh road between Dundalk and Castleblayney, is, in fact, part of the Six Counties—a situation which has caused considerable trouble, particularly in recent years. That situation arose out of the neglect of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government in regard to the Boundary Commission.

Acting Chairman

I think the Senator has again gone away from the subject.

Mr. W. O'Brien

He had not come back to it.

Mr. McGlinchey

I was simply comparing a pocket in County Donegal in the Sligo-Leitrim constituency, between the town of Ballyshannon in the Donegal constituency, and the town of Ballintra in the Donegal constituency, with Culloville in County Armagh, which appears to be in County Monaghan and which should be. Anyone who has any sense of fair play must admit that this constituency was rigged and gerrymandered for one purpose and one purpose only, that was the preservation of a Fine Gael Deputy in that area.

We have heard a lot of talk about the crossing of county boundary lines but here again in this area for the very first time we have people from Bundoran and Ballyshannon thrown headlong into the province of Connacht. This is strongly resented by the people of Bundoran and the surrounding districts. It was Oliver Cromwell who a long time ago told people to go to hell or to Connacht. It would appear that this Government are repeating that famous quotation of Oliver Cromwell as far as the people of Bundoran and the surrounding districts are concerned. In this legislation they are being told that they can go either to hell or to Sligo-Leitrim.

It is quite obvious from the first day this Government were elected that no attention has been given to the west. We heard so much about the Government with the so-called talent but we wonder have the Deputies and Senators in Fine Gael and Labour from the west——

Mr. W. O'Brien

We gained two seats there.

Mr. McGlinchey

——no talent at all. It would appear that they have not. This is the very area, despite Senator O'Brien's reminder that the Coalition gained two seats, responsible for electing the present Government. I am sure Senator O'Brien would agree with me that this area from Clare through Connacht to Donegal gave this Government two extra seats and ensured their election. How did the Government repay this area for this tremendous work? The Taoiseach appointed one Parliamentary Secretary from the entire west. It seems to me that the Taoiseach and his Government believe that all the so-called talent that exists in Fine Gael and Labour Deputies only applies to those from Dublin city and surrounding districts. Senator O'Brien has reminded us that they gained two seats in the west. When he says "we" I do not know whether he means the Coaltion, Fine Gael or Labour. We have to face the fact that Fianna Fáil lost two seats in the western area. One would imagine that the Government would display their gratitude to this area for this tremendous achievement of giving them the opportunity of governing after 16 years. They propose to repay this area by taking two seats from it, by reducing it from 30 seats to 28.

Mr. O'Toole

Why?

Mr. McGlinchey

Perhaps Senator O'Toole will tell me why.

Mr. O'Toole

Because of 16 years of Fianna Fáil discouragement the population dropped. That is why.

Acting Chairman

Please allow Senator McGlinchey to continue.

Mr. McGlinchey

That is what I expected Senator O'Toole to say. The Senator said the population dropped. Senator O'Toole is a Mayoman and he is giving facts. He would like to give the people of the west from Clare to Donegal the impression that it would be contrary to the constitution and to the High Court's ruling to leave 30 seats in Connacht, Clare and Donegal. I should like to submit that Senator O'Toole has been completely misled in this assertion. I believe I can prove that this area could be left with 30 seats without any breach of the Constitution or of any breach of the ruling of the High Court in 1961.

At that time there was tremendous criticism of the rural bias. It was suggested it was unconstitutional to give a bias to rural Ireland. The Dubliner's vote was only worth threequarters of the rural vote. There were many who believed that bias should be given to the rural areas because of the long distances that the public are forced to travel to meet their Deputies or the long distances that Deputies must travel in the interests of their constituents. It was pointed out then, as it is now, that a Deputy could walk through his constituency in this city in a very short time. The people of Dublin have easy access to their Deputies, in their homes, in their businesses and particularly in Leinster House. We all know that when the Dáil is in session the people of Dublin avail of that privilege in coming to Leinster House day after day, evening after evening to meet their Deputies. Anyone with any sense of justice, with any sense of fair play, must surely admit that the situation is very different in rural Ireland. This point was made very clear on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill in 1959 in Dáil Éireann when in Volume 177, column 402, the late Deputy Michael Donnellan said:

There are more representatives for Dublin city than for the whole Province of Connacht. Is that fair? I do not think it is. It may be argued in the fashion in which Deputy O'Higgins argued it, but I hold that mathematics are only one aspect of the matter. How many people now residing in Dublin City had to leave the province of Connacht because they had to do so? These people are a loss to Connacht and to the Irish nation because if they could have remained in Connacht they would have produced raw materials, what I would call "new money," for this country. ...I must congratulate the Minister on the Bill. I am voting for it just as it stands, word for word.

Somewhere in his speech on that occasion Deputy Donnellan named the number of Deputies in Dublin. Deputy Donnellan, before his untimely death, was of course a strong supporter of two Coalition Governments and his son followed his footsteps and is a supporter of the present Government. Deputy Donnellan was in a position then to be independent in that he was not attached to one of the major parties. I am quite sure that his son shares the views of his highly respected father but he is not in a position to express his views. I wonder what would his father say today when he would discover that County Clare, the province of Connacht and County Donegal between them will be able to elect only 28 Deputies in the future and that the city of Dublin, Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown between them will send 43 Deputies to Dáil Éireann.

No matter which Government are in office, those of us living in the west and north-west want to see that area prosper if at all possible, and every voice irrespective of political views, is a voice that in one way or another can help this area. I would not mind if it was necessary to deprive this area of two Deputies, but it is not and it is false and misleading propaganda to suggest that it is. I believe I can prove that, if the Minister had applied to the west the same population ratio per Member as he did to the city of Dublin and other places, two seats could have been retained in the west.

In the table in the explanatory memorandum we find some very interesting information. We find, for example, that in the proposed new constituency of Donegal there will be a population of 21,102 per Member but in Dublin South-East we find that there will be a population of 19,292 people per Member. This suggests to me that the Government believe that it takes 21,102 Donegal people to be as good as 19,292 Dublin people. I think that it is an insult not alone to our democratic institutions but to the people of Donegal that the constituencies could be arranged in such a way that in Dublin South-East 19,000 people can elect a Deputy but in Donegal it takes over 21,000, a difference of 1,810 people per Deputy which, in effect, means that in the new Donegal constituency 9,050 people have been disenfranchised.

The Minister of course used the tolerance ratio as permitted by the High Court in favour of the people of Dublin South-East in the hope that the National Coalition Government will have two Deputies elected and that Fianna Fáil will have one. There is no point in the Labour Party saying that there will be a fair division of one for each party. There are two parties in this country, Fianna Fáil and the National Coalition Government, and constituencies such as Dublin South-East have been designed so as to ensure a two-to-one representation in favour of the National Coalition. The Minister could have used the 1,000 deviation in the national average in favour of the west if this Government had any interest in the west and so maintained the two Deputies in this area.

The national average is 20,123. The Minister is permitted by the Constitution and by the High Court ruling of 1961 to have 19,123 people elect a Deputy. If he had done that in County Clare all he needed was a population of 57,369 instead of 62,731. He has a surplus in County Clare of 5,362 people who are not getting the same treatment as the people in Dublin South-East, Dublin South-Central, Dublin North-Central, Dublin (Clontarf) and Dublin (Cabra). Indeed if we look at County Louth, where it takes 19,149 people to elect a Deputy, I believe I am entitled to ask this House why, in County Louth, can 19,149 people be allowed to elect a Deputy whereas in County Donegal 21,102 people are required to elect a Deputy. In Roscommon-Leitrim 21,119 people elect a Deputy and in Sligo-Leitrim 21,010 elect a Deputy. The people of Donegal, of Roscommon-Leitrim and of Sligo-Leitrim have every right to question this undemocratic legislation when in their areas it takes almost 2,000 more to elect a Deputy than in most of the Dublin constituencies and in the Louth constituencies.

Of course, there is a reason in Louth, an obvious reason, why this Government will emphatically deny that they even considered their political fortunes in designing these constituencies. Louth was a three-seat constituency, Fianna Fáil hold two seats and Fine Gael one. It has now become a four-seat constituency, and no matter how the political fortunes of Fianna Fáil improve in this area no one would claim that Fianna Fáil could take three out of four seats. It is obvious therefore that in County Louth the Minister is hoping that by adding an extra seat to this area he can get a Labour Deputy elected. In doing so he is allowing 19,149 people to elect a Deputy, whereas in the three constituencies in the north-west it takes 21,000 people.

As I said earlier, if the Minister had used the national deviation as permitted by the Constitution and the High Court ruling in favour of the west as he did in Louth, Dublin and other areas, we would have had a surplus of 5,362 people in Clare, 6,684 in East Galway, 1,832 in West Galway, 2,941 in West Mayo, 447 in East Mayo, 9,894 in Donegal, 5,661 in Sligo-Leitrim and 5,989 in Roscommon-Leitrim, a grand total of 38,810 people in the area from Clare to Donegal. The surplus in that area, 38,810 people, would have been enough to retain the two Deputies and ensure that 30 Members could be elected from Clare to Donegal.

The Minister had the same right, indeed he had a greater right, to give preference to the west. It could be argued that our Constitution lays down that there should be an even distribution of seats per people throughout the country, but under this legislation an even division is not taking place. I accept that this is within the framework of the Constitution and the High Court ruling, but I have proved by the figures I have given that 30 seats could have been retained in this area. County Clare has a population of 62,731 for a three-seat constituency. It requires only 57,369 people to elect a Deputy in a three-seat constituency. That means that in County Clare there is a surplus of 5,362. If we go through all the constituencies, using the figures of 76,492 for four-seat constituencies and 95,615 for five-seat constituencies, it is pure and simple mathematics to discover that in this region from Clare to Donegal 38,810 people have for all intents and purposes been disenfranchised. If those 38,810 people were living in the city of Dublin they would be allowed by the present Minister and by the present Government to elect two Deputies. Because they are living in the west and north-west the Government are depriving them of their proper representation.

It is completely misleading and politically dishonest for anyone to suggest that two seats have been taken from Clare to Donegal because the Constitution and the High Court ruling so ordained. This is not true. The Government could have left 30 seats in this area had they so wished. Senator O'Brien told us during one of his interruptions that the Government won two seats in this area in the last election. I accept that. I accept that the west is responsible for the election of the present Government, but the present Government do not trust this area. What was won in 1973 could be lost on the next occasion. That is why they are taking steps to ensure that this will not happen. They are taking steps to ensure that never again will the west from County Clare to County Donegal, have their proper voice in the administration of this country.

If we study the figures for three counties—Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim —we will find that it was not necessary to deprive this area of the one seat which was taken from them. We will also find that that area could have been left intact without breaching the Constitution or the High Court order. In the new constituency of County Donegal, we have a population of 105,509 people, but if the Minister were to apply the same population ratio per Member in Donegal as he did in Louth or in Dublin, it would take only 95,615 people to elect five Deputies in this area. That means that 9,894 people—or half a Deputy—have been disenfranchised.

In the Sligo-Leitrim constituency we find a surplus of 5,661 people. It would take 5,661 fewer people to elect three Deputies in this constituency. In Roscommon-Leitrim we find that it would take 5,989 fewer people to elect a Deputy. If we add these three figures together—9,000 and the two 5,000s—we find that there is a surplus of about 21,000 in this area. This in effect means that Roscommon need not have been taken into consideration but that in the Counties Sligo, Leitrim and Donegal there is a surplus of over 19,000 people, which is sufficient according to the Constitution to maintain the Deputy that has been taken from them.

This crying about the Constitution and the High Court to justify foul gerrymandering in the west should cease. They should be honest about it. They should at least tell the truth and admit that this operation is to deprive the Fianna Fáil Party of two Deputies to which they are entitled. We have heard over the years the moaning and the groaning about County Leitrim, particularly by supporters of the present Government. Those supporters had a golden opportunity when this legislation was being prepared to protect the interests of County Leitrim. Obviously for political expediency and in order to ensure perpetuation and power for their own political parties they threw the interests of Counties Leitrim, Sligo and Donegal to the wolves.

Now we find that, as a result of this, in County Donegal we will have a constituency that extends 125 to 130 miles in length. A person could leave this city of Dublin and travel through the Six Counties and would have reached the County Donegal border before he would have travelled that distance. It is the same length through County Donegal as it is from this city to the city of Limerick. I wonder what the Irish people would say if any Government were to produce a plan to divide constituencies in such a way that even though a Deputy is elected in the city of Dublin his constituency would extend to the city of Limerick. I believe that there would be public outcry and that no Government would get away with this. Yet in this legislation the Minister proposes to have a five-seat constituency in the fourth largest county in this country—a constituency that extends from Malin Head to Glencolumbkille and from Bunbeg to Ballyshannon, a constituency that because of its size will make it very difficult for the electorate to get the representation to which they are justly entitled. This constituency has been so devised because the Minister and his Government know that in the present two constituencies of County Donegal Fine Gael have two seats out of six. Under the new arrangement Fine Gael could have two seats out of five.

The Minister knows that Fine Gael have a reasonable good chance of electing two Deputies out of five, thus depriving the county of Donegal and a portion of Leitrim of one representative. I might say that it is immaterial to me who that representative might be. Every voice that comes from Donegal is a voice. By reducing this number to five, there is one voice fewer.

I believe that the Minister could have left these two constituencies. While I understand that in the constituency in which I live myself, North East Donegal, the population has increased, and that it might have required minor adjustments, it is wholly wrong to create one single unit in a county such as ours. I was somewhat surprised to discover, when this legislation was discussed in the Dáil, that certain people who participated in the debate were not armed with the facts. The Minister disagreed with Deputy Molloy on the population figures for Dublin city. As reported at column 2014, Volume 268 of the Official Report he said:

To help Deputy Molloy may I say the average in the west is 20,509 and in the Dublin area it is 20,840...

Later on the Minister was sporting enough and honest enough to point out that the figures he had given were wrong and that, in fact, the figures given by Deputy Molloy were correct. At column 2092 of the same volume he said:

I stated in good faith from information I got that the average population for Deputies in Dublin was 20,840. I should like to correct that: I am now informed that the correct figure is 20,142.

As I said, the Minister was honest enough and sporting enough to correct a mistake he had made. The point I wish to make on this is that it would appear to me that the Minister and his advisers when framing this Bill were of the opinion that the average population for Deputies in Dublin was 20,840 and that he framed his Bill accordingly. It is in fact 20,142, or 700 less. It would appear to me that it was the Minister's intention to increase the tolerance ratio in Dublin to as near 21,000 as possible, as laid down by the Constitution, and that his intention was to have an average population of 20,840. He discovered that there was a mathematical error and that, in fact, the average population was 700 less per Member. When one considers that 43 Deputies are to be elected in the Dublin city area, then an error of 700 people per Member is a very serious error and amounts to 30,000 people, odd.

I have the impression that the Minister did not intend a tolerance ratio in Dublin city of the kind he has in the Bill and that he intended it to be as near the maximum as is humanly possible. When he discovered his mistake of 30,000 for 43 Members he would be justified in saying that the Dublin city area could do with two Deputies less, because these are the two Deputies who are being snatched from the west of Ireland, two Deputies Dublin could well do without and who are very useful and very important in the western part of this country.

The Minister was not the only person who spoke on this Bill and made mistakes. We find in column 2024 of the same volume that a former Member of this House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, spoke about the County Donegal constituency. He said:

It was a five-seat constituency at one stage and even a seven- or eight-seat constituency far back. I do not think it was divided into two ... until Mr. Boland divided it and before that the previous Fianna Fáil revisionists had been happy to leave it in that condition. I do not know why. Perhaps it suited them.

Cathaoirleach

Could the Senator give the reference?

Mr. McGlinchey

I have given it: column 2024, Volume 268. While I must admit that the Parliamentary Secretary stated that he was speaking subject to correction, nevertheless I think it strange that a man holding a position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach should attempt to mislead the Dáil in the manner in which it would appear to me he did. Donegal was first made a single-seat constituency when the original electoral boundaries were drawn up in 1925 and, at the first opportunity that the Government of the day had in 1937, Donegal became two constituencies. To suggest, as did the Parliamentary Secretary, that this change was made by Mr. Boland is wrong and misleading. Once again it demonstrates clearly to me the lack of knowledge that senior and junior members of the Government have as far as rural Ireland is concerned.

It is bad enough for a Dublin-elected Deputy to make a mistake about a Donegal constituency. It is worse when we find a Donegal Deputy making an even more serious mistake. We find at column 626, Volume 269 of the Dáil Debates that Deputy White had this to say:

It is wrong for the Opposition to say that Donegal is too vast a constituency for five Members to look after. This is not the first time in the history of the State that Donegal has been a single constituency. It was a single constituency many years ago. The difference then was that the Unionists were able to elect one of their own. When Fianna Fáil divided the constituency they divided it in half so that the Unionists would not be able to elect a Member of their own. That day is gone.

I am surprised that Deputy White, a native of Ballyshannon, did not fully equip himself with the proper information before making such a serious charge against any Government in this country. Deputy White must have known that when Donegal was a single constituency the then traditionally Unionist vote in the county was able to elect a Major Myles from Ballyshannon from Deputy White's own town. They were able to elect him to Dáil Éireann. In 1939 the Fianna Fáil Government divided Donegal into two constituencies. It is true to say that, in a subsequent election in 1943, Major Myles who was elected on a traditional Unionist vote—lost his seat. But that seat was not taken from him by either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. That seat was taken from him by a man who also received the traditional Unionist vote as that time, former Deputy and Senator W. A. W. Sheldon. I think that the allegation made that the County of Donegal was so divided to deprive the Unionists of a seat is a very serious one and, as Deputy White comes from the same town as Major Myles, he should and must have known that the information he was giving is incorrect.

I believe in Dublin city the Minister should have—because of the compact constituencies—allowed the maximum ratio of population per member. There should have been no constituency in this city with fewer than 21,000 people per Member. In rural Ireland, if we care about it, the situation could have been reversed without any breach of the Constitution. It is hard to understand because the area in which I live was given the highest ratio of population per Member. The highest one is Roscommon-Leitrim with 21,119, next is Donegal with 21,102, and Sligo-Leitrim has 21,010. There are only four constituencies that exceed the 21,000 Member per population ratio, and those of them are Donegal, Sligo-Leitrim and Roscommon-Leitrim. I want to know why it is that in Dublin North-Central it takes only 19,452 people to elect a Deputy, whereas in Donegal, in Sligo-Leitrim and in Roscommon-Leitrim it takes over 21,000. Is the Minister suggesting that 21,000 Donegal men, Sligo men or Leitrim men are as good as 19,452 Dublin men? If the Minister is of that opinion he is under a serious misapprehension.

It is obvious, studying these figures in the Dublin constituencies, that every effort has been made to give the Labour Party every opportunity of gaining seven or eight seats. The fact that the Dublin city area has been changed from four to three-seaters with the exception of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown justifies this contention. At the moment in most of the Dublin constituencies in the four-seaters we have two Fianna Fáil and two Government supporters. That is a reasonably fair divide when one considers the voting trends but now the Government propose making these constituencies three-seaters in the hope that in the future the Government will take two seats and Fianna Fáil will take one.

I should be interested to hear how the Senator can relate this passage to the Bill.

Mr. McGlinchey

We must have the facts and the facts are that it was the intention of the Minister and the Government to make West Limerick a four-seater.

Who, then, is the Senator?

Mr. McGlinchey

I am dealing with West Limerick. Last summer, that long hot summer the Minister for Local Government promised Dáil Éireann, was devoted to the wranglings of the supporters of the present Government because of failure to reach agreement.

One of the places where they failed to get agreement was in County Limerick. It would have worked out very well for the fortunes of the Coalition Government if the Minister's original intention had been allowed. The original intention was to make the city of Limerick a three-seater in the hope of getting rid of one Fianna Fáil Deputy and to make the county of Limerick a four-seater. The Government knew that Fianna Fáil have two of the three seats in West Limerick but they could not possibly hope to have three of the four seats in that same situation. For that reason they were confident of electing a second person in West Limerick and quite obviously a constituency such as West Limerick would not elect a Labour Deputy. The Minister realised that it would be a Fine Gael Deputy and that the ratio in West Limerick would be two Fianna Fáil Deputies and two Fine Gael Deputies. I am sure Senator O'Brien clapped his hands with joy when he heard of these proposals because it meant that he would at last succeed in achieving his political ambition of entering Dáil Éireann. If he appeared to be unseating a decent and respected Member of Dáil Éireann in the process, he was prepared to settle for the next best thing which is a seat made for him. Then came the crunch.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. McGlinchey

Before lunch I was dealing with the situation in County Limerick. I am sorry that Senator O'Brien has not come back to the House because I hate speaking about people behind their backs particularly if it is possible for them to be here.

Before the luncheon adjournment Senator O'Brien heard me say that I would deal with the dessert after lunch. I was showing how I believe Senator O'Brien attempted to arrange the constituencies in County Limerick in a manner which would help him to achieve his life-long ambition of being elected to Dáil Éireann. Having failed on two occasions to stab one of the most respected Fine Gael Deputies in Dáil Éireann in the back and having realised that that stabbing could not work he decided that he would stab yet another Limerick Deputy in the back, a Deputy who is undoubtedly one of the most popular in this country, a Deputy who is considered in his native city of Limerick to be one of the most hard-working public representatives this country has ever produced. I know Limerick well. I have a brother living in Limerick city and I know from my contacts in that city that the opinion I have of that Deputy is shared by the people in Limerick city and in the East Limerick constituency.

Senator O'Brien did not take into consideration the dynamic persuasive personality of the Labour Deputy, Stevie Coughlan. When it became apparent that a Fine Gael Senator in West Limerick, in order to achieve his own political ambition, had persuaded the Fine Gael Party to use their influence with the Government to bring this situation about, the thought crossed the minds of many members of the Labour Party, who had attempted on numerous occasions down the years—without success—to get rid of Deputy Coughlan, that here possibly was an opportunity to do so. Deputy Coughlan, because of his work in East Limerick, had strong support in the rural area but now because of the conniving of Senator O'Brien and some of the Labour Party radicals it was decided to take from the East Limerick constituency Deputy Coughlan's stronghold and put it into West Limerick in order to elect Senator O'Brien to Dáil Éireann.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

Mr. Kilbride

Mr. Hanafin

Acting Chairman

Senators should not interrupt.

Mr. McGlinchey

If anything affects the reunification of this country it will be this very small inlet— an inlet described by Fine Gael councillors in Donegal as a damn shame. In the years to come, Members of this House will have to justify this because this is the greatest argument to persuade the Unionists of the Six Counties to have nothing to do with the present Government.

So much for the sincerity of the Minister's sentiments as far as local administrative boundaries and county boundaries are concerned. In his speech the Minister stated:

Nonetheless, I accept that Deputy Molloy was speaking for his party on this matter and for my part I am prepared, once the present revision of constituencies has been implemented, to consider any suggestion which the Opposition party may have to make on the question of a commission.

I do not think it is necessary for a Minister to wait for suggestions from the Opposition party as far as a commission are concerned. I would imagine that all the Minister and his colleagues had to do when they were elected to office was to practise in Government what they preached in Opposition. When the former Minister for Lands introduced his own Bill on this matter I understand that the present Minister for Local Government supported it, and I have quoted what other Ministers and other Deputies had to say on this subject. I submit that the people of Ireland believed that when they elected a National Coalition Government the act of that Government would be to set up a commission to revise the constituencies. I believe that the people of Ireland who supported the National Coalition Government did so because they were misled into believing that these were honest politicians who pointed out many faults while in Opposition and who, no doubt, would correct them in Government.

We soon found out that that was not to be the case. We soon found out that the top priority of the present Government, once they assumed office, was to take the necessary steps to ensure that office in Government would be perpetuated, so they very quickly forgot the undertakings they had made in the past. Either they were insincere and dishonest politically when making those statements in 1968, 1969 and 1972, or they are insincere and politically dishonest now. I note that the Minister, on page 4 of his speech, states:

All kinds of selective statistics have been brought forward to support this contention but the fact is that the average population per Deputy in Dublin will be higher than the average per Deputy in the rest of the country.

I cannot understand how the Minister arrived at the conclusion that the average population per Deputy in Dublin will be higher than the average per Deputy in the rest of the country, because when one studies this memorandum and the table at the back of it the figures are there. They state that Dún Laoghaire has 20,216; Dublin (Artane), 20,346; Dublin (Ballyfermot), 20,999; Dublin (Cabra), 19,771; Dublin (Clontarf), 19,531; Dublin (Finglas), 20,034; Dublin North-Central, 19,452; Dublin (Rath-mines), 20,324; Dublin South-Central, 20,072; Dublin South-East, 19,292.

I cannot understand how the Minister can say that the average population per Deputy in Dublin will be higher than the average per Deputy in the rest of the country when the four highest constituencies in the country are West County Dublin, County Donegal, Sligo-Leitrim and Roscommon-Leitrim. All those constituencies have more than 21,000 people per Member while in Dublin it varies from a little more than 19,000 to 20,000. Indeed there is only one constituency in Dublin, West County Dublin, which has a figure of more than 21,000. Yet the Minister is trying to convey the impression that the average population per Deputy in Dublin is higher than the rest of the country.

While I am dealing with Dublin I should like to come to the constituency of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. It must seem strange to the impartial observer to discover while studying the Dublin area that every constituency in Dublin is a three-seater with the exception of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. There are 13 three-seaters and one four-seater there. Naturally I wonder why that situation was allowed to continue when the obvious policy of the Government in the Dublin area is to have three-seat constituencies, but we must remember that this is the Taoiseach's constituency. It is expected naturally that the Taoiseach will be strong enough to bring in a second Fine Gael Deputy. If this was made a three-seater, no matter what the Government might do Fianna Fáil would have to get a seat in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. But we have Deputy Barry Desmond there. It is quite obvious to me that if this Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown constituency had been changed into a three-seater, with two seats for Fine Gael and one seat for Fianna Fáil, the future for Deputy Barry Desmond would not be so certain.

I submit that the Minister was not sincere when in the course of his speech he told us that he had to weigh up the competing claims of all the areas and strike a balance which is fair to all. It is true that he weighed up the competing claims of Alderman Lipper, Deputy Stevie Coughlan and Senator Willie O'Brien. In the interest of the preservation of the Labour Party he did strike a balance which was fair to Deputy Stevie Coughlan because the Minister knew that if he did not the National Coalition Government, the Labour Party and he would be in trouble. The Minister continued:

The whole spirit of the Constitution requires an even spread of seats over the whole country without favouring or penalising any area.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid that I must again warn the Senator he is repeating. By tying the same argument to a different part of the Minister's speech he is infringing the rules of order. I have had occasion, particularly in the past 20 minutes, to warn the Senator. If he persists in repetition it will be necessary to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. McGlinchey

I submit that the Minister in revising the constituencies did not do what he claims the whole spirit of the Constitution requires. I submit that he did not provide an even spread of seats over the whole country and that he did favour some areas and penalise other areas. One has only to study the map that the Minister has issued to see that what I say is correct. I cannot understand why a county like Donegal should have five seats, and a county like Louth, known as "the wee county", should have four seats. Is that an even spread of seats over the whole country? Would we not say that the Minister favoured County Louth and penalised County Donegal?

The smallest county, a county that one can drive through in threequarters of an hour, has four representatives in Dáil Éireann whereas the fourth largest county has only one extra representative. From that example I reject completely the claim made by the Minister in the course of his speech. Later the Minister said:

By combining two or more counties in a single constituency it is possible to draw up a scheme in which no county boundary would be breached. For example, counties Donegal and Leitrim could be combined to form a seven-seat constituency.

An Cathaoirleach

That again is repetition of a previous reference.

Mr. McGlinchey

No. I have never mentioned that before. I have only come to it. I believe the Minister is wrong in leaving Donegal as a single constituency. I believe he should have left it as two constituencies, that he had a few thousand people to draw from from north-east Donegal and that with a little further help from Leitrim those two constituencies could have remained intact, particularly, as the counties of Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim are in the one region for health purposes and for tourism.

I would agree, if the Minister was not prepared to leave the constituency in the way in which I have suggested, that Counties Donegal and Leitrim could be combined to form a seven-seat constituency. I want to ask him why he did not do this if he was not prepared to leave the two constituencies in Donegal. I believe that once again the Minister is not really sincere in what he is saying because if he had made County Donegal and County Leitrim into a single constituency we would find four out-going Fine Gael Deputies in this constituency. The Government and the Minister know that even in their wildest dreams those four outgoing Fine Gael Deputies would not hold their seats in a constituency which consists of Counties Donegal and Leitrim.

So, I would say to the Minister, if he is not prepared to leave the two constituencies in County Donegal that it would be better for the people of Donegal and for the people of Leitrim to be put in a seven-seat constituency which he has suggested here. I will ask the Minister to implement the suggestion that he has made on page six of his speech, where he states:

The new Donegal constituency is, in fact, a more compact area than the present constituency of Donegal-Leitrim which stretches from Tory Island to Dromahair.

I can only conclude that the Minister knows very little about County Donegal when he makes an assertion of this kind. Further down in the same page the Minister states:

In drawing up the proposals contained in this Bill my objective was to ensure fair and reasonable representation for the people of every area.

I believe that I have proved without any shadow of doubt that this claim by the Minister is unacceptable. I believe that I have proved that the Minister was neither fair nor reasonable towards the people of many areas and I believe, indeed, that many Deputies, supporters of the National Coalition Government, would disagree with the proposals. But the crunch came in the last sentence of his speech when he said: "I hope I have succeeded in these objectives, and judging from a comment of impartial observers I feel that my efforts have, in fact, been successful, and I am confident that Senators will take this view also." Judging from the comments of impartial observers, the Minister believes that he has been successful in giving fair and reasonable representation to the people of every area. But I should like to know what an impartial observer is, and I would tell the Minister that he could not be living along the road from Ballyshannon to Ballintra, because nobody in his sane senses on that road could say that the Minister was either fair or reasonable. I believe that any impartial observer who studies these constituency changes in the city of Dublin, in the city and County of Cork, in Cavan and Monaghan and in every county from Clare to Donegal, could not agree that the Minister was fair and reasonable.

This is obnoxious legislation coming at a time when we should be trying to satisfy the people that we have a conscience as far as fair play and justice to all is concerned. This legislation is distasteful not alone to the people living on this side of the Border but especially to those living in the six of Ulster's nine counties. The day will come when people of all political viewpoints and all denominations will point the finger of scorn at the Minister and his Government and accuse them of doing something that they have stopped doing a year ago. But remember a very heavy price had to be paid by the people of the Six Counties and is still being paid by the people of the Six Counties before that system was stopped there. I sat down in The Diamond in Derry at the first public meeting ever held by a Nationalist in the city of Doire Cholmcille. I sat after marching with 17,000 people across Craigavon Bridge on that November day in 1968, and I was proud to sit by them and proud, indeed, to say that I am the only Member of the Oireachtas who took part in that historic event. But we cannot overlook that the main reason why that became necessary, the main reason why the people of Derry rose and threw the shackles off them began with the gerrymandering of their constituencies, began with the gerrymandering of their wards, the denial of 70 per cent of the population of that city, of their true and proper representation. That is why the people of Derry rebelled and on that historic day to which I referred, those 17,000 people would have accepted any abuse from the so-called forces of law and order to make their point.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is repeating material given earlier in his speech.

Mr. McGlinchey

I hope that never in any part of this country will the day come when a similar situation will arise. We speak now in the calm of 1974 and may say that it could arise but may not arise: the day will come when it possibly could.

An Cathaoirleach

That is also repetition and I must again seriously warn the Senator and draw the attention of the House to the fact that I have warned him several times on the head of repetition and if he persists, it may be necessary for me to request him to discontinue his speech.

Mr. McGlinchey

This point is so serious for the future of this nation that I am sorry, Sir, if I am guilty of repetition.

I should like to appeal to the Minister to take this Bill with him, to study it carefully over the Easter recess and give particular attention to the amendments which we, on this side of the House, intend tabling. If he should do this, in the years to come he will not regret his action. I realise that the Committee Stage is more appropriate for going into detail. It is my intention to do just that when we reach that Stage.

This Bill, in my opinion, is the most undemocratic piece of legislation introduced in this House since I came here in 1961. It is unfair, unjust, and despicable. If the Government had any decency at all, they would bow their heads in shame in the knowledge that even the greatest Unionist in Belfast has not legislation of this kind today to perpetuate himself in office. The Minister and the Government are doing something that even the British Government who, for 700 years, did not give two raps about this country, would not tolerate. Even they insisted that obnoxious legislation of this kind should be wiped from the statute books in north-east Ulster. The British Government, who never cared for this nation, whose interest in Ireland for 700 years was purely a selfish one, could not tolerate this legislation that existed in the Six Counties. Yet, we have the Government of the Just Society, composed of people who, in Opposition, would like to have been described as paragons of virtue, who are prepared to force through the Houses of the Oireachtas legislation that is not acceptable by any fair-minded Unionist in north-east Ulster.

In forcing this legislation through this House, the Minister is helping those who are extreme in outlook in the Six Counties. Indeed, it has been suggested by some that William Craig, who once held a similar office in the Six Counties to that held by the present Minister for Local Government, came from Belfast to help the Minister draw up the constituencies and to draft this Bill. I do not know if this is true or false. I do not know if there is any substance in this rumour, but the hands of William Craig, of Ian Paisley, of John Taylor and certainly the hand of the infamous Sir Basil Brooke appear to be very much evident in the drafting of this Bill.

It is disorderly to interrupt and it is disorderly to have your name on the wall without your party.

Mr. Kilbride

Your name would not be on the ballot paper if your constituents had their way.

Mr. Killilea

My name was on the ballot paper and Fianna Fáil was behind having it there. I did not have my name on the walls without the political party that put me there like the Senator who has now interrupted.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

I have earlier indicated to Senators that reminiscences that are not relevant to the Constituencies Bill should not be indulged in in this debate.

Mr. Killilea

On a point of order, I am only clarifying an allegation that was made about me.

An Cathaoirleach

A point of personal explanation is not a point of order.

Mr. Killilea

I was making a point of personal explanation to state that my political party had my name on their documents not like Senator Kilbride who plastered his name all over Longford and was ashamed of the party he belonged to.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

I wish to indicate to Senator Killilea and to other Senators that it is at all times disorderly to interrupt: that points of personal explanation may not be made in the course of the speech and that points of order can be made but must properly be points of order. Senator McGlinchey to resume on the Constituencies Bill.

Mr. McGlinchey

I do not know whether there is any substance in the rumour that Bill Craig came down to advise the Government on how to gerrymander the constituencies. When one looks at this map and when one drives from Ballyshannon to Ballintra——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator has driven that road before during the debate.

Mr. McGlinchey

I got my wife from Ballyshannon so, naturally, I drive there very often. I would suggest to the Minister that if he persists in taking out of Donegal the area to the right of the road from Ballyshannon to Ballintra, which includes Pettigo and Lough Derg, if this injustice is perpetrated on the people of this area, then the decent thing for the Minister, his Government and his supporters to do, is to spend as long as possible in the island of Lough Derg this coming summer. Lough Derg is a place where some souls suffer for a time on account of their sins. I believe that the people of the west wonder why this famous Donegal island—this famous pilgrimage spot which is known not alone throughout Ireland but in distant lands—is, in the opinion of the Minister for Local Government, no longer in County Donegal. That is the result of his gerrymandering. Bill Craig would not have a great deal of interest in Lough Derg. That might be why this island was removed from the County Donegal and put into Sligo-Leitrim.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is discussing points of such detail which would be more appropriate on the Committee Stage rather than on the Second Stage.

Mr. McGlinchey

I accept that the Committee Stage would give us an opportunity of going into this Bill in detail and in depth. I will conclude my speech as I started by saying that the architect of gerrymandering in this country was Sir Basil Brooke, but he is only an altar boy compared to the present Minister for Local Government. I would call on the Minister and his Government, if they have any sense of fair play at all, to withdraw this obnoxious legislation and to do in office what they said they would do when they were in Opposition, and that is to appoint an independent, impartial commission as was done in the six North-Eastern counties of this country.

Mr. W. Ryan

Having listened to that brilliant and lengthy speech by Senator McGlinchey, it is not so easy to find something to say without repeating what he has said.

I look on this Bill as a deliberate attempt by the present Government to remain in power, even against the wishes of the majority of the people. Like other speakers, I am surprised that we have not had a speaker from the opposite side of the House. We could not have had one today, but we could yesterday. The indications are that we will not hear from anybody from that side.

Mr. Killilea

We could have heard from the Independent Senator from Longford.

Mr. W. Ryan

It is true perhaps that the Government party could not say anything against the Bill but there must be something to be said in its favour. Yet we have not had one speaker from the Government side. Only one Independent Senator has contributed to this debate, Senator Mary Robinson. On the last Electoral Bill Senator Quinlan spoke for quite a long time, although he claimed he was an Independent Member and had no political ties whatsoever. It is rather strange that he is not here today to speak against this Bill.

Another reason perhaps why Government Members are not speaking is that they have been told by the Minister that he wants to get this Bill through this week. Rumours to that effect have been circulating since lunchtime. I cannot understand why there should be such a rush now about the Bill. The Government took office last March. It took from March until November for the Government to make up their minds what kind of a Bill they wanted. They came into the Dáil in early November and Fianna Fáil took part in the debate up to a week ago. They got the guillotine in the Dáil and it looks as if the same tactics are going to be used here.

There is no rush to get this Bill through, unless there is a general election coming in a few weeks' time. After this budget, perhaps the Government think it might be a good time to have an election.

Mr. Killilea

Which budget?

Mr. W. Ryan

Which budget is right. I am sure if the Minister would give us a guarantee here that there is going to be an election within a month, we shall give him the Bill straight away. Despite the gerrymander that is being carried out in this Bill the people will see through it and when an election campaign is under way the Government will realise that they have cut sticks with which to beat themselves.

I have been here for other Electoral Bills and we heard quite a lot from Government speakers who were then Opposition speakers, including the Minister, about this commission. It was said that a commission was the only fair way of dividing up boundaries. We have not heard a word about the commission on this Bill, except that the Minister has said that nobody is more suited for this job than the politicians. I agree with that. It is rather strange when we had such a lot of talk about a commission before that we do not hear anything about it now.

The province which concerns me most is Munster. It is stated in the memorandum:

Munster, excluding Clare, will maintain its present number of seats. The number of constituencies in the area will be reduced from 12 to 11.

I understand that from the increase in the population in Munster the Minister, if he wanted to do so, could increase the seats there by two, but he did not decide to do that. Instead, he has decided to reduce the second most important city in Ireland to a five-seater, instead of a six-seater. The memorandum says that the ratio of population to Deputies in the existing Cork city constituency is outside the range regarded as permissible. With the increase in population that means that the six-seater is not permissible because we have more people than we should have for a six-seater constituency. Instead of increasing Cork city to a seven-seater the Minister reduces it to a five-seater. It is very hard to understand why he decides that Cork city has too large a population for six seats so he makes it a five-seater instead.

Cork city was a five-seater constituency some years ago. The population increased there and under the second last Electoral Bill it was made a two three-seater constituency. It is an insult to the people of Cork city to have it reduced now to a five-seater. We know that the Minister has method in his madness because he is endeavouring to get a seat there for Labour—for Senator Kerrigan, I presume. We do not begrudge Senator Kerrigan a seat there. If it is a five-seater. I feel sure we will secure three seats and the other two seats will go to Fine Gael or Labour. That is the only reason why Cork has been made a five-seater. It is a poor reflection on Labour to say that in the two three-seaters in Cork city they were unable to win a seat in the last election.

The portion of Cork city which the Minister does not want included now has been put into the constituency of Mid-Cork, a constituency which sprawls all over Cork from Cork City Hall to the borders of Kerry and Limerick and reaches almost to Clare. It is a constituency which must be more than 100 miles long. Yet the Minister has decided now to extend that constituency by bringing it deeper into Cork city. It is very hard to understand why that should happen. The heart of Cork city should be associated with the areas around Millstreet, Rathluirc and North Cork. The present proposal is ridiculous.

Mr. Killilea

But it is going to get a pal in.

Mr. W. Ryan

There have been transferred from Cork city 15,000 city people to a rural constituency. This does not make sense. It is very hard to understand why there should be one law for Cork city and another law for Dublin. All Dublin constituencies, with one exception, have been made three-seaters and yet Cork city has been made a five-seater.

As far as Fianna Fáil are concerned, we are not grumbling about what has happened. We will get three seats in Mid-Cork and Cork city. It is the people of Cork we are thinking about. They have got a raw deal from the Minister.

Clare is another county in Munster which has been affected and about which we heard quite a lot from Senator Killilea and other Senators. In Clare a provincial boundary has been breached as well as a county boundary. In the previous Electoral Bill Fianna Fáil put portion of Clare in with Galway and called the constituency Clare-Galway. The portion that was put in was quite close to Galway. Deputies were not affected in any way because of the distances they had to travel. It was a three-seater.

The Minister has now decided that Galway will have two four-seaters and he has restored that part of Clare, or most of it, to Clare. He has put another portion of Clare with Galway. That constituency extends from about a mile from Ennis town to away up beyond Clifden, to Inishboffin. As the Minister himself is a rural Deputy, it is hard to understand why he is making it so difficult for rural Deputies to carry out their work. I pity any Deputy who has to look after a constituency of that kind.

Long before the Bill was introduced the Minister stated that it was his intention to respect county boundaries. I know that in all cases that was not possible but it was possible in several cases where he has shown little respect for county boundaries. In my own county, Tipperary, we are in the unhappy position of being the only county in Ireland which has two county councils. There was a revision of constituencies in 1948. Up to that time Tipperary was a seven-seater but then it was divided up into a four-seater in the South and a three-seater in the North. The dividing line was the dividing line for the county councils. Therefore, when you break the county council boundary in Tipperary you are breaking a county boundary.

Later on in the 1961 Electoral Bill, a portion of South Tipperary, two parishes, Gartnahoe and Kilgool had to go into North Tipperary in order to boost North Tipperary. Tipperary did not have the population for three seats. Later on, in another electoral revision, a further portion was added to North Tipperary in order to bring it up to the required population. On this occasion there was no need whatsoever to transfer a large portion of South Tipperary to North Tipperary. North Tipperary already had the population to elect three Deputies and yet the Minister decided to put places like Ballingarry, Ballyphilip, Buolick, Crohane, Farranrory, Nodstown and Killenaule into North Tipperary. I should like to know the Minister's reason for transferring those places to North Tipperary because, in my view, there was no need to do so. The position now is that there is a three-seater in South Tipperary and a three-seater in North Tipperary but there is a bigger population in North Tipperary.

If the Minister has to transfer an area from one county to another on a population basis, that is all right, but this was not the reason he did it in South Tipperary. I believe this happened in South Tipperary because the Minister was misled by the Labour Party in the county. In the last election Labour won a North Tipperary seat by 150 votes. The Government must think that by including Killenaule, Ballingarry and Nodstown in that area, they will hold on to that seat in North Tipperary. We in Tipperary think differently. I am not worried about Fianna Fáil. The people in Killenaule and Ballingarry want to stay in South Tipperary. Their county councillors are in South Tipperary. They have to work in South Tipperary for county council purposes and they have to go into North Tipperary for Dáil purposes. This is most unfair.

To be fair to our local Fianna Fáil Deputy, Deputy Noel Davern, I think he has been treated very shabbily by this revision of the constituency. The North Tipperary constituency now extends from the town of Birr in the County Offaly right down to the town of Cashel. As well as trying to hold onto this extra seat for Labour in North Tipperary, there was also an attempt to take votes from Deputy Noel Davern because, naturally, the biggest vote you get in an election is the vote you get around your own area and that area is now taken from Deputy Davern.

In the 1961 electoral division Fianna Fáil transferred part of Waterford to Tipperary. The Waterford people at that time were very disappointed because that happened. Strange to say, now the Waterford people want to stay in Tipperary. We have given them very good attention during the years they have been with us and they are quite happy to remain with us. However, I respect the wishes of the Minister because, in transferring that portion of Waterford back again to Waterford, he is respecting county boundaries.

Much has been said about the west and I do not wish to repeat it. We listened to the Government, when they were in Opposition, blaming Fianna Fáil for neglecting the west down through the years. The Coalition Government have been in power for one year now and we have seen the way they have been neglecting the west. Only one Parliamentary Secretary was appointed from the west. Now when the west is entitled to 30 seats, the Government will only allow 28 seats. It is very hard to understand why we should be trying to take those seats from rural areas and giving them to the city of Dublin. Fifteen seats in the west would have a population of 315,000 odd, and 15 seats in Dublin would have a population of 293,652.

It is very hard to understand why a country Deputy should be expected to have a bigger number of constituents than a Dublin Deputy. A Dublin Deputy has only about one mile to travel to the farthest end of his constituency. He is here in Leinster House most days of the week when the Dáil is sitting and his constituents can come in to meet him. The situation of a rural Deputy is completely different. A rural Deputy has to travel night after night to meetings all over his constituency. In some cases he has to travel almost 100 miles. He is expected to be at his home to meet people. Some years ago Fianna Fáil tried to put through the tolerance issue and we were beaten on a referendum because the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party told the people not to vote for the tolerance issue. The tolerance issue was intended to make things easier for rural Deputies and to give people in rural Ireland better representation than they had.

Looking briefly through the different constituencies, I notice that there are a few constituencies where there are no changes. They are constituencies where the Government have a majority. In Carlow and Kilkenny, where there are three Government TDs and two Fianna Fáil TDs, there is no change. In my opinion there could be a change because there is quite a portion of Kilkenny in with the Borough of Waterford. That part of Kilkenny should be returned to Kilkenny and in that way the Minister could give back the part of Wexford that is in with Kilkenny to Wexford.

I do not think there should be any change in the Cavan and Monaghan constituencies. We know that the population has dropped there but, at the same time, if Meath and Louth were left as three-seaters, we could have two three-seaters in Cavan and Monaghan as we had in the past. Other than in Cork City and Mid-Cork there is no change in any of the Cork constituencies. I am sorry to see Donegal being reduced to a five-seater because this is an attempt to victimise the west and the north. An all-out effort should be made to find a way of having at least six seats in Donegal because it is so far away. I know the Minister has his reasons for doing this. He believes that by reducing it to a five-seater Fianna Fáil will lose a seat in Donegal.

I have already mentioned West Galway. South Kerry still remains as it was except that the part of West Cork that is included will not be returned to West Cork again. I am sorry to see that part of Kildare has been included in some small portion of Meath, probably to help the Minister keep his seat there. Another portion of it has been included in County Dublin. Dublin is big enough without taking from the country to add to it. Every county around Dublin should be left on its own. If anything, it should be the other way about, part of Dublin should be included in Kildare, to help Kildare, Meath and elsewhere.

There is no change in Laois-Offaly because again we have only two seats there, but in the next election I expect we will have the three there again. Louth has got four seats at the expense of County Monaghan. It appears that, on its own, Louth could not have four seats. I am sorry to see a county such as Monaghan having to suffer at the hands of that small, very prosperous, county of Louth which I think would do very well with three seats. The same applies to Meath.

Wicklow is being left as a three-seater. We all expected that Wicklow would be a four-seater after this election because the population there has increased considerably but this is not so. The Minister has decided that he would take a part of Wicklow— Little Bray—and include it in the Mid-County Dublin constituency; again something with which I do not agree.

In conclusion, I believe that the Committee Stage of this Bill certainly will not be taken this week but next week or the week after and that, when we bring in our amendments to the Bill, the Minister will give them careful consideration. Perhaps he will see our point of view and make some changes in the Bill.

Mr. Hanafin

In view of the many valuable criticisms made on this Bill from this side of the House and because we did not have any speeches from the Government side—something with which I will deal later —we all await the Minister's reply with interest. There is one point I would like to bring to the Minister's attention. I noticed, in his opening speech, after dealing with the various objections he said:

I hope I have succeeded in those objectives and, judging from the comments of impartial observers, I feel that my efforts have in fact been successful and I am confident that Senators will take this view also.

It is not just enough to say "impartial observers". I think any Senator would agree we had an impartial observer speaking here last night— Senator Mary Robinson. I believe her to be so; she is a very positive type of person in her views. She has spoken against the Fianna Fáil Government and against this one. I believe she is sincere in everything she says. There is something I want to bring to the Minister's attention and I do this for the right reasons. I do not know whether the Minister has seen this morning's Irish Times. I hope the report in this is untrue. It was dealing with Senator Robinson's speech and she was quoting from Dáil Debates. I quote what she said:

On November the 28th, 1968 Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick, as he then was, introduced a Constituency Commission Bill and said he was doing so on behalf of Fine Gael. This was supported by Deputy Tully, as he then was, for the Labour Party. As Mrs. Robinson began to quote from Mr. Tully's remarks in that debate, Mr. Tully began to laugh and continued to do so while she continued reading the quotation.

I bring that to the Minister's attention. He has indicated to me that he has not seen it. I sincerely hope it is untrue because Senator Robinson is a very positive type of person in the views she expresses and, whatever reaction she inspires at times, certainly it is not one of laughter. Knowing the Minister reasonably well I doubt if he would be guilty of ungentlemanly conduct in that regard. Might I expect that the Minister will be making a reference of what I said? If it is untrue I expect that he will deny it and if it is true I do not know what his reaction will be but I know the reaction we would expect as regards laughter at any Senator in this House and particularly at Senator Robinson. I want to believe it is untrue.

In replying, I hope the Minister will deal also with the apparent sense of urgency surrounding this Bill. Perhaps he will explain why it was so necessary to have the Seanad meet in this particular week. There is no precedent for meeting this week except, I understand, on one occasion when we met on the Tuesday to deal with some urgent business. We do not regard this as urgent and we could be forgiven for being suspicious when there is this sense of urgency surrounding the Bill, particularly as it is a Bill that can only —apparently the Minister believes this to be so—promote the interests of the Coalition Government. I might also mention that we are still awaiting important legislation promised by the Government. If this Bill is being treated with greater urgency and importance than all the beautiful schemes were proposed by the Minister, and other Ministers, certainly there are very definite grounds for wondering why.

One point that has been stressed again and again since this debate started is the fact that the Minister, and other members of the Government, whilst in Opposition, advocated an independent commission to deal with any electoral boundary changes. It is perfectly reasonable for our part —some of us having studied the comments made by the Minister and other Ministers while in Opposition regarding boundary changes—to ask why Is it because they were dishonest in their criticisms on the first occasion? they have reneged on their promises. they wish to consolidate their position, Is it because they feel insecure in their present position, or is it that knowing that there is the danger at all times with any Coalition Government of a break-up?

There are positive indications and, if we take the urgency surrounding this Bill, we might indeed also take this as a positive indication of the Government not being happy with their present position. It is suggested that there is dissention within the Government itself. I am not aware if that is so but there is definitely a suggestion of dissention. Is it that the Minister as a good politician is pressing this Bill so as to have it ready in any emergency that might arise?

It is difficult at this stage of the debate to say anything new or original as the various speakers up to this have dealt with all aspects of the Bill and, we are denied the opportunity of hearing the views of the Senators on the Government benches, we are also denied the opportunity of replying to what they might have said. It has become perfectly obvious, so obvious, in fact, that it is not even denied by the Senators on the Government benches, that they are under instructions that under no circumstances are they to speak on this Bill and so we are denied the opportunity of being made aware of what each Senator thinks of the Bill.

Another matter on which I should like to get a reply from the Minister is the reason for the more favourable ratio of Deputies to constituencies in Dublin as against the underdeveloped sparsely populated areas. I would have thought that in an underdeveloped constituency the more Deputies in that constituency the more good can be done for that constituency. All of us in rural constituencies are aware of the involvement of Deputies and Senators in various committees, promoting industry and other things for the betterment of the community. That is why it is difficult to understand why there appears to be a deliberate attempt to give as few representatives as possible to the rural areas and more representatives to the city. Is it because the Government recognise that the opportunity for creating their own representation in rural constituencies is just not on and, as a result, they are concentrating on Dublin where they feel they will increase their representation? If this is the reason, a reason one can understand from a purely political point of view, then the Minister should say so. Or is it an indication that any further taxation will be imposed on the rural community and, because of that, they feel that the position may not even be as secure in the future as it may be now?

Where there is an increase in population, and one must accept that the increase in population is in Dublin, one could argue in favour of increased representation but that is really not completely acceptable. Take the rural constituency of North Tipperary as an example. If the Labour Party, the Minister's own party, succeed in retaining the seat in North Tipperary which they won the last time, with the increased electorate that the Minister now proposes to give to North Tipperary you will have, in fact, a situation there where the Labour TD, assuming that he is elected—not a safe assumption in my view—will be 42 to 45 miles, if not 50, away from the farthest point in the constituency. I am not just selecting a corner on the map when I say "the farthest point away" from where he lives; I am, in fact, picking the thickly populated area of Ballingarry, an industrial area with a future increased industrial potential. As against that, in Dublin I doubt if any TD is more than three miles away from the farthest point in his constituency. I may be wrong in that by a mile or so; I say three miles approximately because I do not know the distance but, studying the map, I know it is not a big area.

Debate adjourned.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 10 Apr 1974