Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Apr 1974

Vol. 77 No. 12

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

Debate resumed on amendment No. 3:

In page 4, to delete the entry relating to the constituency of Clare and substitute the following:

"

Name	Area	Number of Members
Clare	The administrative County of Clare and in the administrative County of Galway the following electoral divisions: Drummin, Coos, in the former Rural District of Portumna;	Four
	Woodford, Loughatorick, Ballinagar and Derrylaur in the former Rural District of Loughrea.

"

—(Senator Lenihan).

Mr. Lenihan

In the House of Parliament amendments are put down, sometimes not in real expectation of their acceptance, but to make a point. If the Minister is not to make a mockery out of the Committee Stage of the Bill he should apply his mind very seriously to the amendments which we have put down in this group. The Minister, in regard to the previous group of amendments concerning the North Leinster area, made some good points from his own particular local knowledge of County Meath. In this instance we have a group of western counties brought together in our series of amendments in this group, hinging particularly on the two counties of Clare and Galway. In this instance, as I quoted last night, we have a specific implication from the Minister's statement in the Dáil, in which he said he would consider any amendment which would mean a four-seater in Clare, preserving Clare's county identity, and a three-seater in West Galway.

In answer to the Minister we have taken him at his word and put down precisely such an amendment to that effect in this group. The amendment which we are now discussing envisages Clare as a county on its own, with some slight addition from County Galway, making a four-seat constituency. It further envisages an amendment to the Schedule in regard to West Galway, in which the Minister has a four-seater, and for which we suggest three seats. All the reason in this matter points to our suggested amendments in this area.

There is an irrefutable logic in our position compared to what the Minister proposes—which is a mutilated three-seater County Clare with the north-western portion taken away and added to West Galway to make a four-seater. By a simple reversal of what the Minister proposes we feel greater weight would be given to logic. This is precisely the sort of approach which should be taken by any impartial judicial or quasi-judicial commission or tribunal. They would look at that combined area and say, "All reason points to maintaining Clare as a county and giving it the four seats to which it is entitled. All reason points to West Galway, based on Galway city and Connemara, being a three-seater." In this way the seven seats in the combined area are properly allocated in accordance with both county boundaries, traditional loyalties and associations, and with the Constitution.

The Minister has chosen the other way of doing this. In order to have West Galway a three-seater he has mutilated the county of Clare and has added to it, as I mentioned last night, an area of County Clare which comes down to the rural district of Ennis. He has that part of County Clare from Ennis to Ennistymon, to Lisdoonvarna and Ballyvaghan linked in with West Galway to form a constituency which goes beyond Clifden.

I went through the townlands and the details of this matter last night and I am not going into further detail now but I should like if the Minister would tell me on this particular point where our logic falls down. The Minister should approach this particular area in a logical and open manner, which is the way in which any Minister should approach the Committee Stage of any legislation coming before these Houses. In many cases the Minister may have had ample excuse for rebuttal, many amendments having been put down more in expectation than anything else.

This is an important amendment in which all logic and reason is on our side and no logic or reason on the side of the Minister. It is a question of how to allocate seven seats while preserving the criteria which we all regard as important. There is, first of all, the constitutional criteria to justify seven seats in the area. Secondly, it is a question of allocating the seats while acknowledging the constitutional criterion of 20,000 people per representative, give or take a tolerance of 1,000 and at the same time not doing any damage to county boundaries or to traditional loyalties and associations.

By adopting our amendments County Clare is preserved almost entirely as a county and the natural units of Galway city and its hinterland and Connemara are contained within the constituency area in which they have been traditionally contained. The Minister knows this is the position and I should like to hear his answer.

We next deal with amendments Nos. 3 and 10 in our group. Amendment No. 3 deals with Clare and amendment No. 10 deals with West Galway. Amendment No. 9 deals with the constituency of East Galway. As a logical follow-on to our main point, which is preserving Clare as a unit and preserving Galway city and Connemara as a unit within one constituency, we move on to the logic of keeping East Galway a five-seat constituency. The remainder of County Galway, based naturally on Tuam, Loughrea and Ballinasloe, together with existing parts of Roscommon, are contained within the present constituency of North-East Galway. We can have five seats in that natural area rather than the Minister's proposal, which is a four-seat constituency. In the interests of flouting county boundaries in Clare and in the interests of inventing a totally artificial constituency in West Galway, the Minister proposes to deprive East Galway of its natural representation of five seats.

The only reason why this is being done in regard to East Galway is that the Minister is well aware that it happens to be a strong Fianna Fáil constituency. The Minister wants to reduce our natural three quotas in that area, where we would get three seats out of five. By a piece of gerrymandering, there would be a situation where well over two quotas in a four-seat constituency will result in only two seats out of four for Fianna Fáil in East Galway. That is the reality of the situation flowing from the totally illogical rearrangement of West Galway and Clare. East Galway must suffer. It is deprived of its natural right to five seats, as we propose in our amendment No. 9 and which has been rejected in the Minister's proposal in the Schedule. The Minister wants to have East Galway reduced to four seats when the hinterlands of Loughrea, Ballinasloe and Tuam—taking those three towns as the three key towns from the location point of view within the whole area of East Galway—combined together justify five seats on a population basis. They are being deprived of a seat because of the Minister's twisted and perverse attitude towards Clare and West Galway.

That is the gist of our proposal in amendment No. 9. In amendments Nos. 3, 9 and 10 a situation is embodied where Clare is deprived of its county right to send four Members to the Dáil. West Galway is given an artificial four seats in order to bring in a third of County Clare with it. The net effect of that is to deprive West Galway of its natural entitlement to five seats and to reduce it to four seats, because there are practically three quotas in that area which would guarantee Fianna Fáil three seats out of five. As the Minister knows from the mechanics of proportional representation, with that sort of first preference vote in a four-seat constituency it would be virtually impossible to get three seats out of four.

Practically a quota of Fianna Fáil voters in a strong Fianna Fáil area are being deprived of a seat in Dáil Éireann because of the machinations by the Minister regarding the whole of Counties Galway and Clare.

The other amendments in the group are Nos. 13, 14, 16 and 18. While these areas are not so important as the key areas I have mentioned in terms of injustice and inequity, we have put down valid amendments to the Minister's proposals. Our main argument contained in these group of amendments is based on what I have just stated in regard to the fundamentally logical approach which is embodied in amendments Nos. 3, 9 and 10 and will result in a clean and fair allocation of seats in Counties Clare and Galway. The amendments I am now going to speak on are less important, though valid in regard to the Minister's proposals.

In amendment No. 13 we suggest that in the Minister's proposals relating to East Mayo, there should be an adjustment which would retain the present situation as between East Mayo and Roscommon. The Minister is breaching county boundaries here and is again interfering with the present constituency arrangement. He is taking specific areas from part of West Roscommon and putting them into East Mayo. He is breaching the Mayo-Roscommon border in the interests of achieving that end. East Mayo, while retaining three seats, can retain them within the existing constituency and county boundaries.

Amendment No. 14 is designed for the same purpose, that is the making of a tidier rearrangement between east and west Mayo and preserving the county territorial identity of County Mayo.

Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 are the further consequential amendments in this group on the basic matter I mentioned initially. These relate to preserving the existing situation regarding Roscommon-Leitrim, a three-seat constituency, and also Sligo-Leitrim. These are adjustments which do least damage to the present constituency situation.

The reasonable approach over the years should be to try to achieve a degree of consistency with regard to the establishment of constituencies, bearing in mind the three principles I mentioned earlier of county identity, traditional loyalty and association and the constitutional requirements. Bearing those in mind there should not be any swinging departure from existing constituency arrangements. This would be the way a judicial or a quasi-judicial commission or tribunal would look at the matter. They would see the situation at it is and would not make any violent departures from the existing constituency situation.

It was in that spirit that we put down the amendments relating to Mayo, Sligo, Leitrim and Roscommon. They are amendments which make for a tidier presentation in that they do not depart violently from the present constituency rearrangement. The Minister has in Roscommon-Leitrim made a very radical change. He has made a very radical change in regard to Sligo-Leitrim involving a breach of the county boundary in Donegal. He has made a radical change in regard to Mayo involving the breach of a county boundary into Roscommon. For some obscure reason—I can only think it must be some corridor machinations in regard to particular Deputies—niggling changes have been made that breach county boundaries and are obviously designed to ensure the re-election of particular favourite sons among the Fine Gael and Labour Parties.

In regard to the Sligo, Leitrim and Mayo constituencies there is no disagreement between us as to numbers. The numbers per constituency agree with us. What we are suggesting is that breaches of county boundaries have been made in Donegal, Leitrim and Roscommon that need not have been made. They were only made by reason of operations behind the scenes in the interests of specific Deputies of particular parties. Indeed the Minister accepted an amendment at a late stage in the Dáil within the Mayo rearrangement. It was an amendment that was obviously designed to suit the requirements of a very popular Fine Gael Deputy in West Mayo.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Tully)

Deputy Molloy put it in.

Mr. Lenihan

I will leave it at that.

Mr. Tully

But Deputy Molloy put in the amendment himself.

Mr. Lenihan

He is a very popular Fine Gael Deputy in West Mayo. I will leave it at that because the particular Deputy who is benefiting from that rearrangement is a very good friend of mine. It is the principle that I object to.

Mr. Tully

Senator Garrett is behind you now and he does not agree with you.

Mr. Garrett

I know all about it. The other man will run again.

Mr. Lenihan

The principle is one whereby Deputy Finn is not regarded as being as favourite a son as Deputy Kenny. At the last minute in the Dáil the Minister for Local Government, flouting again all principle or sense of adopting a conscientious attitude towards this Bill, proceeded to swing townlands from Deputy Finn to Deputy Kenny at a very late stage of the passage of the Bill. There was no acknowledgement to principle, or integrity. It was blatantly a back-door operation.

As I said initially, the kernel of our argument on this group of amendments does not rest so much on the petty manoeuvring by the Minister and the Government in regard to the counties of Leitrim, Roscommon, Sligo and Mayo. Leitrim obviously has been added to Roscommon for the benefit of Deputy Reynolds of Ballinamore. It is quite clear he has got a substantial backup for his future in the constituency of Roscommon-Leitrim, just as Deputy Kenny was facilitated at a late stage in the passage of the Bill in the Dáil. I do not intend to remain any longer in the petty realm in which I know the Minister likes to operate—the petty realm of switching townlands to suit particular Deputies. There is no great argument of principle in this. The Minister is entitled to his bit of backdoors fun in this respect if it pleases some Deputies.

Fundamentally, on principle, we have no objection to the broad scheme of three-seaters in Mayo, Roscommon-Leitrim and Sligo-Leitrim. I appreciate that there was little the Minister could do in the sense of changing from that broad scheme, but in the implementation of that scheme he did real violence to principle in the interests of helping particular Deputies and in the process of doing so breached county boundaries to an outrageous extent. The Minister breached county boundaries particularly in bringing part of Donegal into Sligo-Leitrim, taking part of Roscommon and putting it into East Mayo and at the last minute making an adjustment in the interest of particular Deputies between East Mayo and West Mayo.

These are really small points compared to the outrageous surgery the Minister applied to Clare and Galway. This is the central point in my argument. The Minister has butchered those two counties and the three constituencies involved either in the narrow interest of maintaining Coalition strength in those two counties— he made it so obvious and blatant that it is the cause of serve public comment because of the injustice involved —or because of some obscure reason for which the Minister may be able to give a logical explanation in this House.

It is the Minister's duty on this Committee Stage to advance not a hectoring or rhetorical argument but the fundamental and basic reasoning behind his proposals. I give the Minister credit here. I take it that he may be able to advance such a foundation of reason but we should like to hear it, because if we do not get any logical reason we can only conclude that it was done for narrow, mean, petty party advantage. Every logical reason that one can advance indicates that County Clare as a territorial unit can be given four seats and West Galway, based on the traditional areas of Galway city and Connemara can be given three seats. East Galway, based on the towns and the rural hinterlands of Tuam, Ballinasloe and Loughrea, justifies five seats.

That is what we propose here. We propose five seats for East Galway, four seats for County Clare and three seats for West Galway. In that way the least possible violence is done to existing county boundaries, traditional associations and loyalties are preserved and the constitutional criteria are totally observed. You have there a perfect balance. County Clare is based on its capital town, Ennis. You do not have a situation where West Galway constituency goes from Clifden down to the rural district of Ennis and where Ennis, which is more than half way down the county of Clare, is practically pushed into West Galway. Parts of its own rural district are put into West Galway constituency stretching up to Clifden in what I can only describe as a vain attempt to scrape in a Labour Senator into a four-seater constituency of West Galway.

Mr. Killilea

It used to be a Fine Gael Senator.

Mr. Lenihan

I will stick to principle and I will try to refrain from going down these political by-passes. The principle of a four-seat constituency in Clare is irrefutable. I should like to hear the logic behind an artificial four-seat constituency that takes in a third of County Clare—all of north-west Clare down to the town of Ennis. Since the foundation of the state West Galway has been based fundamentally on the two units of Galway city and Connemara. We propose in our amendment, give or take a few parishes, the same constituency as has existed over a long number of years. In this way East Galway would get its legitimate entitlement to five seats. The only reason I can think of why this has been done—unless the Minister has another bit of reason to advance for reducing East Galway to four seats—is that it was to deprive a quota of Fianna Fáil voters of their logical entitlement to three seats.

I shall conclude by asking the Minister specifically to deal with what he knows are my fundamental points and to ask: why not four seats in County Clare, preserving County Clare as a county? Why not three seats in West Galway, keeping Galway city and Connemara as two natural units? Why not five seats in East Galway, based on the towns of East Galway that naturally, with their rural hinterland, comprise a model five-seat constituency?

Mr. Tully

I love the bit about Senator Lenihan sticking to principle. In view of the fact that the House has decided on a limited time for the remainder of the debate, it would be unfair of me to take up too much time. Therefore, I propose to be very short.

Senators

Oh, oh.

Mr. Tully

I do not want to go into that debate again: it was decided yesterday when perhaps some Senators were not here. I am satisfied that there will be ample time. We are not finishing it today, but I think it would be unfair if I take up too much time. Therefore, I will be as brief as possible.

As Senator Lenihan has so rightly said, I do not know the Galway-Mayo-Clare area as well as I know the north Meath, Cavan, Louth and Monaghan areas—and indeed other parts of the country. However, having studied it very carefully—anybody who has had the job of drafting an Electoral (Amendment) Bill has to know a lot about practically every townland in the country, at least on a map or on the records, before he draws it up—I know a good deal about it, but last night I boned up on what the position was exactly. If the House will forgive me, I shall refer perhaps a little more to notes than I normally do when replying to arguments made.

Senator Lenihan made one argument on which I should like to dwell. Three times he repeated the phrase: "This is the natural boundary which if a commission were set up they would say ‘We will not change that'—this is what we would want". This is exactly the reason why I have gone for a change in the constituencies in this way before having the question of a commission considered. I want to make it clear that I am not against a commission: it would probably be a better way of dealing with it, and discussions later on, after this Bill has been passed, will probably result in a commission.

However, the boundaries had to be put straight first. I am sure now, even though Fianna Fáil speakers have been talking about what has been done before as if it were a fair and reasonable way of doing it, they must realise that nobody in his sober senses would attempt to justify what was done in the 1969 allocation of constituencies.

Mr. Yeats

We did justify it.

Mr. Tully

You did not justify it. You voted for it, you supported it and called it a great thing because you were giving it support. Now that it has turned sour on you, you want something else.

Mr. Lenihan

Would the Minister keep to the group of amendments?

Mr. Tully

I do not want to argue about it at all, but it is only right that I should point out a few things in a general reply to what Senator Lenihan has said. He has spoken about the way seats should be allocated. Deputy Loughnane, for whom I have a very high regard and whom I consider to be a personal friend, on more than one occasion has said to me that the result of these constituency changes leave him the option of three constituencies in any of which he could get elected. I believe him to be right. It is another thing that is worrying the Fianna Fáil Party—that Deputy Loughnane can pick his own constituency and get elected in it. This is a worry because a number of people are wondering who will lose their seats as a result, and I suppose I cannot blame them.

It has been stated that I suggested and that I proposed certain things in the other House and I should like to cover this. Deputy Loughnane asked: "Why not a four-seater in Clare"? He was entitled to ask that question. My reply, at column 1374 of Volume 271 on 2nd April, 1974, was:

It would have been possible to have a four-seater in Clare but it would have meant changing quite a lot of what had already been prepared.

These are the facts: it would mean changing around a lot of the other constituencies.

If Deputy Molloy had proposed something like that maybe we would have considered doing it, but he did not...

That is what I said. To suggest that I proposed there should be a change and that there should be a four-seater introduced into Clare is not correct. Obviously neither the Fianna Fáil Party in the Dáil nor I considered that a four-seater should operate in Clare. The afterthought has been introduced here. I am not quarrelling with the Senators for introducing it: they were entitled to do so and at least they did a little bit of work. It was a little bit because they missed out on some things which they should have known.

We heard a lot about Clare and Galway and it is about time that the facts were put on record and the debate taken out of the realms of fairyland. County Clare has a population of 75,008, which is too high for three seats and too low for four seats.

Mr. Lenihan

Practically four seats.

Mr. Tully

The Senator knows that there is no such thing as practically a four-seater—either it is or is not.

Mr. Lenihan

We acknowledge that in our amendments.

Mr. Tully

I listened very patiently to Senator Lenihan——

Mr. Lenihan

Sorry.

Mr. Tully

——and I should be glad if he would listen as patiently. I will not be as long as he was. A population of 75,008 is too high for three seats and too low for four seats. It had to have a constituency on its own. County Galway has a population of 149,223, which is too high for seven seats and too low for eight seats. It cannot stand on its own for constituency purposes. Each of these counties must be associated in some way with each other. We heard a lot about natural affinity between areas, and it must be accepted that there is affinity between Clare and Galway. Certainly there is more affinity between them than between, say, Clare and Roscommon. On the last occasion it was seen fit to put parts of Clare and parts of Roscommon into the same constituency. Do not let us talk about following an argument that just does not stand up.

Mr. Lenihan

It was one parish.

Mr. Tully

I am stating facts and when I have finished, if anybody can say that it is untrue, that is all right. The natural thing is to combine Clare and Galway and to treat them as a unit. The combined population of the two counties is 224,231, which is within the range for 11 seats, and that has been recognised by Fianna Fáil. The natural and obvious course is to give them the 11 seats, but the obvious is never good enough for Fianna Fáil. They want to breach the Roscommon boundary and transfer thousands of people from Roscommon to Galway, simply to give an extra seat to Clare and Galway. Why should we do this? Why should we do violence to the Roscommon county boundary? In Senator McGlinchey's colourful phrase: "We would vote thousands of Roscommon people headlong into Galway." There is no necessity to do this. Clare and Galway are already within the range of 11 seats.

Mr. Killilea

To give them to East Mayo.

Mr. Tully

Therefore, we give them 11 without doing this. I would not accuse Senator Lenihan of being irresponsible. However, I think he dealt rather unfairly with his former constituents by dumping a big number of them into a constituency which was not necessary. There is not a reason in the world that this should be done. He said I had no reason for doing certain things. I should like to know the reasoning behind this. Why take a whole lot of people from Roscommon and dump them into Galway for no apparent reason, unless perhaps for punishment. I would not consider it punishment, for I think Galway is a a grand county.

There are a number of ways in which these 11 seats can be allocated. In practical terms, it boils down to two four-seaters and one three-seater, or two three-seaters and one five-seater. Either arrangement would suit, and because on the whole there seems to be a general preference for the smaller type of constituency, we decided on two four-seaters out of three.

I was amused at one argument which has been made here: that we have put three-seaters in areas where we feel that the Coalition will get two out of three and it would have helped if we had put four-seaters there because Fianna Fáil would have got three out of the four seats. When we do it in Dún Laoghaire it is wrong and when we do it in Galway it is wrong. Apparently this is one of the cases where it is not a question of you cannot win them all. You cannot win any of them with Fianna Fáil because they keep changing feet as they go along. I could understand it if there was a consistent argument being made by Fianna Fáil which we could follow. It is wrong to reduce an area to three- or four-seaters, that is because the Coalition are going to get two and they will only get one. Then you put four in and they say that is wrong, too. It is hard to follow an argument such as that.

The next thing we have got to get to is: should Clare get three or four seats and should people be transferred from Clare to Galway or from Galway to Clare? It is as simple as that. The existing situation is that people are being transferred from Clare to Galway and we decided to continue that arrangement. On the last occasion, when the previous Government were confronted with this identical problem, they also opted for a three-seater in Clare. Let us have no more of this hypocrisy about the fact that Fianna Fáil believe Clare are entitled to four seats. They were entitled to it the last time with the same argument but they did not get it. Fianna Fáil are the people who decided that they should not get it. For goodness sake, do not let us try to make an argument like that. It just does not hold any water. At that time they were accused of doing this for party political advantage. Mr. Boland, who drew up the scheme later, admitted on television that the constituencies in 1969 were drawn up specifically to give maximum advantage to Fianna Fáil. If Clare were given three seats in 1969 to give Fianna Fáil the advantage how can it be said that doing the same thing now favours the National Coalition?

Mr. Killilea

It is not the same thing.

Mr. Tully

Here we have it again. It is the same thing but if it turns out that Fianna Fáil are wrong then it must be different and they are like the puller-pusher board—they can fly in two opposite directions at the same time, fly rapidly in opposite directions, and this is what they seem to be doing.

Mr. Yeats

Does the Minister accept Mr. Boland's remark as correct?

Mr. Tully

Fianna Fáil apparently accepted it. They did not contradict it.

Mr. Yeats

Does the Minister reject or accept Mr. Boland's remark?

Mr. Tully

It is not for me to accept or reject it. I simply commented. I am entitled to make the comment and that is what I am doing. Mr. Boland, speaking for Fianna Fáil, said he divided the constituencies the last time for party political reasons.

Mr. Killilea

On a point of order, Mr. Boland was speaking as an independent who had left Fianna Fáil.

An Cathaoirleach

That is not a point of order. I would remind Senators again that it is extremely unruly to rise stating they are making a point of order when in fact they are not.

Mr. Killilea

It is a point of order— a correction to a statement made by the Minister. He said he was speaking——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is now presuming to correct the Chair's ruling.

Mr. Tully

If it was right to give three seats to Clare in 1969 to give party advantage to Fianna Fáil for the life of me I cannot see why it is wrong to give them three seats in 1974. Fianna Fáil say it is the wrong thing to do. We are doing it deliberately to get at them. They were the people——

Mr. Yeats

Does the Minister accept Mr. Boland's statement that he is now gerrymandering?

Mr. Tully

I do not have to either accept or reject it. I am giving three seats to Clare, and while mentioning Mr. Boland's name may I say that the gentlemen on the opposite side, those of them who are here and who were in the Fianna Fáil Party in the other House, trooped through the lobby to support that when it was challenged to a vote. Do not let anybody say Mr. Boland did this on his own, that the silent majority did not support it. You all supported it. You thought it was great. It set a glow upon your faces, but now you want it changed.

Mr. Killilea

There were seats in Galway as well——

Mr. Tully

You would like me to reduce Galway to three-seaters and take two more off them, would you?

Mr. Killilea

I am glad the Minister has admitted he took two seats from them.

Mr. Tully

How can it now be said that we are giving ourselves an advantage? Yesterday we were accused of putting three-seaters where the National Coalition is strong and four-seaters where Fianna Fáil had the advantage, except in Dún Laoghaire. In Dún Laoghaire it is wrong. According to the argument made by Fianna Fáil; they are weak in Clare and strong in Dún Laoghaire. It is hard to know. If they were consistent and said threes or fours and what they are for, I would understand. But I am afraid I do not understand the way they are going.

What we are doing is leaving the existing situation in Clare undisturbed. The surplus population in Clare must then be added to one or other of the Galway constituencies. As mentioned already, we could have a three-seater and a five-seater in Galway or we could have two four-seaters. But the latter seemed to be a better solution and the one that seemed most likely to find acceptance with the Opposition, given their known preference to this type of constituency. The next decision was whether West Galway should be brought up to four seats by getting an addition from East Galway which, in turn, would get an addition from Clare or whether a Clare area should be added directly to West Galway thus reducing the overall amount of disturbance. That seemed to be the obvious solution and that is what we did. In other words we have done a repair job on the Galway area. The simplest, fairest and most straightforward arrangement lies in the facts of the situation.

I cannot follow the arguments which have been put forward here by Fianna Fáil. It appears today, as yesterday, that Fianna Fáil forget that it is not Kevin Boland who is here. They feel that since he was carrying out their instructions for the purpose of, as he said himself, cementing Fianna Fáil in power—but the cement was wet and it dried up and it was no use; when it came into operation it fell to pieces, it did not hold——

Mr. Killilea

You are beginning to look like him.

Mr. Tully

Listening to you fellows you could not blame me. Fianna Fáil seem to feel in some peculiar way that it is still the job of the Minister for Local Government, no matter who he is, to cement Fianna Fáil in power. As I said yesterday, God above cannot do that. If He could not do it there is not a hope in the world of my being able to do it.

I do not wish to take up the time of the House. I want to give the Opposition every opportunity to make their case if they have one to make, but I should like to make two other comments. The amendments to the two Mayo constituencies would result in East Mayo being outside the permitted tolerance. Maybe it is unfair of me to say this, but in view of all the people with a very high IQ in the Fianna Fáil benches it is not too much to ask that they should be able to count and know how many people would be required in order to fit into the tolerance. This was not——

Mr. Yeats

Would the Minister say how many votes were in question?

Mr. Tully

If there is one vote, as the Senator knows, it is too much.

Mr. Yeats

Yes, but how many?

Mr. Tully

I understand that Senator Yeats is one of the intellectuals of the Fianna Fáil Party and therefore he should be able to count and divide by the number of seats and he should know himself. But he does know that one vote out of the tolerance would make it unconstitutional so there is no point in asking how many votes. There are very many more than one vote.

Mr. Yeats

Does the Minister know how many?

Mr. Tully

I do know.

Mr. Yeats

Would the Minister be so kind as to give us a little information instead of trying to throw insults around? I asked a simple question for information.

Mr. Tully

I did not prepare these amendments. If the people who prepared these amendments were preparing them in order to comply with the regulations laid down, the first thing they should have done was to know the necessary number and they did not do that.

Mr. Yeats

The Minister failed to justify it by saying how many votes are in question. It is a simple question. There is no need to be so insulting on a simple matter like that.

Mr. Tully

It is not a question of being insulting. I am afraid that the Senator is very easily insulted if he feels it is an insult to suggest to him that he should have counted the number before he put in an amendment. It is as simple as that. The result is that it is outside the tolerance and, therefore, it is contrary to the Constitution, contrary to the court decision and therefore it is not possible to accept the amendment.

As Senator Lenihan said, it is not important because he does not consider it is an important issue. The issue is whether we should change the Clare and Galway areas. I do not propose to accept that proposal for a number of reasons. If somebody can persuade me with a better argument I will listen to him.

Mr. Yeats

One thing about the Minister's speech is that he has shown all the marks of a guilty conscience in respect of this amendment. He has, with the utmost deliberation, refrained from giving any kind of answer or even trying to give any kind of answer to the basic point, which is why was Clare made a three-seat constituency and West Galway a four-seat constituency instead of the other way around, which would have been the natural thing to do?

In order to avoid doing this he has gone into all kinds of irrelevancies, gone into a variety of personalities, and he has refused even the simplest item of information. We had an example of this just a few minutes ago when he suggested that he could not accept this amendment because East Mayo was outside the limit of tolerance allowed by the Constitution. I asked him how many votes were involved. He refused quite blankly to answer. He says he knows. I cannot see why a Minister of State, who is supposed to be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in a matter like this, who is coming in here to explain the Bill, to answer serious arguments in a serious way, should behave in this arrogant fashion. I suspect that perhaps it is because the number involved is about 15 or so and he realises that his point is so small and futile.

Mr. Tully

The number is 972— quite a substantial number.

Mr. Yeats

The Minister could have said this.

Mr. Halligan

Surely the Senator has all the figures worked out for his amended Schedule. Is he asking the House to accept a Schedule which would be unconstitutional?

Mr. Yeats

It would not necessarily be illegal because it has never been decided by any court the exact limit of the tolerance. We have been working on the basic tolerance of either 1,000 up or 1,000 down. In any event, there would have been no difficulty if the Minister were prepared to consider amendments. There would not have been any difficulty in making marginal alterations which might be required to deal with a matter of that kind.

The Minister is trying to avoid the basic issue. In his smart aleck way he asked how could there be four seats in Clare. There are either enough voters for four seats or not. The Minister knows better than anybody else in this House that when one is working to a tolerance of approximately 1,000 up or 1,000 below the basic average of the country one cannot say that there should be three-seat constituencies or four- or five-seat constituencies. It is not as simple as that. Of all the constituencies in the country there are a relatively small number that could be classed as having either three or four seats, but the greater number of them obviously have too many for three or too few for four and they have to be topped up, as the Minister knows well, from adjoining constituencies and occasionally from adjoining counties in order to establish some basic number of Deputies for the constituency.

In County Clare we had a position, as the Minister already pointed out, where the population in 1971 was 75,008. The minimum number required, on the basis of the tolerance that the Minister has been using, for four seats could be 76,492 which is an extra 1,484 votes. Yesterday, when the Minister was speaking about his neighbouring county of Louth he said, which I accept, that of course Louth had to be given four seats. They had not enough population for four seats but they were so close that they had to be given four seats. Louth, in the year 1971—the census year on which we are working—had a smaller population. The Minister is right when he says that it is so close that the population required the four seats. Of course, we had to keep the four seats.

In the case of County Clare, he says that Clare is even closer than Louth to four seats. Another 1,484 votes would give it four seats but we are to give it only three, and we will put a very large number of Clare people in an already large West Galway constituency. The reason for this is quite clear. Because the Fianna Fáil vote in County Clare is in the region of 60 per cent or so, in a four-seat constituency it would be three-quarters. There would be a danger that perhaps Fianna Fáil might get three out of the four in Clare. That 60 per cent in a three-seat constituency would give them two out of three and no more, and it would be difficult in the present circumstances in a four-seat West Galway that Fianna Fáil, even with a majority of the votes, would get more than two seats out of four.

The Minister has several times said that I am inconsistent in that when he puts a four-seat constituency in one place I complain and when he does not I also complain. I hope the Minister will listen to me carefully and I should be glad if he would answer my point. The point I was making about Dún Laoghaire, to which he referred several times in his most recent intervention, was that there were eight four-seat constituencies in the Dublin area. In seven of the eight Fianna Fáil had two seats out of four and in the eighth—Dún Laoghaire—they only had one. Of all the eight four-seat constituencies in the Dublin area this was the one he selected to leave with four seats.

On the other hand, when it comes to choosing a four-seat constituency in the West Galway-Clare areas, instead of going for the natural place, which is Clare as he admits himself on the basis of Louth, he puts the four-seater in West Galway where he hopes Fianna Fáil will get only two seats and that a party colleague of his may perhaps become a Member of the Dáil. That is my complaint. I am not complaining that the Minister sets up four seats in one place. I accept that in any distribution there might, inevitably, be four seats there. My objection is not that the Minister is establishing four-seat constituencies, but at the totally selective and unfair way in which he has done it. The Minister, in introducing this Bill on the Second Stage, concluded in his final paragraph at column 681 on 9th April of the Seanad Debates:

In drawing up the proposals contained in this Bill my objective was to ensure fair and reasonable representations to the people of every area. I endeavoured, as far as possible, to do that——

I should like to draw the Minister's attention particularly to this:

I endeavoured as far as possible to avoid breaching existing administrative boundaries and tried to ensure that natural communities were not split unnecessarily between different constituencies. I hope I succeeded in these objectives and judging by the comments of impartial observers I believe my efforts have been successful.

Now the Minister says that as far as possible he has tried to avoid breaching existing administrative boundaries. As I understand that phrase, it ought to mean that where it is reasonably practicable to frame a constituency which will coincide so far as possible with an existing county boundary, that should be done, and he had the chance to do this in the county of Clare. He has not done so. Instead of taking in maybe 1,500 or so people from County Galway he has dumped a very large number of Clare people, 13,000, into West Galway. He has brought this West Galway constituency down to within a couple of miles or so of the town of Ennis. I would ask the Minister to tell us candidly: does he regard this as being a matter of avoiding breaching existing administrative boundaries? It seems to me that that is a question he ought to answer. If he says, as he did yesterday, that of course the County of Louth had to be made a four-seat constituency because it was almost at the level of population that required a four-seat constituency, in view of that clear, categorical and I think honest statement, why in the name of heaven did he not do the same with Clare which has even more people? He spoke of Fianna Fáil making Clare a three-seat constituency. But of course he quite ignores the fact that due to the beneficial results of a Fianna Fáil Government, the population of Clare rose by some 1,500 between the census of 1966 and the census of 1971. The fortunate position of that was in 1971 the county of Clare was considerably nearer to having the population required for four-seats than it was in 1966.

We have the curious situation in these western constituencies covered by this amendment that in the areas where the population was rising the Minister has taken seats away from these areas. In the areas where the population was falling the Minister has maintained the existing representation. In Galway, for example the population rose between 1966 and 1971 by some 883; in Clare it rose by 411, and the result of the Minister's redistribution was to take a seat away from these two combined counties. On the other hand, the county of Mayo fell by no less than 6,022 population between 1966 and 1971—the Minister and I have already agreed on an earlier stage of this Bill that he was right in this—and the Minister maintained the existing representation. Of course he did this by bringing in very large sections of County Roscommon. In his glib way he spoke of Roscommon being included in the Galway constituency on the previous occasion where I gathered there was only one townland involved.

Mr. Tully

But you were doing better than that. Look at your own amendment.

Mr. Yeats

In East Mayo we now find that the following district electoral divisions of Roscommon have been included: Artagh North, Artagh South, Ballaghaderreen, Ballinlough, Buckhill, Cloonfower, Coolougher, Edmondstown, Kiltullagh, Loughglinn. I have already said on this Bill that Mayo is a farflung county, thinly populated, and I am entirely in favour of maintaining the existing number of Deputies. But the fact remains that the population had fallen by over 6,000 and the Minister, simply because the Fine Gael organisation is strong in Mayo, left their existing representation whereas in Galway and Clare, where the population did not fall by 6,000 but rose by a total of something over 2,300 there, he took away a Deputy because Fianna Fáil were strong. In the same way in the other areas covered by these amendments we find that the population of Leitrim fell by 2,212; of Roscommon by 2,709, and of Sligo by 988, a total fall here of again some 6,000. In these counties formed into two constituencies, the Minister has left the existing representation, again because these are areas in which Fine Gael are strong and indeed at the moment have four seats out of six.

You have the same kind of pattern in the west, perhaps even more pronounced, but the same kind of pattern which you have in other parts of the country. The Minister takes seats away where Fianna Fáil are strong and leaves them or even adds them where his own side are strong. That is the burden of our complaint. We are not asking the Minister, and indeed we would be very foolish to expect the Minister, to frame these constituencies in a way which will help Fianna Fáil. The Minister has raised this point again and again. He knows perfectly well that that is not the issue. He quoted Mr. Kevin Boland as having alleged that his redistribution was supposed to help Fianna Fáil and after all the Minister was gerrymandering now himself. May I ask the Minister did he accept the statement of Mr. Boland? I ask him again does he? Is he coming in here now and saying: "After all we objected to Bills that were introduced in previous years so we are giving you hell now"? Is that his point? I should like to know. Is the Minister now coming in and saying: "I am now in office. I am just arranging this in a way that which will do the utmost possible damage to Fianna Fáil." Is that in fact the Minister's aim?

Mr. Tully

No. I am not saying that, and I should like to reassure Senator Yeats; but I know that Mr. Boland did say it and he got the support of the Fianna Fáil Party when he said it.

Mr. Yeats

The Minister quoted Mr. Boland with some approval and I take it that if he quotes Mr. Boland with approval he accepts Mr. Boland's remarks about his own gerrymandering. We do not expect the Minister to help Fianna Fáil of course. We do expect the Minister to live up to his own statement on the Second Reading of the Bill that his objective was to ensure fair and reasonable representation for the people of every area, and in particular we are entitled to ask him to justify the statement that so far as possible he had endeavoured to avoid breaching existing administrative boundaries. Now we have not yet had an effort at an answer from him. I would ask him quite seriously to give us a simple, coherent answer: why did he give only three seats to the county of Clare when its population was within 1,400 of being adequate for a four-seater, when its population is higher than that of the County Louth, the county of which he said, of course it had to be given four seats because it was so very, very near the number needed for four seats. Now I would ask him simply to answer that basic, simple question. When Clare could have been made a four-seater by adding in 1,400 or 1,500 Galway people into the Clare constituency—a very minor breach in the county boundary—why did he not do that instead of making a totally unworkable type of constituency of West-Galway with some 13,000 Clare people. It is a simple issue. There were two things the Minister could have done in that western area. He could have made West Galway a three-seater and Clare a four-seater or the other way round.

I should like to have from the Minister, not based on what anyone did in the past or on what anybody else has said, a simple justification of this basic point in his own Bill. The Minister is now a Minister of State. He is responsible for this Bill, not Kevin Boland or anyone else. He has done this particular thing for some reason. We are entitled to ask what the reason is.

Mr. Killilea

I want to deal specifically with the Clare and Galway position. I want to point out a fact, basing it on an argument which the Minister used. He has used the argument consistently in this House on this Bill that he does not base his ideas of this Bill on what he believes are the wrongs of a previous Bill brought before the Houses. He believes that the approaches applied to previous Bills should not be applied to this Bill because the others were wrong. There are a few points to be made, in using the Minister's argument against himself. I do not think the Minister will be able to make an honest reply to the argument.

There is a parish in Clare called Inagh. For Senator Russell's information, since he knows Inagh well, the polling booth in the parish of Inagh has now been split in two.

Mr. Tully

It is not the only one. There are hundreds of parishes throughout the country that have been split in two since the first election was held.

Mr. Killilea

A single polling both has been split in two. Portion of the people who used to vote in that polling booth have now to vote in a different one. The Minister says he tried in earnest not to be too severe in splitting county boundaries. He refers to the previous division in Clare-Galway. The division in the Clare-Galway situation on the previous occasion was a more natural, geographical one. After leaving the town of Gort, heading for Clare, you enter a mountainy region. In the previous division, most of Clare which was in Clare-Galway had Gort for its market town. Therefore the Minister was trying to integrate two different county peoples——

Mr. Tully

They are two market towns now.

Mr. Russell

There is nothing to stop them going to Gort.

Mr. Killilea

I am trying to make a point concerning the Senator's neighbouring county. I should like to inform Senator Russell if he wants to make a contribution he may do so. I do not know whether his new-found daddy has given him permission to talk. I know Senator Russell as chairman of the Fine Gael Party has——

Mr. Russell

No. I am aspiring to be.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Killilea

He hates the other part of the Coalition Government. Yet he comes in here with his pronounced cynicism as though he were in love with the man sitting opposite him.

Mr. Russell

Is this in order?

An Cathaoirleach

It is not in order, but the Chair takes into account that the Senator drew some of it on himself.

Mr. Russell

It was entertaining, if not instructive.

Mr. Killilea

It was factual and it was not contradicted. The people surrounding the Gort market-town area are physically the closest people in Clare to Galway people. There is no traditional affiliations between the portion of Clare which has now been lobbed in with Galway. In the other House a Clare TD stated that 13,000 people had now been put in with the constituency of Galway. We had an amendment which stated that all we would ask the Minister to do was to put in 1,400 people with the constituency of Clare to make it a natural four-seat constituency.

Mr. Halligan

You have an unconstitutional amendment.

Mr. Killilea

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. If Senator Halligan wants proof——

Mr. Halligan

The whole group is unconstitutional.

Mr. Killilea

There is nothing unconstitutional in the amendment. In the administrative county of Clare and in the administrative county of Galway are the following electoral divisions: Drummin, Coos in the former rural district of Portumna; Woodford, Loughatorick, Ballinagar and Derrylaur in the former rural district of Loughrea. That constitutes approximately 1,400 people to make Clare a constitutional four-seater. I quote the Minister when he was pressed in the Dáil. He said Deputy Loughnane had a point. Deputy Loughnane may be elected and he may even put out the Minister. He has a lot of friends——

Mr. Tully

I have a great admiration for him.

Mr. Killilea

You have because you spent part of your time with him before the commencement of both your political careers. I know the reason for your sincere admiration for Dr. Loughnane. We shall leave it at the fact that the two of you spent part of your time in the same organisation. You want to be very careful of that man. He is a very popular man all over the country.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Killilea

He told you in the other House. I quote what he stated: "There is no need for the Minister to defend me". He told you he could be elected in any one of three constituencies and when you made that same remark in the other House he stated: "There is no need for you, Minister, to defend me". I take his statement in the other House as carrying in this House. There is no need for the Minister to use Deputy Loughnane's personal popularity to make a political point for himself. Deputy Loughnane is and has always been capable, either in or out of authority, of handling himself.

Mr. Tully

If the Senator is trying to defend him he is doing it in a peculiar way.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Killilea

Why did he not state he would agree with Deputy Loughnane's proposition to make Clare a four-seater and keep it natural with the minimum exception of 1,400 votes?

Mr. Tully

He asked me to call it Galway-Clare. He did not put down any proposal in this House.

Mr. Killilea

I quote: "It would have been possible to have a four-seater in Clare but it would have meant changing quite a lot of what had already been prepared". Then the Minister went on to state——

An Cathaoirleach

Would the Senator give the reference?

Mr. Killilea

It is here in volume 271, column 1374. As the Minister has stated what I was about to state, I should like to point out that in the terms of the situation in this House we have done what the Minister suggested should have been done or might have been done in the other House. The spokesman for Fianna Fáil in the other House stated he could not, as they wielded an axe in that case and they got about ten minutes to get through the final stage.

Mr. Tully

You did not propose an amendment.

Mr. Killilea

We have put down a constructive amendment concerning Galway and Clare on the basis of the arguments used by the Minister in the ratification of a four-seater in Louth. The Minister has glibly refused to tolerate any suggestion on his side of the House——

Mr. Halligan

How can we accept anything unconstitutional?

Mr. Killilea

There is nothing unconstitutional in the amendment I am speaking on. Do not point your finger at me, Senator Halligan.

Mr. Halligan

If you had any sense——

Mr. Killilea

You may be a school teacher but you need not dictate to me. I am not a member of the Labour Party who will take dictation from you and the Minister. Do not get into the habit of pointing your finger at a Senator when addressing him or her. I know you are not used to being in this House.

Mr. Halligan

You should be pointed out.

Mr. Killilea

You should not on any account point or direct——

An Cathaoirleach

Will Senator Killilea please address the Chair? His continued use of the second person is investing the occupant of the Chair with a variety of personalities.

Mr. Killilea

I am sure you would be annoyed, a Chathaoirleach, if somebody pointed his finger towards you to make a point.

An Cathaoirleach

The Cathaoirleach is never annoyed, Senator.

Mr. Killilea

Senator Halligan is pointing his finger at me both physically and through snide remarks.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Killilea to address the Chair on amendment No. 3 without interruption.

Mr. Killilea

The Minister stated in his contribution some moments ago that Galway was lucky he did not take two more seats from them. By that statement he admitted for the first time in either House that he had taken two seats from Clare-Galway. That is what the Minister stated. I do not know how it will appear on the records of this House. I listened carefully. Perhaps I took up the suggestion wrongly.

Mr. Tully

I do not interfere with the records of the House.

An Cathaoirleach

The records of this House are the responsibility of the Chair and any suggestion that they would be tampered with should not be made.

Mr. Killilea

I did not suggest they would be tampered with. I stated that when the records of the House would come before us they would show the Minister as stating that he had taken two seats from Galway and that we are lucky he has not taken another.

Mr. Tully

You stated you were lucky to have two more taken off.

Mr. Killilea

Do not mind what I stated; I remember what you stated.

Mr. Tully

Senator Killilea stated he wanted two more taken off—he wanted two three-seaters instead of two four-seaters.

Mr. Killilea

Clare is my neighbouring county and I know it well. The Minister does not appear to know Clare-Galway or the west of Ireland very well. Who has pumped all this information into the Minister? He appears to have grasped the situation politically quite well as he has annihilated the people who are anti-Coalition and has promoted the interests of those who are pro-Coalition. Those facts go back some time. With sarcasm and a grand smile on his face he admitted to this House that he knew very little about the west of Ireland, he knew very little about Clare-Galway, and he begged the pardon of the House, that he would use his notes to explain the situation. Yet he gets up and states that Fianna Fáil acted wrongly in the Clare-Galway situation, as not alone did they bring in part of Clare, which I have tried to explain was geographically right, but they brought in part of Roscommon. They got in the parish of Moore which has a population of 275 persons. It is adjacent to Ballinasloe. It is the odd part of Roscommon which is just in Galway. If we were drawing county boundaries again Moore would be a Galway parish.

Now for some unknown reason he starts at Innishbofin and takes in all of Connemara as a unit. The city of Galway is a unit. He comes down to the Clare-Galway border and proceeds to cross the border of Clare to put 13,000 Clare people from the point of Hags Head across through the parish of Inagh to within two miles of Ennis and back again up the western side of that part of Clare. There is no justification for what the Minister has done in Clare no matter what anybody tells him. As the Minister has said of Louth, Clare is even a more natural four-seater and I know the Minister will admit that himself. In the whole country—the Minister can contradict me if I am wrong—the village of Newmarket, County Clare, had the highest percentage population rise of any town in rural Ireland. The Minister almost went down to Newmarket. I made a statement in this House on the last occasion when I pointed out to the Minister——

Mr. Halligan

The Senator is pointing a finger at the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would Senators please address their remarks to the Chair?

Mr. Killilea

I made a statement on that occasion to the Minister that he kept the wrong part of Clare for the jobs-for-the-boys part of his scheme.

Mr. Tully

What is the Senator worrying about?

Mr. Killilea

Because of the natural progression of making Clare, as the Minister has made Louth, a four-seater. That is why I want to make the point.

Mr. McGlinchey

What about Meath?

Mr. Killilea

Meath is in a different situation. The Minister says so himself. Meath is a secure situation. I feel sorry for the next Fianna Fáil fellow coming up in Meath.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would Senator Killilea please resume on the amendment?

Mr. Killilea

It is a natural progression from the argument used by the Minister concerning Louth to make the same argument concerning Clare. That is why I have dealt so long on it because I am trying to use—maybe not in as glib or in as——

Mr. Halligan

Articulate.

Mr. Killilea

No, that is Senator Russell's special word. You are wrong, Senator Halligan. You should not be copying that man at all. What I am trying to say is in his very uncouth——

Mr. Halligan

Eloquent.

Mr. Killilea

No, "eloquent" is a word specially reserved——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Killilea should be allowed to make his contribution without interruption.

Mr. Killilea

The Senator asked me about making the point in an eloquent way. The Minister should use the logical conclusion he used in County Louth but with more in it. We have put down an amendment concerning West Galway. West Galway is a unit, and has always been a unit, of Connemara and Galway city. We have asked for a three-seater for it and have given a logical amendment as was hinted, rather than suggested in the other House. There the Minister hinted that maybe if an amendment was put down in the other House he would give it due consideration. Here is the amendment. Has the Minister the power to accept those amendments? That is what is lacking in this debate because I believe that the Minister has his hands tied. The instruction coming to him from the Government was: "Not an inch to any of them", even though they are the Government of consultation as was pointed out in their 14-point plan. I can imagine the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien, telling them: "Not an inch, Minister, when you go up to those Houses with this Bill. We will do it our way." It reminds me of the beautiful song. I am sure the chorus was beautiful and that the encores were fantastic at that Government meeting. When the Bill arrived here there was a sealing-off process on the opposite side of the House for two days. Not one of them opened his mouth or was allowed to open his mouth. They had to look at the Minister first before they even made a remark.

This week we came to the Committee Stage of the Bill. We were abused and ballyragged for delaying the Bill. All we did was to contribute in a responsible way. In the other House the Minister said that if there had been a proper amendment concerning the Clare-Galway situation he might have considered it. Now he has the amendment but he cannot consider it. He has not the gumption and the courage to say: "I have been instructed that I cannot accept in any way or in any form from this House an amendment or even a portion of an amendment suggested by the Opposition." On the basis of the argument used by the Minister in regard to Louth I have tried to make a case for Clare which is even more valid. In suggesting a four-seater for Clare we ask that West Galway be made a three-seater not because it has always been a three-seater but because it is a natural three-seater with the city of Galway on one side and Connemara, tied to tourism in every way with Galway city, on the other. There is no argument against that and if there is I should like to hear the Minister make it.

We have asked for a five-seater in East Galway. We suggested a progression into a portion of Roscommon most of which the Minister put in with East Mayo. We asked in one of our amendments that that part of Roscommon be included in East Galway to make it a five-seater. I will give a logical reason for that too. I shall start with Tuam. Tuam is an agricultural town with an agricultural hinterland. The same applies to Ballinasloe, Loughrea, Portumna and Dunmore. There is something in common with all of that part of the five-seater in East Galway. It is the agricultural area of the county and for that reason alone we have used it as a basis for a five-seater.

I am aware, and I think everybody on both sides of this House is aware, that we may be talking to the wind. The wind is to our backs and it is blowing everything we say away for the reason that the Minister, just as the Government parties in this House are under an instruction not to look at us or suggest that we have proposed something proper for a change. Without going through Mayo at all there is a far more logical thought behind our amendment concerning Clare and Galway than the Minister could even possibly dream of. Clare is a natural four-seater with a portion of Portumna and Loughrea. West Galway, for the reasons stated, tourist-wise and so on is a natural set-up for a three-seater As I explained before, East Galway, because of its good farming, because of its natural dependence on agriculture, is an ideal set-up for a five-seater, with the addition of portion of Roscommon, which the Minister has put in with Mayo. He cannot say that we have taken a part of Roscommon to put it with Galway when he is taking, for the most part, the exact same part of Roscommon to put with Mayo.

Therefore, I ask the Minister, before he dehydrates the thoughts of the people of the western seaboard and before he lets this continue, to bring it to a halt. We have offered constructive, positive amendments, particularly in the case of Clare and Galway. Would he consider them? Would he give them a chance for a logical reason which I tried to explain? I have always assumed the Minister to be an independent man, a man who thinks for himself. In order to make the amendments work the Minister could, if he so wished, make the case that I am making in regard to Clare and Galway on the same basis that the Minister has used in regard to Louth. At this late stage I ask, for the sake of the people of Clare and of Galway, not to separate them or annoy them more because they are being driven away from politics and politicians and they are not being helped. They are not being taught to appreciate politics, constitutions or the work that public representatives try to do for them. People are being driven apart and they are not being helped in any way to amalgamate their thoughts. There is no common traditional cultural link between the people of Inishbofin and those of Lahinch. The Minister is advocating separatism and is dividing and throwing them apart. He is annihilating anything good and decent that people may have thought about politicians by what he is doing to West Galway. The Minister knows that the people of Inishbofin, Aran and the islands off Connemara are one unit and always have been. If one went to Galway the first place to visit would be Connemara, then Aran and then——

Mr. Tully

Lahinch.

Mr. Killilea

——Salthill. Would it ever dawn on the Minister to go from Inishbofin to Lahinch? No. In fact, he is dividing people in Galway and people in Clare as well and they cannot tolerate it. I ask the Minister to reconsider those amendments.

Senator Yeats pointed out that there was no basic change in the constituency of Sligo-Leitrim vis-à-vis East and West Mayo from the point of view of the number of candidates. Why was this changed? Would the Minister give me a reason for this terrible cut in the counties of Galway and Clare? It is glaringly obvious to everybody that the Minister is doing this for political reasons. I hate to accuse anyone in or out of this House of such a motive but it is wrong to utilise people in order to try to achieve something for a political reason. We have given the Minister solid amendments. We have given him room to manoeuvre using the argument that he himself has used to justify Louth being a four-seater. We have given him the same logical reasons for making Clare a four-seater. We have given him a good, if not better, reason for leaving West Galway a three-seater and we have tried to give him a logical reason for making East Galway a five-seater.

Would the Minister ask the Government to reconsider the amendments concerning those two counties? I ask him not to drive a wedge between people but that is what he is doing here. If we are wrong, we should be told where. Our principle is right in its application. Instead of smiling, the Minister should give us a reason other than a political one, because if he wants a political reason, I can assure him that the National Coalition have a better chance in Galway, with East Galway as a five-seater than they have with Clare as a three-seater. I appeal to the Minister for the sake of the application of justice and for the betterment of the people to reconsider his proposals.

Mr. Tully

A number of Senators have made the argument that we are depriving Clare and Galway of a seat. This is not so. In fact, we are giving them 11 seats. The population is 224,231 which would not give them 12 seats but it gives them 11 seats. Therefore, we should not continue with that argument because it is not a valid one.

Senator Yeats asked me to give reasons for making Clare a three-seat constituency. I am not sure if he was present all the time but I spent practically 20 minutes giving a very detailed reason why I considered that what I had done was correct. During the Second Stage debate I referred to the fact that Senator Yeats was adopting an Alice in Wonderland attitude. He asked the questions but he also wanted to give the answers himself. When he asks a question he dismisses the answer before he gets it. I do not propose to continue on that basis. I have given the answers whether they are acceptable or not. If they are not there is nothing I can do about it. Incidentally Senator Killilea did not get the words of the song right. They are: "I did it my way".

Mr. Killilea

I used the plural. There are two of you.

Mr. Tully

It is significant. Senator Killilea and every other Senator who spoke on Clare-Galway referred to the question of why we are taking nearly 13,000 people out of Clare and putting them into Galway. May I put on the record of this House the facts of this case? In accordance with the existing constituencies under which the last general election was fought, the Clare-South Galway constituency had 14,287 Clare people in it. My proposal would leave 12,277 Clare people in that constituency. I do not know whether there is some kind of mental block which is preventing people from counting correctly or adding up or subtracting, but if someone can show me that 12,277 is greater than 14,287 I will listen to him. This has been the argument which has been put up right along. I hate going back to this but Fianna Fáil did have the chance of giving four seats to Galway. Under this they had a better chance than I have but they did not do it. Senator Killilea talks about the difference between the areas in Connemara, Galway city and the area of Clare. There is a lot more in common with Connemara and the area of Clare in question than there is with Galway city but that is the way that God put it and there is nothing that I can do about it. Do not let anybody try to tell me that Galway city has more in common with the islands——

Mr. Killilea

Certainly.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator made his contribution without interruption from the Minister.

Mr. Tully

He did. He made quite a good contribution as it goes. In fact, if there was not a lady in the Chair and if the House permitted it there is a hyphenated word which describes very well what he said.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The absence of the Chair has nothing to do with this, Minister.

Mr. Tully

Senator Killilea made the argument for a five-seater for East Galway. I do not blame him for that at all. He made a very good argument according to his own lights for a five-seater in East Galway but it is a little bit off to talk about trying to give a seat to one of the Labour Party in Galway West where a four-seater is being put in when all of us know why Senator Killilea wants a five-seater in East Galway. I will not go any further than that. We do not want to indulge in personalities in this but in view of the fact that so many references were made to one side of it I think I should balance it off now by putting the weight on to the other side and showing exactly what the facts are. I am not blaming Senator Killilea at all but at least when he talks about honesty and about giving the reasons as to why we do these things, let us have this out in the open. According to him the thinking behind the Opposition amendment is more logical than anything the Minister has put forward or anything he could put forward. That is a very fair summary of Fianna Fáil's attitude because the Senator said: "Give us anything in Galway and Clare except what you have proposed and we will accept it". Apparently what Fianna Fáil are saying is that it does not matter a lot. They are saying: "We wanted it our way but at least give us something different from what you want". Why should I? Why should I change it if I think it is right? I think it is right and there is no argument which would convince me that it should be changed. We know that various types of cases have been put up for this, that and the other but it is only right that when we start talking about changing —and the boundaries of constituencies came up again and again—to point out that despite what Senator Killilea says about the 1969 constituency taking only one parish from Roscommon to put into Clare-South Galway, the fact is that 1,975 persons from Roscommon were put into the constituency which was made up of bits of three counties—Galway, Clare and Roscommon and, in addition, 7,938 Roscommon people were transferred into the constituency of NorthEast Galway. I would suggest that it might help to soothe the tempers of the Fianna Fáil Senators if, when this House adjourns this evening, they would get the details of the constituency as it was drawn up the last time and the time before. Let them go back on what happened and get the documents, which are fairly numerous, in the benches before them and compare them with what, in effect, was done in every case.

Mr. Killilea

How many Roscommon people have been put into East Mayo?

Mr. Tully

I am pointing out that I have put Roscommon people——

Mr. Killilea

Is that not all right for you?

Mr. Tully

Is there anything logical in the argument that I put Roscommon people into East Mayo if, in fact, there were 7,933 Roscommon people put into East Galway and 1,975 people are put into the Clare-South Galway constituency? Apparently it was all right if Fianna Fáil chucked bits here, there and everywhere.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister to continue.

Mr. Tully

Let me make it very clear that as far as I am concerned I claim that what I did made the fewest possible breaches in constituency boundaries. It is not taking three or four counties to make up a constituency. I have made, in the main, two counties—in a couple of cases I had to add a bit of a third but only in a couple of cases. If Fianna Fáil had won the last election they would be drawing up the constituencies and perhaps they would do it that way. The documents which I was again challenged about yesterday I am offering to anybody who wants to see them.

Mr. Killilea

Put them up here.

Mr. Tully

I will show them. There will be a lot of blushing in the Fianna Fáil benches when those documents are produced.

Mr. Killilea

Put them up there and show them to this House.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister to continue.

Mr. Tully

It was proposed to wipe out some of the people who were listed as awkward in the Fianna Fáil Party. I think it is a bit off for people to come in here suggesting that I should not have done what I did. I have prepared this. I think it was well done. I will again point out that the suggestion made in one of the amendments puts it over the tolerance limit and, therefore, the whole lot would fall down because it could not be done under the present arrangements. I do not propose, unless there is some other point made, to deal with this set of amendments again. I have taken up a good deal of the time of the House but I think it is only fair that I should reply to the points made.

Mr. Dolan

I tried previously to get in on a few points. The Minister may have dealt with some of them but I want to make it perfectly clear that it is the underlying principle regarding the whole Bill that annoys me most. When you tot up the number of people in Clare-Galway, Leitrim, Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo and Donegal and if you divide its value in the number allowed under the tolerance you would get 30 seats. What I am worried about is that under the present arrangement the west will be losing two seats. It was a point that should have been considered because the Minister has already breached county boundaries. On the population figures it was impossible to divide the constituencies without doing that. I will concede that to him. He should have leaned towards the western area and towards the three counties in Ulster. As it happens, we are losing two seats in Ulster as well. This is frustrating and annoying to the people of rural areas. We are not worried about who or what political party should gain the seats but Deputies and Senators of all parties will naturally lean towards their own areas and it will be for the benefit of those areas, which certainly need any little benefit that can come their way.

I cannot understand why the Minister makes a four-seater in County Louth. He gave some reasons for it when he was dealing with the constituencies of Cavan, Monaghan, Meath and Louth. One of his points was that Louth had a population of around 74,951 and that it was entitled to a four-seater. If that argument were valid in that case and if the same argument were valid for making a four-seater out of County Meath, I ask the Minister to try to keep the three-seater in Cavan and in Monaghan——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We dealt with that yesterday.

Mr. Tully

Senator Dolan did not come in yesterday to argue about the changes in Cavan.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I do not want any debate on Louth, Meath, Cavan and Monaghan. If the Senator is making his comparison, he should make it without detail.

Mr. Dolan

I was just making the comparison by asking the Minister, if he follows the same logic, why he now refuses to make a four-seater out of Clare. He said the distance from Blacklion down to the other end of Cavan and Meath was too far and yet here there is the distance from Inishbofin down almost to rural districts in County Clare. I should like to have this point answered because in all justice the people of Cavan and Monaghan would like to know why this has taken place in County Louth and yet the Minister will not let County Clare have a four-seater. I suggest that this is certainly done for particular reasons.

Mr. E. Ryan

The Minister has told us that he does not intend to speak on the amendment again unless some new point is made. This amounts to the fact that the Minister does not intend to deal with the very valid criticism which has been made of the arrangement which he has in the Bill. His last speech was really a masterpiece of avoiding points that were made and of dragging in a few red herrings. He has again taken the skeleton out in relation to the plans that he has in the Department which he is threatening to show us. He really should show them to us and get them out of the way, because they are only a red herring. I do not think the Minister is being completely honest in continuing to make references to these. The Minister knows very well that on any occasion when there is a revision of constituencies that there are probably hundreds of different proposals made as to how this could be approached. To suggest that he has one or two which would be very unpopular with certain Fianna Fáil Deputies is a bit much. Of course, he has quite a lot of proposals and some of them might not be acceptable to some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies any more than they would be acceptable to some Fine Gael or Labour Deputies. There are, I am sure, quite a lot of different drafts which the Minister could use and if he produces them selectively he might make a point about it. It is an irrelevancy. It is not answering any of the points which we made here. If the Minister really thinks that he has some sort of a draft that will create a sensation then I think he should produce it and get it out of the way.

The Minister has in that way, and in various other ways, avoided answering the very valid arguments which have been made against the way in which he has organised the constituencies in Clare and Galway. Instead of dealing with these arguments he keeps on telling us about the last Bill in 1969 and about how many Clare people were put into Galway then. If there were more people put into Galway then than are being put in now, then that was wrong.

The Minister is supposed to be coming in here with an improvement, according to himself, on the previous Act. He has on many occasions boasted that this is a much better arrangement and a big improvement, on what was done in 1969. Let us forget about the Bill that he disapproves of so much. Let us talk about the Bill he is bringing in and which he is standing over and which he says is a tremendous improvement on what happened in the past.

We are talking about the Bill now before us. Instead of dealing with arguments that are being made the Minister is suggesting that the very cogent arguments that were made by Senator Killilea have been made because the Senator has his own ambitions for County Galway. Again, that may be a very smart political point but it is not answering the arguments which have been made. Once again, it is avoiding the issue. If the Minister will not give us an answer he will have to be prepared to listen to these points being made again and again to see if we could force him either to give an answer or else admit that this arrangement is being made for reasons which have no validity from the objective point of view as being a reasonable and fair division of the area in Galway and Clare.

The Minister said, at column 674, Volume 77, of the Official Report:

The constitutional requirements, the courts' decisions and the interpretations of them provide the framework within which a revision of constituencies must take place. It is desirable that within these basic rules account should also be taken, as far as possible, of certain other matters such as local administrative boundaries, particularly county boundaries, physical features, community of interest and the existing scheme of Dáil constituencies.

Almost every single one of these boundaries has been breached in the

I said on Second Stage that I was a arrangement which he had made for Galway and Clare. There cannot be the slightest question but that county boundaries have been breached in respect of Clare, and breached quite unnecessarily. As far as community of interest is concerned it is quite clear that Connemara, West Galway, is a particular kind of area and to bring it down to Clare is to introduce a completely different element into that constituency, if community of interest means anything.

little bit sceptical about this phrase "community of interest" for the very reason that it can be abused. It can be used to prove anything because one person's view of community of interest might differ from that of another. I said it was dangerous to rely on it as a reason for saying that the constituency should be a particular area. If community of interest means anything Connemara in West Galway is an area which has a community of interest and it is an area which should have been left to itself. By bringing it into Clare there is a gross breach of that principle in so far as that principle means anything. It is the Minister who introduced that as something to be used and something to be taken into consideration. He brought it in and he should try to stick to it and leave some validity in the principle which he has created himself.

The Minister has made no effort to explain why he interfered with Clare, except to say that in the previous Bill this was not done. It was up to the Minister, if he thought the previous Bill was wrong, to undo the wrong that was done to Clare on the last occasion. There was a great deal of talk and criticism of the previous Bill because of what was done to Clare. Why was this position not rectified? On the figures there is no answer to it.

Louth has less people than Clare has but nevertheless the Minister said he had to give four seats to Louth. Meath has much less. Meath has only 71,729 as compared with 75,000. Nevertheless, the Minister gave very plausible reasons why Meath should be a four-seater. He made the case for Meath. He made the case for Louth. Both of them have fewer people than Clare, but for some extraordinary reason Clare was not given four seats. It is indefensible.

The Minister has not answered or attempted to answer the arguments which have been made about this point. Certainly no impartial observer —to use a phrase which the Minister used himself in introducing the Second Stage—could possibly accept that it was objective, reasonable or fair in all the circumstances not to give four seats to Clare in view of the fact that this could be done and in view of the fact that the figures justify it. The figures justify it in that case more than in at least two other cases where four seats were given.

From the point of view of breaching county boundaries, of community of interest in West Galway in so far as that has a validity, and from the point of view of the community of interest in East Galway, which was very cogently argued by Senator Killilea, the arrangement proposed in this amendment certainly makes sense. It is a very valid and objective suggestion as to how this area should be arranged. It is quite clearly a preferable arrangement to the one which the Minister has in his Bill. The Minister has completely failed to answer the arguments which have been made in favour of this amendment.

I am glad Senator Halligan is back because I was a little bit worried for a time during a critical part of this debate that something might have happened to the Constitution in his absence. He was adopting the role of guardian of the Constitution for a while. I am glad he is back to adopt that role again. Of course, it is not certain that the arrangement which has been suggested in this amendment might infringe the Constitution but that can easily be rectified. It can easily be rearranged if the Minister indicates that there is validity in our proposals and that the kind of arrangement which is suggested in the amendments is a better arrangement than the arrangement in the Bill. It would be quite easy to make the necessary minor adjustments so as to bring this completely within the necessary tolerances.

We could easily lay at rest Senator Halligan's scruples about the Constitution. I would not like him to be worried about this because he has shown deep concern about the Constitution. It is something which I am sure could be dealt with to his complete satisfaction. If the Minister indicated—I am afraid he will not— that there was merit in this arrangement then the necessary adjustments could be made. So far he has produced no argument that any impartial observer could possibly accept to justify the arrangement in the Bill as compared with the arrangement suggested in these amendments. The Minister said he is not going to say any more about it. The fact is, and this is quite clear, he cannot justify his own arrangement; at least he cannot justify it in a way that he is willing to admit. It can only be justified on the basis of a special arrangement. A special constituency is being in the most extraordinary way, created for the benefit of somebody. The whole of Galway and Clare is being distorted for that reason. It is the only reason that can possibly explain what is being done. If the Minister would get up and say that is why it is being done at least we would know where we stand and at least we could leave the matter at that.

Mr. Tully

I said I would not intervene unless there was something special said. In fact, Senator E. Ryan then proceeded to challenge me to say something. Now with your permission, Sir, I would like to take up his challenge. Before doing so, however, I would like to refer to what Senator Ryan said on Second Reading about a natural community. He said that this was a dangerous expression which could mean all things to all men. Then he proceeded to take me to task for what he calls the natural community of Galway city. There is a difference in the way in which the Senator uses the expression and the way in which I use it. If it is all things to all men I would pass it back to him. In fact, I would say that it does not interfere with the natural community but simply adds to it. I want to say also that west of the Shannon the total population of the area is 574,254. When we divide this figure by the national average of 20,123 we get a figure of 28.5. How then can it be said that we are being unfair when we give them 28 seats? I was challenged by Senator E. Ryan who wanted to know if I had something to produce it. With your permission, Madam, I would like to put it on the record of the House, which is the only way I can produce it here.

I want to do this because I want to prove that the arguments being made by the Fianna Fáil Opposition here are arguments in which they do not believe. The submission of amendments here is only being done in an effort to try to be obstructive. They did not believe what they are now saying when they had the opportunity to do something. If Fianna Fáil were in Government they would not do what they are now suggesting, and I should like to put this on record. To come now to the proposals which my predecessor was working on—and there were, in fact, a number of proposals as Senator E. Ryan said—the counties of Clare and Galway, together with part——

Mr. Yeats

The Minister is permitted to quote from a document. I think we should have a much fuller reference. We should know precisely what the document is and the nature of the proposal. It is very easy to describe the document as a proposal. The Minister should explain what particular stage he is——

Mr. Tully

If Senator Yeats will allow me——

Mr. Yeats

Before quoting, I think we should know whether the document from which the Minister is quoting was draft legislation, or what it was.

Mr. Tully

It is an official document of the Department. I propose as I go along to give the details, the times when this was done and what was in the minds of the Fianna Fáil Party about the constituency changes in the west. Either you want it or you do not want it. If you do not want it as you know it will embarrass you then say so, and I will sit down, but if you want it let us have it.

Mr. Lenihan

We very much want it and are prepared to deal with it, because what the Minister, I anticipate, is going to refer to are proposals between officials and the Minister which are discussed in the preparation of every recommendation to a Government. The Minister by now knows how Governments work. No final proposals ever arrived on a Government table. No final proposal was ever considered by the Minister for Local Government. I would personally know about it if that was so. The Minister is quoting from ordinary documents within the Department of Local Government where some officials put forward proposals and other officials put forward counter-proposals when the matter is in the melting-pot of decision-making. If the Minister wants to go ahead with that he can do it.

Mr. Tully

I am talking about the suggestions which my predecessor, was preparing in order to have a Bill ready to put before this House and the other House, complete with maps to show what he wanted to do.

Mr. Lenihan

In case the Minister did not hear me the Minister was not in the process of preparing a Bill. The Minister is now aware, after a year in Government, that Bills are considered in the form of memoranda to the Government from the relevant Ministers. No memorandum was ever prepared in the Department of Local Government by the Minister for Local Government for consideration by the Government. The matter never came before the Government for their consideration. Therefore, no instruction as to the preparation of a Bill could have issued from the Government. As the Minister is aware, no Minister on his own can order the preparation of a Bill without getting Government approval. This matter never came to the Government. That puts the matter in perspective.

Mr. Tully

Am I now to take it that Fianna Fáil were not aware that the then Minister for Local Government was making preparations to draw up a Constituency Bill and was bringing in proposals to do it in a certain way? If this is so, how did it come that there were so many radical changes proposed, as will become evident when I read out this document? That is if the Fianna Fáil Senators will allow me, although I know they are very anxious to prevent it.

Mr. McGlinchey

On a point of order, could the Minister give us the reference number and the date of the extract from which he proposes to read?

Mr. Tully

The document is one which comes out of the files of the Department of Local Government. When I give the details, I will give the dates on which the changes took place, and so on. Either you want it or you do not. If you do not want it, you can keep getting up on points of order. The bluff is called. Either you want it or you do not want it.

Mr. Lenihan

We want it.

Mr. Yeats

One final point of order, a Leas-Chathaoirleach. In the interests of order, before quoting any document, the Minister—and perhaps he will do this—should make it absolutely clear which document is concerned, what signature is on it and give all the facts which would enable us to identify what precise document is involved. I take it, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, that it is simply not good enough for someone to get up and say: "Here is a document, anonymous, unspecified——

Mr. Tully

You know it is here and you are afraid of your life. I offered it to you half-a-dozen times.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I take Senator Yeats' point of order, and I ask the Minister if he is reading from any document to give the reference and the date so that it can be identified.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Tully

I have a document which I will read.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If we had fewer interruptions, the Minister could proceed.

Mr. Tully

It was proposed in this document——

Mr. McGlinchey

On a point of order, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, I understood you to say that the Minister would give a reference number and date. Since this debate began I have quoted from a number of speeches and on all occasions I was asked for the volume number and the date. It is normal practice, and I presume the Minister believes in normal practice, though God knows when reading this legislation, one would find that hard to accept.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am sure Senator McGlinchey heard what I said. I assume the Minister will give the date and reference. If he was allowed to give them, it might help.

Mr. Tully

Let me repeat that this is a document which refers to the constituencies of the areas of Clare and Galway which was being prepared for the purpose of having a Bill which would be submitted to the Government by my predecessor. Because of the numerous changes which have occurred in it I am satisfied, even if Senator Lenihan is not, that there were consultations with the Government from time to time. Either I will be allowed to read it or not.

Mr. Lenihan

That is not true. If the Minister refers back to the Government records he will see that this matter never came before the previous Government.

Mr. Tully

Either I will be allowed to read it or not. Would Senators make up their minds quickly?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If the Minister would proceed to read it then perhaps we need not draw any assumptions.

Mr. McGlinchey

On a point of order, could we have the date of the document and the reference number? We are entitled to this information.

Mr. Yeats

Before it is read.

Mr. Tully

I know Senator Yeats does not want it. He was shouting about it and now that I am about to read it he does not want it. You just cannot take it. It is typical of Fianna Fáil all down the years.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is there a date or reference number?

Mr. Tully

There is no reference number. It is a Government file.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I take it the document is unreferenced and undated.

Mr. Killilea

On a point of order, if there is no date and no reference, then to whom does it refer? From whom did it come and where was it going? It is out of order, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, to read from a document, purporting to be an authentic document, when there is no proof that it is such.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Are you challenging me, Senator Killilea?

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I was asked by Senator Yeats, on a point of order, to ask the Minister for the date and reference of the official document. I did that. Senator McGlinchey repeated the point of order. The Minister has informed the House that there is no date or reference on the document. Is that clear?

Mr. McGlinchey

On a point of order, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, is it in order for anyone to quote from a document that has no reference number, date or any other identifiable mark?

Mr. Lenihan

From whom, to whom, from where to where?

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister is entitled to give a description of what is in the document. Might I say that several Senators have asked for this document to be read?

Mr. Lenihan

On a point of clarification, did I hear the Minister correctly when he said that this document was prepared for the Minister?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This has been so. I should like the Minister to confirm this.

Mr. Tully

If I am allowed to read it, it will be quite clear that the Minister's instructions came into this matter again and again. If it is too embarrassing for the Fianna Fáil Opposition, I will sit down, but if they want to hear it I will read it in full. It will not take very long.

Mr. Yeats

I do not wish to be obstructive but we are in a curious situation. If I were to bring in a typewritten document with no heading and no identification of any kind and if I were to say: "These were the Minister's proposals, which I have obtained from some place, for drafting a Bill of this kind" would I be allowed to read this without any kind of identification so that nobody can know the origin of the document? It seems an extraordinary situation.

Mr. McGlinchey

I could bring a document in here in the afternoon.

Mr. Tully

Fianna Fáil did not challenge me to read the document in the Dáil because they knew it was there. The Senators apparently did not know and kept challenging, but now they discover I have the document and they do not want to hear it. If they do not want to hear the contents I have no desire to proceed but if they want to hear them I will read every word.

Mr. Lenihan

Read it.

Mr. Tully

It will have to be after the break, I assume, because I could not read it in three minutes. The House, the public and Senators and TDs in Fianna Fáil should know the rod which was to be inflicted on some of them if Fianna Fáil were returned.

Mr. McGlinchey

Have we any guarantee that this document was not written by the director of propaganda, Muiris Mac Congail?

Senators

None whatever.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Halligan

On a point of order, is it in order to so refer to a civil servant?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

A civil servant cannot be referred to by name in this House.

Mr. Yeats

I think that in the couple of minutes remaining I might point out to the Minister that——

Mr. Tully

I thought I was in possession. I want to know whether Fianna Fáil want to hear the contents of this document, a Leas-Chathaoirleach. If they do——

Mr. Lenihan

We do.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

At this stage, they may be prepared to wait until 2 p.m.

Mr. Yeats

I was on the point of explaining to the Minister what we want. The Minister said that he has proposals for a Bill in his possession —and not sheets of unidentified and anonymous paper—by the former Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Tully

Numerous Bills.

Mr. Yeats

The Minister is wrong. He was challenged in the Dáil. We have said it was useless. If there were proposals for a Bill we want to see them. We are not interested in anonymous bits of paper which the Minister may choose to read, having selected from the files of his Department.

Mr. Halligan

The Senator beside you is interested.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.