I would remind Senators that on the Report Stage only one speech is allowed. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are consequential to amendment No. 1 and the three amendments should be discussed together.
Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973: Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4 in the Schedule 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: |
Four |
|
Ardrahan, Cahermore, Castletaylor, Doorus, Killeenavara, Killinny, Kinvara, Skehanagh, in the former Rural District of Gort. |
"
I take it that we can make a speech on each of the three amendments that are taken in the group.
In the view of the Chair, amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are consequential to amendment No. 1 and accordingly a single debate should suffice.
A single debate should suffice, but we have various points to make on each of the three amendments. That would mean three speeches.
It is the view of the Chair that all the points should be made in one speech.
I think Senator Lenihan means that his speech can cover the three amendments.
What the Cathaoirleach is saying is that Nos. 1, 2 and 3 must be taken together in one speech.
Yes, discussed together in a single speech. When a Senator rises to speak he should make his contribution on all three amendments in the one speech.
That is understood. The purpose of this amendment is to copperfasten the point that we were making on the Committee Stage debate when we spoke about the inequity of the arrangement proposed in the Bill. I went over this ground on Committee Stage and I think I proved fairly conclusively, in all logic and reason, that the rearrangements between Counties Galway and Clare should be in the form of a five-seat constituency in East Galway, a four-seat constituency in Clare and a three-seat constituency in West Galway. If the Minister does decide, as apparently he and the Government have decided, to reduce the overall numbers in Clare and Galway by one, which is the net effect of what they have done, they have disenfranchised practically 20,000 people mainly in East Galway, and have reduced the overall representation from Counties Galway and Clare by one. That is the effect of the decision covering those two counties: to reduce the number of Deputies from 12 to 11.
Our amendments on Committee Stage were designed to preserve the existing elected Members from Counties Clare and Galway by having five Members elected from East Galway, four Members elected from Clare and three Members elected from West Galway. That means 12 as against the Minister's proposal of four from East Galway and West Galway and three from Clare, making a total of 11. Due to the decision of the Seanad last Wednesday and Thursday our amendments in that respect were defeated.
In recognition of that fact, we now come down to a basic point of principle. If it is the Government's decision to reduce representation in this part of rural Ireland by one—from 12 to 11—we must face up to it that it was decided by vote of this House and by vote of the other House. What we refuse to face up to on Report Stage —even taking the Minister on his own arrangement and on his own principle and saying: "You have to proceed in accordance with the decision of the Dáil and Seanad"—is why there are not four seats in Clare and three seats in Galway when we have here in our amendments set out precisely how easily that can be done. While preserving the territorial county integrity of Clare, it practically justifies four seats and does justify four seats with the addition of the areas we have proposed in the rural district of Gort as set out in our amendment; Ardrahan, Cahermore, Castletaylor, Doorus, Killeenavara, Killinny, Kinvara, Skehanagh.
I do not have to tell the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, the officials behind him, the Press or anybody present that the areas I have just read out, which are set out in our amendment, are areas that have traditionally been adjusted to Clare. They are very much Clare-Galway constituencies. In fact they are Clare-Galway townlands. That part of County Galway is known as Clare-Galway traditionally—the part of Galway south of Galway city going towards the Clare border, the type of country that lies in Galway between Galway city and Ballyvaughan in Kinvara. By including these townlands in the rural district Gort in with the county of Clare, we have a natural constituency of four seats in County Clare.
This follows on from amendments Nos. 2 and 3. It enables West Galway to be a three-seat constituency, which is its natural situation. It means that, based on the city of Galway and on Connemara, there are two distinct sub-units within the unit of a three-seat constituency, roughly comprising in each case about half the constituency of West Galway. In that there is a natural constituency of three seats, and we suggest in our amendment a natural constituency of four seats in Clare.
I will not go into the merits and demerits in regard to East Galway because I went into those sufficiently on the previous occasion. What I am going to deal with now is the monstrosity called West Galway now proposed in the Bill. Anybody who looks at page eight of the Schedule to the Minister's Bill can see what I mean. There is a four-seat constituency proposed for West Galway. Practically half of the townlands in it come from County Clare and geographically speaking go right down to the rural district of Ennis. You have one-third of County Clare taken out and added to West Galway giving rise to a situation where the constituency practically runs from the capital town of County Clare, Ennis, from the rural districts of that town, through all of north-west Clare, to Ennistymon and Lisdoonvarna, into County Galway, around Galway Bay and over to Inishbofin beyond Clifden. That is the new four-seat constituency proposed.
I want to have this debate conducted at a reasonable level. I should like to have a logical case made for that division as against the division that we propose. We have forgotten about the arguments in Committee Stage in regard to East Galway. We are talking strictly about two constituencies in which the same number of seats are involved. What the Minister proposes is that a four-seat constituency of West Galway be adopted in which more than one-third of County Clare is added to West Galway and where total violence is done to the geography of that area and West Galway in having them in one constituency, because as the townlands read they are almost like a right-angled triangle based on Galway city, continuing on to the town of Ennis and going across to Ennistymon. The point of that triangle reaches Galway or Oranmore near Galway and then proceeds from Galway across Galway Bay into another triangle reaching out into Clifden and the greater part of Galway.
What possible relationship, affinity or association, culturally, historically, geographically or any other way, can there be between the area I have described, that wrenches one-third of County Clare away from that county and adds it into County Galway? It reduces Clare in poulation by about 20,000 people and adds them to Galway in order to produce an artificial situation of four seats in West Galway instead of three seats which the existing constituency, with minor adjustments, would be entitled to. Instead of having a 60,000 poulation in East Galway with an 80,000 population in Clare, give or take the small adjustments in our first amendments as far as Clare is concerned, the Minister, by his proposed arrangement is flouting every logic in regard to these two areas. If the Minister wanted to achieve the purpose of having the present three-seat constituency in West Galway all that is required is the very small townland rearrangement with East Galway— this is not part of our amendments because we are not talking about East Galway—and the very small rearrangements with County Clare that we suggest in our amendments here.
We have the situation where, willy nilly, 20,000 people are being carved out of County Clare, sent artificially into West Galway to make up a four-seat constituency there, Clare being condemned in the process to a three-seat constituency. I want a logical answer to that. I am not entitled to speak a second time but I am sure some of my colleagues will——
I would remind the Senator that he is entitled to conclude the debate on his own amendment.
I shall certainly conclude the debate, but I am sure that some of my colleagues will also raise this point. We want to ask specific questions and in concluding a debate one cannot get the answers. Throughout the course of this debate one has noted the inability to answer logical points made from this side of the House. This has been highly frustrating and prejudicial to the points we have advanced. The reason why we have committed ourselves to this amendment on Report Stage is that we feel there is total logic and total reason on our side in regard to these three amendments that really incorporate the same principle.
I want to hear a logical answer from the Parliamentary Secretary. I will refrain from commenting but I am certain some of my colleagues will say that this is naked political chicanery, that it is done in the interests of getting a seat in West Galway—mark you, a seat in West Galway that Fine Gael will not get but a seat in West Galway that Labour hope to get. In the interest of securing that and in the overall interest of ensuring that Fianna Fáil will get a seat less in East Galway we have this piece of chicanery that is involved here in page 8 of the Schedule. It amounts to this quite clearly. It is a Labour Party conspiracy, through the Minister for Local Government, with two objectives; one is to reduce Fianna Fáil by one seat in East Galway. That is not involved in the amendments but is a consequential result of the Minister's Bill and the Schedule to it, in that there are 11 seats instead of 12 in the whole area of Galway and Clare. Therefore, Fianna Fáil are deprived of a seat and 20,000 people in East Galway are deprived of representation. The second objective is that, by having three seats in Clare and four seats in West Galway, the seat that is twisted around in the artificial phoney manner that I have mentioned will accrue in some way to Labour as the fourth seat in a West Galway consituency. Fine Gael have no gains out of this situation. Fianna Fáil have a certain loss in East Galway by being deprived of getting three seats out of five: instead they are getting two seats out of four. Fine Gael will get one seat out of three in Clare under the Minister's scheme and Fianna Fáil will get two seats. Labour will hope to get one seat out of four in West Galway. Be it on Fine Gael's head if they want to see an erosion of one of their citadels, an erosion of the situation where in that part of Ireland generally Labour have not been very strong. If the Fine Gael Party want to see further erosion of what they believe in in regard to forms of taxation, they can support a situation in West Galway in which one extra seat will almost certainly not go to Fine Gael. The whole purpose of the exercise is to ensure that it goes to Labour.
The four seats in West Galway will result in two Fianna Fáil, one Fine Gael and one Labour. That will be the position if it is planned as it is. What we propose—and in all logic this is as it should be—are four seats in Clare, two Fianna Fáil and two Fine Gael; three seats in West Galway, two Fianna Fáil and one Fine Gael. Fine Gael are in this case making a very serious political error. I can see that as the only reason behind it. It may sound fantastic, but I have to latch on to something fantastic in order to come to a decision why logic has not been followed. When logic has not been followed, then I must seek some other reason that is not a logical reason, some other reason that blatantly flouts logic and appears to be in the political interest of one of the two parties concerned here. If it is on that basis it certainly is not in the political interest of Fine Gael. Indeed, it is totally against the interest of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. The only people who will gain from it are the Labour Party, who for the first time in the Counties of Galway, Roscommon, Mayo, Sligo and Leitrim now appear to be in a situation where they might get a seat. That is the only purpose of wrenching one-third of Clare out of County Clare and putting it in with West Galway. The Fine Gael members of the Government must have been asleep when this particular Schedule was going through. There may be a political reason on the part of the Labour Party for what they are doing.
I am convinced that any independent commission would say that County Clare practically justifies four seats. There are a few additional townlands in the area of Gort that require to be added to it. These areas are already named Clare-Galway in local tradition and in local speech. These areas added to Clare would make a four-seat constituency leaving the traditional constituency of East Galway as a three-seat constituency, based on the city of Galway and based on Connemara, thereby observing reason and logic. When a Bill of this kind is going through the House it is only natural to assume that the Government of the day will not do any harm to themselves but at least they should have some regard to basic logic and basic reason and these factors should not be flouted. The debate on this Bill convinces me that, whatever Government happen to be in power, these matters should be left to some form of impartial commission or judicial tribunal.
We have a case here in regard to the rearrangements of these areas where basic logic and basic reason have been thrown out the window. There is absolutely no regard to the equity, justice, reason or logic of the position. County Clare has been raped to the extent of linking East Galway with the town of Ennis and the rural district areas of that town. The traditional, administrative town of Ennis should have been regarded logically, as the centre of the constituency. Any of us who is aware of the situation in East Galway knows well that Galway city and its hinterland represent one sub-unit of West Galway and that Connemara represents the other. There you have a totally logical package. Any draftsman, instructed by any judicial tribunal to draw up a reasonable scheme would not, in my view, spend any more than five seconds on the arrangements he would make in this particular area. He would realise that Connemara is entitled to one and a half seats and Galway city and its hinterland to one and a half seats, making a three-seat constituency. It is logical that County Clare is entitled to four seats, give or take a few townlands.
The reason for putting down these amendments on Report Stage is the excuse advanced by the Minister that any decisions one might make in regard to particular constituency changes would reverberate and escalate in regard to other constituencies. In other words, the Minister said on numerous occasions both here and in the other House that there is no point in Deputies and Senators proposing constituency amendments and adjustments because their acceptance would affect other constituencies.
The Government are looking at this matter in isolation rather than as a whole. That is precisely the reason why we did not mention East Galway in our amendments although we believe that East Galway is entitled to five seats instead of the four proposed by the Minister. We tabled an amendment to that effect on Committee Stage. Of course, we realise that any adjustment in regard to East Galway would affect Roscommon, Mayo and other adjacent counties. However, the amendments we have put down for Report Stage would not involve any adjustment for any other constituency. These amendments stand on their own, simply ensuring a readjustment between County Clare and West Galway, a readjustment that would mean four seats in Clare and three seats in East Galway instead of four seats in East Galway and three seats in Clare.
The minimum of violence would be done to Clare and Galway by removing the townlands we have mentioned in the part of Galway that is known as Clare-Galway in the region of Kinvara and that that part of County Galway be added to Clare to make a natural four-seat constituency and a natural three-seat constituency for East Galway. We want to know why the Minister does not propose to adopt our amendments. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will adopt them but the Minister was adamant here on Committee Stage that he would reject our amendments. I made the point that this kind of stance should not be adopted in any parliamentary procedure.
We accept that we have been beaten in regard to our many amendments on Committee Stage, but here is an amendment that could be accepted by the Minister if the Government are prepared to listen to reason. I should like to suggest that if the Government want to do themselves a good turn and appear to be reasonable this is exactly the type of amendment they might accept. I make a final appeal, in the interests of democracy, that they do so. In this way they would indicate that there exists some reason for the parliamentary process, for spending hours on Committee, Report and Final Stages of Bills. That is why we confined our amendments on Report Stage to this single principle, which is totally logical and rational. It does not flout the principle of the Minister's Bill, in that its effect would be to retain the same number of seats in the over-all area. We suggest to the Minister that our amendment embodies a far more rational division of the area in question than that which he is proposing.
As Senator Lenihan said, we cannot see the logic of what the Minister is doing. We put down logical amendments. We have not been told that they are other than logical. However, we were outvoted but we come forward again at this late stage to make a further logical amendment. I am sorry that this amendment will be outvoted by the Fine Gael section of the National Coalition Government. Apart from Senator Lenihan's explanation, I diagnose a further reason why Fine Gael may be acting treacherously in regard to themselves, particularly in the constituency that we have avoided mentioning so far—East Galway— where it is now commonly known that the wife of the Leader of this House may be in danger of losing here seat. There could be a loss of a Fine Gael seat in that area because of the new arrangement.
Taking that with West Galway, where Labour have sold Fine Gael down the political drain in an effort to gerrymander a constituency into a situation where Labour are trying to achieve—and if it is to be achieved, as Senator Lenihan said, it is Labour who will achieve it—the election of a Member of this House. I ask Fine Gael to reconsider the situation. The Leader of the House knows exactly what I am talking about. Not alone have Labour tried to gerrymander a constituency for themselves but they have endangered a Fine Gael seat on the East Galway side. If Fine Gael want to agree, that is their business.
Our amendment No. 1, is very logical because, as Senator Lenihan said, Ardrahan, Cahermore, Castletaylor, Doorus, Killeenavara, Killinny, Kinvara and Skehanagh in the former rural district of Gort are right along the line of County Clare. It is natural to include those and make Clare a four-seater. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who has more sanity than the Minister, whether it is not more logical to put those few little townlands into Clare and make it a four-seater than to put Inishbofin with Lahinch in a four-seater? The village of Inagh in County Clare, where the polling booth is situated is split in two in order to create a gerrymander in West Galway. I defy contradiction when I say that it is far more logical that the townlands mentioned by us in our amendment be included rather than putting Inagh with Clifden in a four-seat constituency.
I ask Fine Gael to accept this amendment. I do not think the proposed arrangement will be tolerated in the west. If the Parliamentary Secretary has a logical answer, I am most willing to hear it. Adding those eight little townlands in Galway along the Clare border to Clare is more logical than putting Lahinch and Inagh with Clifden and Inishbofin in another constituency, as is proposed in the Bill. If the Fine Gael section of the Coalition would agree to this it would be a natural progression to take the second amendment.
Connemara and Galway city have something in common. It is natural to think of Oranmore as having something in common with Galway city. The width of the constituency at Oranmore is about 800 yards. In the Minister's proposal it spreads to the town of Loughrea and down into Gort, across over the mountains into Inagh and out to Hag's head at Lahinch. That is a most illogical drawing of any constituency. Can the Minister say that we are not correct in saying that there is common ground between Galway and Connemara? The people have a similar attitude, a common culture. Anyone who has ever been to Galway knows that. On one hand there is the city of Galway and on the other, Connemara, and as sure as day follows night any person coming to Galway from any part of the world progresses naturally to Connemara.
We earnestly ask if we are not logical in our amendment, that we be given an explanation as to why we are not logical. Would the Government give us their explanation for the logic of the way in which they have sliced this constituency? Perhaps we should have included the East Galway situation. Along the area by the town of Loughrea, which is split, Fine Gael have been in danger. Senator Lenihan was right in saying that Fine Gael must have been asleep when the Minister for Local Government produced this document and succeeded in having it sanctioned by the Government. They must have been just as much asleep then as they were when the Labour section of the Government implemented those taxes to which certain members of the Fine Gael Government objected last week. Now I see an awakening on the Fine Gael side that they are falling down in this Government. It certainly happened in this instance. At this late stage I appeal to the good sense of the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Leader of the House, who I am sure sees the logic of my statement.
He understands that the particular TD on the East Galway side who is in danger of losing her seat has a right to be a TD. She has been a wonderful representative in the area. The Minister, who has done the greatest ever "Securicor" job in Meath in order to maintain himself as a TD in this House for as long as he lives, is endeavouring also to put a Labour man in Dáil Éireann from the East Galway constituency.
Fine Gael should at this stage consider our amendments and then come back here and say that they are prepared to agree to those amendments put down by Senators Lenihan, Yeats, Ryan and myself, amendments that are correct and logical. With the interests of their own people at heart and with their own party in danger, should they not say "Yes" at this final stage to the Fianna Fáil amendment? Let us not have a gerrymander by Labour at the expense of Fine Gael. This would be the worst insult that could be given to Fine Gael in this Coalition Government.
Be sure to get that into the Connacht Tribune.
I heartily support Senator Lenihan in all he has said on these three amendments. The ground has been fully covered in recent weeks in this House. We have had bad calculations by the Minister for Local Government, as was pointed out to him the last day when he thought he could use the threat of the existence of certain documents. A man with only limited national school education would be able to multiply three by four and understand what the former Minister for Local Government was endeavouring to do. I am not casting a slur on the Minister's education but I thought he made a very bad mathematical slip. A man who would make a slip of that nature and yet hold it as a threat on this House and this party, saying that the former Minister had done something terrible, displayed the worst ignorance and the most unethical type of political hogwash that has ever been witnessed in this House.
I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is here. No doubt he understands the logic we are putting to him in our final amendments. I am quite aware that the Leader of the House understands fully what we are talking about and that he has been made aware of the situation over the weekend by numerous members of the Fine Gael Party in East Galway who have 'phoned his house to ask him, even at this late stage, to let Fine Gael wake up in Government and not endanger further the dicey situation for that party in the west. If they pay heed to their constituents at home they will back us on this amendment. They will ask the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to agree to these final amendments, which make an effort to straighten things out in this horrible Bill.
I commend the amendments to the House. If, however, they should not be accepted, we can only hope that, at least, we will be given a logical reason as to why we are wrong in what we propose.
I wonder how Senator Killilea would have managed to make a speech if the word "logical" had never appeared in the dictionary or if it had not been used by Senator Lenihan. It seems to me that Senator Killilea grasped at the word.
I shall not delay the House but I should like to give an assurance to Senator Killilea that I had no weekend telephone calls with regard to these amendments or to the constituency in question. I am fully confident that each of the Fine Gael candidates in the constituencies we are discussing will succeed in winning their nominations at conventions and that they will not need to do any midnight rides in order to intercept the Leader of their party for the purpose of securing nominations at the next election in four years' time. I hope that on the next occasion Senator Killilea will find himself in the same confident situation and that he will not require the intervention of the Leader of his party in order to bring his name once more before the electorate of one of Galway's constituencies.
As regards Senator Lenihan's plea, I think—and I say this quite sincerely, although I do not go along with his arguments—he has endeavoured to play a constructive rôle in the discussion on this Bill. A certain amount of thought and consideration had obviously been given by him and his colleagues to the pattern of the amendments which were put down.
There was one thing that struck me in relation to Senator Lenihan's contribution today. It was his invoking of the image of an independent tribunal or judicial commission to set the constituency boundaries. There may be something in that idea. The Minister has made clear what his attitude in relation to it is and the degree of support from the Fianna Fáil Party which would be required in order to have such a commission in the future. If Members of the party opposite speak with different voices on the topic it is not very likely that it is going to be achieved. However the Minister has made clear his views on that. What struck me as remarkable was the particular type of independent body or tribunal which was envisaged by Senator Lenihan and invoked by him in relation to this amendment and several others in the past. It always seemed to come up with the same answer as Senator Lenihan was giving to the House. This may be purely coincidental, but it did strike me as rather extraordinary. If I were asked to support the concept of an independent tribunal or commission which would always give the same answer as was suggested by Senator Lenihan perhaps I would view the whole idea with a little scepticism.
While I concede that a constructive effort has been made by Senator Lenihan, and some of his colleagues in this House, they have not yet grasped the fact that for the first time for more than half a century it does not fall to the Fianna Fáil Party to deal with the re-distribution of seats in the constituencies.
I must ask the Leader of the House to direct his thoughts to the constituencies that are the subject of the amendment.
I can understand why Senator Lenihan feels that the amendments which he is recommending to the Minister are ones which should be made and why they are, from his point of view and that of his colleagues, the best solution. There are other points of view to be taken into account. I am not impressed by Fianna Fáil hearts bleeding for the Fine Gael Party. It is possible that the outcome of the Minister's proposals relating to these constituencies will result in the gaining of a seat by the Labour Party. That may not be so, but there is no reason why they should not gain a seat if the people want them to have representation in County Galway. It is nothing to be ashamed of that a particular fall-out of constituencies may favour either a particular individual or a particular party.
What we are concerned with is that on the general pattern of the re-distribution which is taking place the Minister has regard to the constitutional position which faces him, that he has regard to the decision of the people in connection with the tolerance issue and the decision of the courts in that regard. No one can deny, in relation to the Minister's proposals, that all those considerations are taken into account. It is not possible to foresee if the ultimate result of the proposed changes will be the loss of a seat for Fianna Fáil or the gaining of one for Labour. Irrespective of any Government decision the final decision lies with the general public.
I do not agree with the view that people do not change their political affiliations. If Fianna Fáil have sufficient appeal and attraction and have sufficient confidence in themselves, they may succeed in redeeming the seat which they fear they will lose as a result of these proposals. On the other hand if the Government go ahead with the same confidence and flair as they have been showing so far, then the Fianna Fáil pessimism in relation to these constituencies may well be justified. It seems likely in those conditions that Fianna Fáil will forfeit the seat they are now hoping to save by these amendments.
That is a ridiculous suggestion.
Senator O'Higgins has stated that, irrespective of how constituencies are carved up, the electorate will ultimately decide how the seats will be divided. I agree with this. However, no matter how they vote in the next general election, they cannot change the position which will exist following the passing of this Bill, that is, we will now have 28 seats instead of the customary 30 in the west of Ireland. This has resulted because the tolerance has been used in a way which is disadvantageous to the rural areas. As was pointed out on the Committee Stage debate and other Stages, there are instances where it has taken 21,123 persons in rural areas to return a Deputy to Dáil Éireann, whereas in the urban areas it is possible to return a Deputy with 19,122 votes. This is an undisputable fact which cannot be changed when this Bill becomes law irrespective of how the people vote.
I do not understand why the Minister was adamant in making a four-seat constituency in County Louth and a four-seater in County Meath. The population of Louth is 74,951 and the population of Meath is 71,729.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The amendment we are discussing does not deal with Counties Meath or Louth.
I appreciate that; I am merely making a comparison. This is where the sting comes in. If the Minister was justified in this action along the eastern seaboard why has the Minister seen fit in County Clare, with a population of 75,008, to cut it down to a three-seat constituency? We are all familiar with the profile of County Clare. We know that most of it is a natural division cut out by the Almighty and the Atlantic Ocean with well defined boundaries. Thanks to the efforts of Fianna Fáil by creating industries in the Shannon area the population has reached 75,008. The then Opposition stated that the rabbits would be running around Shannon Airport but there is now a great industrial centre there. If Louth is made a four-seater with a population of 74,951 and Meath with a population of 71,000, there is an unanswerable case for making Clare, with a population of 75,008, a four-seater.
As Senator Lenihan aptly stated, it would have taken only a small number of persons from Galway to top Clare up to a four-seat constituency. Clare will now be a three-seater with part of East Galway going down to Ennis and part of West Galway. Looking at a map one sees the distance from the islands off the west coast—Inismean, Inismore, Inishere and Inisbofin—to the rural district of Ennis. Does anyone think that is a natural division or that the constituency has been put together as a solid block with fairly well defined boundaries? Does anyone think that there is the community spirit necessary to blend in together or that the people are within easy reach of their representatives? There is no logic in such a division.
The Minister has not been consistent so far as this is concerned. He has blatantly disregarded the idea of making Clare a four-seater, yet when it suited him he did so in County Meath, his own constituency. I am not against the Labour Party advancing their interests in any area if they are able to do it. That is their own business. But anybody who gerrymanders any part of this country to create a ready made safe seat will not be successful.
This is a wrong approach. When we were dividing these constituencies we were not worried who got the seats. What has worried me as a rural Senator and what is still annoying me, is that rural Ireland is being deprived of just constitutional representation. The gain is being made along the eastern coast and, in particular, in the city. The Minister should tell us why Clare has not been made a four-seater just as Louth and Meath have.
There are some things we all agree on with regard to the preparation of a Bill of this kind. We agree with what the Minister said in introducing the Bill in this House and he said the same thing when introducing this Bill in the other House. The Minister said:
I have 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.
Of course, we have been pointing out that that is precisely what the Minister has not done in this Bill. In particular that is not what the Minister has done with regard to the constituencies of West Galway and Clare. However, I think we can agree—and from his remarks it is clear that Senator O'Higgins agrees—that any Minister bringing in a Bill of this kind should, as far as possible, try to preserve existing county boundaries and to preserve existing natural communities so that they are contained in a single constituency and not spread over several.
We pointed out on the Committee Stage that what had been done by the Minister with respect to Clare and West Galway was to create out of West Galway a large unwieldy constituency ranging almost from the town of Ennis to the furthest reaches of Connemara, Clifden and into the Atlantic Ocean to the island of Inisbofin. The two ends of this constituency have really nothing in common. We have had the situation where the rules as set out by the Minister were broken. The Minister did not in this case avoid breaching existing administrative boundaries. He took 12,277 people out of County Clare and pushed them into West Galway. In other words he took a large piece out of County Clare. That was quite unnecessary.
The population of County Clare, as has been pointed out by Senator Dolan, is 75,008. The minimum number required for a four-seat constituency under the narrow tolerance with which we have been working is little more than this; about 1,400 more. Therefore, county Clare by itself was nearly up to the level required under the Constitution for a four-seat constituency. The Minister set out during the Committee Stage his views on what comprised a four-seat constituency when he referred to County Louth. He said that the population of County Louth was such that, while not sufficient for four seats, it was so near as to warrant the giving of four seats to the county—that it would be unjust, unreasonable and unfair to do anything else but give four seats to County Louth.
It is worth referring to that statement of the Minister's as an earnest of the viewpoint he held in this respect. It is a viewpoint we all hold. Where you have a county with, perhaps 1,500 or 2,000 population below the minimum required by the Constitution, if at all possible, the sensible, reasonable and just thing to do is to give that county four seats.
County Clare has, in fact, a higher population than County Louth. Yet for reasons which have never been divulged, instead of making County Clare a four-seater, which would have been the sensible thing to do, the Minister cut out a large chunk of it and left three seats. Our amendment seeks to undo this unfair and unjust division of the Minister's and to establish a position where, instead of 12,277 Clare people being brought into Galway, a smaller number of Galway people—2,786—are being brought into Clare.
Galway people, as Senator Killilea has pointed out, living along the Clare border in an area known as Clare-Galway have a great deal in common with the people of Clare. Under our amendment we seek to make it a coherent, reasonably sized, compact Clare constituency with four seats almost contained within the traditional and legal boundaries of County Clare. What the Minister has done is contrary to his expressed policy. It is a totally unnecessary breach in existing administrative boundaries. That is the first thing.
The second thing he has done is to split up natural communities in Clare and Galway, contrary to what he has declared to be his policy. We all know —it has been pointed out several times in these debates—that as between the city of Galway and Connemara there is a very close, traditional bond. The people of Connemara, as a matter of course, go to Galway to do their business. Galway is, in every respect, the principal town of Connemara. However, the people of Clare who have been brought in—almost down to the town of Ennis—have nothing whatever in common with those living in the city of Galway or the people of Connemara.
The Minister, in his glib way, said on several occasions during the Committee Stage debate, that they were all Irish. Of course we are all Irishmen. It is not I who used this phrase "natural communities", it was the Minister in his opening speech. He said natural communities should not be unnecessarily split. There is clearly a natural community in the Connemara-Galway city area just as there is a natural community in Clare and the areas immediately adjoining Clare known as Clare-Galway. These have been split in a totally unnecessary way.
The Minister said, concluding his opening speech, he felt that impartial observers would agree that he had done a good job on this Bill and had achieved his objectives. I know of no impartial observer who would say this. I would be willing to dispense with the impartial observers and to suggest that Fine Gael Senators—I am not suggesting that they are impartial observers—give their views as to whether in respect of the constituencies of Clare and West Galway the Minister has succeeded in his aim of avoiding unnecessary breaches in existing county boundaries and of avoiding unnecessary divisions in natural communities.
We had a speech from Senator O'Higgins and it would not be unfair to suggest that, if his speech meant anything, it meant that in his personal and candid view this was a good amendment. The only thing he found ultimately to say was that after all this was the first time in 50 years that it was not a Fianna Fáil Government who made the division of constituencies and that there were reasons—reasons which he was wise enough not to specify—why the two constituencies had been divided in this way.
I am not going to go into questions of who will get what seat. I have no doubt whatever that in these two constituencies, even as contained in the Bill, Fianna Fáil will get a majority of the seats concerned. That is not the point. The point I would put to Fine Gael Senators opposite is: do they in their heart of hearts feel that the division of these two constituencies contained in this Bill is a reasonable or a fair one? Should we have a four-seat constituency in a county which is almost big enough to enable it, by itself, without any additions, to have four seats; or should it be cut down to a three-seater? Is it more reasonable to take 2,000 people from Galway into Clare or, as in this Bill, to take over 12,000 people from Clare into Galway? Is it reasonable to divide the natural, traditional communities of Clare and Clare-Galway and lump them into an area co-existing with furthest Connemara—people with whom they have nothing in common? Would one Fine Gael Senator say some simple, coherent and reasonable thing in favour of this division?
Our amendment does not tend to deal with the point that we made—a good point, and one which we were entitled to make—that Galway and Clare and the west in general were being deprived of seats which were their right. We are not dealing with this matter. We are dealing now, as Senator Lenihan has pointed out, with a very limited matter—a simple issue between the two constituencies of Clare and West Galway. We are not in any way trying to affect the number of seats involved. There are seven seats between the two. It is a simple matter of division. Will there be three in West-Galway and four in Clare or three in Clare and four in West Galway?
Our amendment seeks to make this division in a way which best enables us to avoid unnecessary breaches in county boundaries and to avoid unnecessary divisions in communities. Questions of party advantage simply do not come into it. We are not interested in whether the Minister is enabled by this means to elect an additional Labour Deputy. I could not care less about that. I am not interested in that topic, although it seems to interest the Minister. As far as our party are concerned, we have no fears one way or the other. On general principles a division of this kind should be fair and should be seen to be fair. Above all else, we should bear in mind the Minister's statement in his opening speech that one should try and avoid breaching existing administrative boundaries or splitting natural communities. In order to achieve this I feel that this amendment is a good one and a necessary one.
I suggest to Senators opposite that they should not just sit there silently and, ultimately, come to vote against our amendment. If they wish to vote against our amendment they should have the courage to stand up and give simple, coherent reasons—not based in any way on who is going to get the seats or anything of that kind but based on natural justice—why our amendment should not be accepted.
Like my colleagues I should like to make a final appeal to the Minister and to the Government to accept, at this the eleventh hour, our amendment in the national interest and in the interest of fair play and democracy. In our proposal the Minister and the Government have a golden opportunity to do a service to democracy and to restore the confidence of the people in the Constitution, in the Coalition Government, and some faith in Deputy Tully as a Minister, as a member of the Cabinet, as a politician and as a would-be statesman. This is an opportunity they should not fail to avail themselves of.
During the course of the long debate on this Bill here, and in the other House—and, indeed, in the media— the Minister was accused of many abuses and malpractices. He was accused of gerrymandering, discrimination, of breaching parish boundaries, county boundaries, administrative and electoral boundaries. He was accused, and rightly so, of operating the tolerance against the west and against the rural parts of the country. He was accused of dividing and splitting communities and of ignoring all the traditional, cultural, commercial and other affinities and common denominators which areas have with each other.
All this criticism was justified. In the constituency of Clare and East Galway the Minister has deliberately engaged in rigging and juggling figures in order to provide—"manufacture" would be a better term—a seat for a colleague, a member of his own party and to boost and bolster the position of his own party in Galway.
When we were debating the situation in Cork city I made the same allegation against the Minister. I asked him for a reasonable, logical explanation why Cork City and Mid-Cork should be made five-seaters. I suggested that he did this in order to consolidate the position of a colleague of his in Mid-Cork and to give another colleague of his some opportunity of gaining a seat in the city of Cork. I asked him, if that were not so, to offer us any excuse or reasonable, logical explanation. He failed to do so. It is not sufficient for the Minister to keep on repeating in this House, as he did in the other House, that if we do not like it we can lump it—that we had years of opportunity to introduce this legislation ourselves.
As Senator O'Higgins said a moment ago, no arranging of constituencies can ensure political permanence for any party. The Senator qualified that statement by saying that, ultimately, the people will decide. But, as was pointed out by Senator Dolan, the people cannot possibly decide in the next election or for many elections to come. They cannot make any decision in the case of Clare or East Galway if the Minister's proposals are accepted and if he refuses to accept our amendment.
These constituencies of Clare and East Galway as proposed by the Minister provide a glaring example of all the abuses the Minister has been accused in this House. On the other hand, I submit that our amendment shows what the Minister should have done.
Other Senators were more knowledgeable about the constituency of Clare and set out in detail their objections to the Minister's proposal. They detailed the various geographical, commercial and cultural aspects of the county which, we submit, the Minister should have taken into account. The size of the proposed new constituency of West Galway, the difficult terrain and the number of islands in that constituency should have been considered. I do not propose to deal any further with that except to demand again from the Minister an explanation why he offers this grotesque distortion of a constituency to the people of Clare.
Again I submit that, taking everything into account, our proposal is a blueprint for a perfect constituency. It has regard to all the principles and the guidelines which the Minister has repeatedly said should be taken into account and which he stated he has taken into account in dealing with all these constituencies. I want to repeat that the present proposal of the Minister is the most glaring example of his failure to take these principles and guidelines into account in dealing with the constituency of Clare as well as the constituency of Cork City and Mid-Cork.
I appeal to the Minister, to the Government and to the Parliamentary Secretary—the Parliamentary Secretary certainly does not benefit by this proposed legislation either, for the obvious reason that the Labour machine is working effectively in his constituency —to make the generous and gracious gesture of accepting our amendment here and now. If the Minister will do this, he will remove some of the stigma and bitterness felt by many people because of this Bill. There is bitterness against the Minister and against the Government. Last week I told the Minister that the fame, or the infamy, of this Bill has gone abroad. It is regarded as unjust legislation. I told that to the Minister already and I am sorry he is not here now to hear me say it again. It was described as such at a meeting which was dealing mainly with fundamental rights and electoral rights. The Minister tried to make out that the present Act was at fault; but this Bill is the worst piece of gerrymandering at present in Europe. I was told that I had no right to talk or to complain about discrimination or gerrymandering of any kind in the North of Ireland.
Again I appeal to the Minister and the Government—especially to the Fine Gael element of the Government—to accept this proposal and to undo some of the gross injustices which have been done in many parts of the country but particularly in County Clare and in the proposed constituencies of Mid-Cork and Cork City. If the Minister were to do this he would be seen to be fair and logical. He would have awakened his conscience to some sense of justice and fair play. By accepting this proposal the Minister would set a headline that could be followed by his successors in office in the future when they come to deal with similar legislation.
I should like to join with my colleagues on this side of the House in supporting this amendment. When the Leader of the House spoke here today he did not say what we on this side of the House have been waiting for over the past few weeks. We have been waiting for some answer from the Government benches in regard to the gerrymandering in the counties of Clare and Galway.
I, coming from a midland county, consider myself in a position of being able to look at Counties Clare and Galway in an unbiased way. To me, the logical thing, considering that the population of Clare has increased significantly, would be to make County Clare a four-seat constituency. Its population almost entitles Clare to four seats.
The Leader of the House said that Senator Killilea seemed to have borrowed the words "logic" and "logical" from Senator Lenihan. I think he said that because he knew our amendment was the only logical solution to the situation. The alternative to using logic in regard to arranging constituencies is to gerrymander. I feel certain that the Leader of the House knows that the Minister and the Government have carried out a great feat of gerrymandering in regard to the counties of Clare and Galway.
I can look at this in an unbiased manner. Something in the region of 13,000 voters are taken out of Clare and put in with West Galway. I cannot understand how any Minister for Local Government, irrespective of his political party, could come to the conclusion that the people of Clare would be satisfied with such an arrangement. I doubt it very much. If 13,000 voters from Offaly were asked to vote in Westmeath, Tipperary or some neighbouring county, they would not tolerate that situation. The Minister and the Government have an opportunity, even at this stage, of remedying the position in Clare, so that the electorate of County Clare can have a natural boundary.
In our amendment we have asked the Minister to take in various townlands all along the border of County Clare. There is nothing unnatural about making County Clare a four-seater. As I pointed out earlier we are still waiting for the Minister to tell us the logic of gerrymandering those two counties. During the debate here in the Seanad we have pinpointed why we feel that those two constituencies have been gerrymandered. We have given reasons for saying that our amendment should be accepted.
The only reason given for the Government not accepting our amendment is that this is the first opportunity any Government other than a Fianna Fáil Government have had of rearranging the constituencies. This is not logical. Just because the Coalition are now in Government and now have the power of rearranging the constituencies, they should not do it any way they like. That is what is happening. We have asked for some Member from the Government benches to get up and give us a logical reason why they have carved County Clare in such a manner. I doubt very much if we will get an explanation at this late stage. We cannot get any valid reason why this is so. The Minister and the Government should accept the amendment we have put before them.
I have not much more to say. There has been much repetition in this debate. All the points have been put before the Minister and the Government on the earlier Stages. In conclusion, I sincerely request the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to consider our amendment in regard to the constituencies of Clare and West Galway.
This amendment would make County Clare, with the addition of 2,786 persons from the Kinvara area of Galway, a four-seat constituency. The constituency of East Galway would be exactly the same as proposed in the Bill and would also be a four-seater. The West Galway constituency would consist of the area of existing West Galway constituency with the addition of 2,837 persons from the Clarenbridge area and would have three seats. Particulars of the proposed constituencies are as follows:—
|
Constituency |
Member |
Population |
Population per Member |
Deviation from National average |
|
Clare |
4 |
77,794 |
19,449 |
—674 |
|
East Galway |
4 |
83,176 |
20,794 |
+671 |
|
West Galway |
3 |
63,261 |
21,087 |
+964 |
The proposed constituencies would meet the constitutional requirement about equality of representation.
Last week on Committee Stage the Minister dealt pretty fully with this area and put the facts on the record of the House. Last week Senators opposite were pressing for 12 seats in these two counties, were taking the line that the area was being robbed of a seat and that all sorts of dire consequences would result from this. The Minister pointed out that the combined population of the two counties justified 11 seats only and that it would not be possible to allocate 12 seats unless a sizeable part of some other county were to be added. It is nice to see that the Opposition have now come around to accepting that the proper representation for the area is 11 seats and that this is the maximum which could be given within the accepted tolerance range.
It might be helpful to summarise the facts again. County Clare has a population of 75,008, which is too high for three seats and too low for four seats. It cannot be a constituency on its own. County Galway has a poulation of 149,223, which is too high for seven seats and too low for eight seats. County Galway cannot, therefore, stand on its own. The combined population of the two counties is 224,231, which is within the range for 11 seats.
The obvious thing is to give 11 seats, and this is what the Bill proposes to do. Even the Opposition now accept that this is the proper thing to do. There are a number of ways in which 11 seats can be distributed, but in practical terms the choice is between two three-seaters and a five-seater or two four-seaters and a three-seater. The Opposition now agree that it should be two four-seaters and one three-seater. The question then is: should Clare get three or four seats? Should people be transferred from Clare to Galway or from Galway to Clare? The Government had to have regard to the existing situation, which is that Clare is a three-seater and that people are at present transferred from Clare to Galway, not the other way around. This was the decision reached by the previous Government in almost identical circumstances in 1969.
Not at all. Three-seaters were talked about. That is a ridiculous statement.
Senator Lenihan complained that a large number of people were being transferred from Clare to Galway. Under the constituencies drawn up in 1969, 14,287 people were transferred from Clare to Galway. Under this Bill the number of people transferred is 12,277. More than 1,000 people fewer are being transferred.
The Minister pointed out in his Second Reading speech that no matter who arranged the constituencies each one would draw them up on different lines. The point is that somebody had to do it. The Minister had to come down on one side and he has made a very fair job of it.
Senator Yeats said that the arrangement in Clare and Galway does not live up to the stated aim of the Minister and that administrative boundaries should be preserved as far as possible. The position is that neither Clare nor Galway can stand on its own for constituency purposes. There must be a boundary between them and therefore there must be a breaching of constituency boundaries. It would not be logical to have 11-seat constituencies. Senator Yeats implies that when a county boundary is breached the smallest possible number of people should be transferred.
Hear, hear.
If my memory serves me right, a Fianna Fáil Minister said at one time that the opposite should be the case—that if you transfer people from a county, transfer enough of them so that they will elect a Deputy of their own. I am open to correction on that.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that proposition?
No.
That is the point. It is his Bill. He should now amend his Bill in accordance——
I am only saying what the previous Administration did. It is difficult to understand why Senators opposite should now be so strongly against an arrangement which they strongly favoured five years ago. The only part of the situation that has changed since then is that we have a different Government. It is interesting to note that this is the third proposal put down by the Opposition in relation to this area. Their present proposal is for two four-seaters and a three-seater. On Committee Stage they suggested one five-seater, one four-seater and one three-seater and in the Dáil they suggested four three-seaters.
We are trying to be helpful.
If the proposals they are now recommending had been included in the Bill, I wonder would they be attacking it and urging some other arrangement?
This Bill has been debated for over 50 hours in the Seanad. The Government feel that, if the Opposition had adopted a more constructive approach and had come up with suggestions for marginal changes such as they are now recommending at an earlier stage, they would have found the Minister very reasonable about suggestions of this kind. But they cannot have it both ways. If they are as obstructive as possible they cannot really expect a Minister to go out of his way to please them.
The Parliamentary Secretary agrees then that this is a constructive amendment? The Minister agrees it is?
The Leader of the House says it is constructive.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Does Senator Lenihan wish to reply?
In view of what has just been said at the end of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, perhaps between now and when we resume, there might be some amendment from the Government to meet us on our amendment on Report Stage.
It is flouting the whole tradition of this House, and indeed it flouts the whole notion of having any sort of parliamentary tradition in this country, when one gets an admission by the Parliamentary Secretary in a prepared statement, which has obviously been approved by the Minister that this amendment is a constructive one and an amendment which should be adopted. It has been conclusively proved that the least violence would be done to the traditional natural area of East Galway and the traditional administrative area of Clare by adopting our amendment. Our amendment does not in any way imply an admission of agreement in regard to constituency sizes elsewhere. Whoever prepared that brief was totally wrong. We merely adopted the parliamentary procedure of, having been beaten on Committee Stage, bringing forward a Report Stage amendment which did not conflict with the amendments on which we were beaten. Bringing forward this Report Stage amendment in regard to West Galway and Clare in no way takes from our very profound opposition to what has been done in East Galway and indeed done in many other constituencies, including the whole Cork region.
Business suspended at 5 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.
I should like to say, following on the argument I was pursuing before we adjourned, that this amendment or group of amendments we have put forward here on this specific issue were designed on the basis that they represented a constructive approach, if I might say so, an incontrovertible approach from the point of view of logic and reason. This admission has already been made by the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply when he stated that the amendments did represent a constructive approach in this matter but that the Minister and the Government felt that because of our attitude on earlier stages of this discussion in the Dáil he did not feel disposed to accepting the proposals at this stage.
That represents to me an extraordinary attitude of mind. If you follow that attitude of mind to its logical conclusion we should have no second House here at all; once minds are fixed at a certain stage, then minds are fixed and closed absolutely to any logic or any reason that is advanced thereafter. That line of argument I candidly find very disturbing. If we have proved our point on this Report Stage amendment, flowing from a group of Committee Stage amendments which were on the same line of logic as regards to these two counties, surely in any deliberative parliamentary assembly there should be acknowledgement of that fact from the Government? The acknowledgment is quite simple, defer the Report Stage for a week, a day or even an hour or for whatever length of time the Minister or Government would think appropriate so that an amendment could be adopted or adapted to meet the amendment which we have put down.
The Minister and the official side in the Department of Local Government and the Parliamentary Secretary have acknowledged in the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary that what we now advance is a constructive amendment, that they would have adopted it if it was advanced at an earlier stage. That is the purport of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. It is an infantile argument— and I am surprised that it should appear in a prepared statement—that because it did not appear at an earlier stage and because Fianna Fáil did not advance this argument which is now being advanced by us on Report Stage, it is not valid to accept it at this stage.
That runs counter to the purpose of the Seanad and having various Stages for Bills. The purpose of having two Houses of the Oireachtas is that at a stage such as the Report Stage, if whoever represents the Government of the day sees a reasonable and constructive amendment being put forward he is given a chance to mend his hand. The purpose of our sitting here on a Report Stage of a Bill is to get from the Government of the day the admission that if there is something constructive in what is offered to them by the Seanad it will be adopted by the Minister. We have had occasions during the present Oireachtas when the Leader of the House and the Minister have met views advanced by the Opposition and they have been incorporated into subsequent amendments. This has taken place during the introduction of several pieces of legislation over the past 12 months.
What I have already stated in proposing this group of amendments on the Report Stage is accentuated and emphasised and made more reasonable and constructive in the light of what the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary, and the officials who backed them up with advice and expert knowledge, have now given to the Seanad in the form of a prepared statement read out here by the Parliamentary Secretary. This is obviously distilled advice coming from all those sources, and from this distilled advice it is clear the view taken by the Administration and the Government that this is a highly reasonable group of amendments and that there should be four seats in County Clare and three seats in West Galway.
This applies to all of us here, not just to Fianna Fáil Senators: are we going to play out a charade of hypocrisy in which there cannot be accepted by the Government of the day a responsible and legitimate amendment? Are we all here participating like puppets on a string in a charade which means nothing? If we do put forward an amendment which is constructive and reasonable and would have been put forward at an earlier stage, surely that is the purpose of having a Report Stage. The purpose of having two Houses of the Oireachtas is, firstly, to have the Seanad examine what has been passed by the Dáil, proposing constructive amendments and improvements. If on Report Stage it is stated by the Minister from his brief and read by him, not by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the Report Stage group of amendments represent a reasonable and constructive approach to this Bill, which would have been adopted if we put them forward earlier, this is the most ludicrous argument ever advanced. It suggests that if the Opposition, which is the Fianna Fáil Party at present, neglect or omit or do not put forward a particular point of view at an earlier stage we are to be debarred from putting forward that point of view on Report Stage. This argument does not stand up at all. The purpose of having a Report Stage amendment in any House of Parliament is to consider in detail in a constructive light matter which may have been omitted by either the Government or the Opposition. On the Parliamentary Secretary's own admission this is an omission that needs to be rectified, and I appeal to the Government to recognise that there has been constructive opposition here from this side of the House. We would like to take up the Parliamentary Secretary on the last two paragraphs of the statement read out by him.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Boland, John.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Fitzgerald, Jack.
- Harte, John.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Toole, Patrick.
- Kennedy, Fintan.
- Kilbride, Thomas.
- Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- McCartin, John Joseph.
- Mannion, John M.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Owens, Evelyn.
- Russell, George Edward.
- Sanfey, James W.
- Walsh, Mary.
- Whyte, Liam.
Níl
- Aylward, Bob.
- Brennan, John J.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick (Fad).
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Dolan, Seamus.
- Garrett, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Yeats, Michael B.
Tellers:—Tá, Senators Sanfey and J. Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Garrett.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.
Bill received for final consideration.
Agreed to take Fifth Stage today.