Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Apr 1974

Vol. 77 No. 13

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

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Lenihan

I propose to be very brief on this. It is not usual to oppose a normal legislation on the Final Stage. We are doing so here because we regard this as an abnormal legislation. It is legislation that is being introduced in a blatent attempt to gerrymander the country in the interest of perpetuation of power by two groups of people who now form the Government.

It is easy enough for people on the other side of the House to say in the 1969 Electoral Act the same process was carried out. It was not. The difference is very real in this instance. The basic difference here is that the plan has been a total plan designed to ensure in Dublin city and county a three-seat situation, where Labour and Fine Gael will obtain two seats out of three as against Fianna Fáil.

First of all, I want to issue a warning to the Government that that is not going to work. The coming local elections and the general mood of public opinion against them will ensure that that does not work. I am only giving it as an example of the attitude of mind. I, as a practical politician, and most of my colleagues are in the same category in the group here in the Seanad, would go along with that on the basis that we can take on in Dublin city and county this artificial grouping and beat them in the next general election. I am talking about the attitude of mind behind the thinking which drafted this Bill. It is shown to an even meaner extent when we consider some of the rural constituencies. At least in the Dublin city and county constituencies, although the objective is quite clear, there is a gamble element in it. They are willing to take us on on the basis that Fine Gael and Labour can each of them secure two seats out of three. We will take them on on that and beat them.

The attitude of mind involved in drafting this legislation is seen at its meanest when one comes down to consider the rest of the country. In Cork city, in an urban area exactly equivalent to the urban areas in Dublin, they were not willing to take the chance of having two three-seat constituencies and decided instead to have an artificial situation of a four-seat constituency. There is a large slice carved out of Cork city and moved into the totally rural area of Mid-Cork in order to create an artificial five-seat constituency. That is where the attitude of mind was made quite plain.

The attitude of mind was further made plain in regard to the whole rearrangement of the west of Ireland— by that I mean west of the Shannon from Clare to Donegal. The rearrangement there was designed for the purpose of reducing the natural representation that the people in rural Ireland had and to which they were entitled, and they reduced it overall by two seats. In particular and most blatantly they reduced the areas of Clare and County Galway by one seat, again in the interest of depriving people entitled to their representation in the Dáil of a seat—two seats overall.

We have discussed this for long enough on Committee Stage already. The Seanad knows our point of view on Report Stage. If the Government wanted to have a really interesting political debate and interesting issues to present to the people in the next general election, so that people could make a clear choice between the Government and Opposition, they had a chance to make the whole country three-seat constituencies. If they were willing to take the gamble of being beaten in Dublin city and county, equally they could have taken that gamble throughout the whole country and said: "Right, if we want a clean decision by the people, if we want a Fine Gael-Labour Coalition in Government to parade themselves throughout the country for what they are, we will take Fianna Fáil on in three-seat constituencies throughout Ireland as well as in Dublin city and county".

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair would be glad if the Senator would not dwell on that point. The alternatives which the Government did not take are not open to discussion on the Fifth Stage. We are concerned only with the Bill and its contents.

Mr. Lenihan

What the Government did on the Bill—and this is what I am going to devote my time to now —was to run away from the situation completely by creating a dishonest position: in Dublin city and county, they created three-seat constituencies on the basis that by Fine Gael and Labour transferring votes to each other they would get two seats out of three. But they refused to face up to that challenge in the country as a whole. Instead this Bill contains a scheme of subterfuge designed to squelch Labour forever as a national party and to ensure that, with an exception here and there, Fine Gael would dominate the situation.

We discussed today one of the areas in which they thought they might sneak a seat for Labour and give Labour a bonus apart from Dublin city and county. One way they thought they could give Labour a bonus was by deforming County Clare so as to allow a Labour candidate here in the Seanad with Galway connections to go forward for them.

Similarly, in relation to Limerick city and county, the Labour Party within the Government had their way, apparently. The logic of the situation in an urban area like Limerick city is to do what was done in Dublin city but what was not done in Cork city, that is, to have a three-seat constituency in Limerick city. A four-seat constituency in the administrative county of Limerick outside Limerick city could have been created and a three-seat constituency in Limerick city could have been created, as has been done in Dublin city. But, again, that would not have suited the particular Labour Party representative in Limerick city.

There is a total absence of consistency. It is on the basis of lack of principle and constituency that I want to attack this Bill on Fifth Stage. We put down here a series of amendments Indeed, the Leader of the House, Senator O'Higgins, acknowledged today that there was a consistent pattern in our amendments. They followed a distinct pattern of principle and in every one of them we were following a definite line.

On Committee was suggested nine three-seat constituencies for Dublin city and four and five-seat constituencies in County Dublin. We did this because of our consistency in adhering to principle, a quality that is absent in the Government proposals. If there are Government proposals incorporated in the Bill to have three-seat constituencies in Dublin, as an urban area, then logically there should be three-seat constituencies in Cork and a three-seat constituency in Limerick. The same applies to Waterford. This, again, is lack of thinking. Here, again, no judicial tribunal would hold with the attitude being adopted by the Government in this Bill.

However, previous legislative measures of this kind may be criticised, in no Electoral Bill since the formation of the State has there been such a drastic and draconian rearrangement of the country without any regard to principle. I do not mind a rearrangement if there is a basic point of principle in it. As I suggested, if the Government wanted three-seat constituencies in Dublin why not have them across the board in all urban areas? Why not have a system of principle involved? In the 1969 Electoral Bill, which was severely criticised, there was a scheme of four-seat constituencies in Dublin and three-seat constituencies in rural Ireland. By and large that was the scheme of things.

Here there is a lack of consistency all the way. There are three-seat constituencies in Dublin, a four- and a five-seat constituency in Cork and Mid-Cork, a four-seat constituency in a city area and a three-seat constituency in a rural area as far as Limerick is concerned. As far as Clare and Galway are concerned there is a total lack of consistency in having two artificial four-seat constituencies and a three-seat constituency in a rural area. Where is the consistency there? There is a three-seat constituency in the rural area of West Limerick; a four-seat constituency in the urban area of Limerick City and a small bit of rural East Limerick attached to it; a five-seat constituency enclosing a third of the city of Cork and rural Cork, with which it has nothing to approximate; a four-seat constituency in the rest of Cork city; and three-seat constituencies in Dublin city.

To have a logical pattern is the only approach that can be defended as being reasonably fair. We strike at the basis of democracy in this country when we bring in a Bill such as this, which is totally unprincipled and for which nobody in this or in the other House has advanced any basis of principle. Obviously, the measure has been designed strictly on the basis, to use a crude expression, of screwing down Fianna Fáil. That will not work but it is a petty, mean attitude of mind. That attitude of mind is exemplified by the fact that when, even at this late stage, we bring forward here in the Seanad a totally reasonable amendment on Report Stage, we find that that is not adopted.

Finally, I should like to repeat what I have already said on Report Stage: there is no purpose in having legislation put through this House and having me or any other Member of the Seanad devoting our time and our energies to trying to improve a Bill here and have reasonable debate on it if in seeking to achieve that we meet nothing but hectoring and rhetoric and nothing of a constructive or logical nature to answer constructive points put forward by us. We believe on this side of the House in the importance of having legislation openly and frankly debated here. We would like to see in the preparation of that legislation and in the passage of it through the House a reasonable degree of attention and regard paid to it by the Government of the day.

I think we on this side of the House have shown up the fact that there was no intention by the Government, good, bad or indifferent, to pay any heed to us. From that point of view it has been an enormous waste of time. I am very sad at this stage to have participated in it because the Government might just have easily introduced the guillotine within one day of having a meeting of Seanad Éireann. It would have been a more honest approach. It would have been a more honest indication to the public of what they intend if there was a guillotine motion introduced here within 24 hours of everybody coming here. Instead we have had a very constructive Second Stage debate, a very constructive Committee Stage debate, a Report Stage debate and now a Final Stage debate. We have gone through the whole legislative process here and have advanced reasoned arguments on every Stage. On the admission of the Leader of the House and the Minister this has been the case; but, as far as achievement is concerned, we have nothing to show. Even the Parliamentary Secretary on Report Stage acknowledged that our amendment is constructive and reasonable.

If that is the case then the Government had better do something about abolishing the Seanad and, indeed, abolishing the Dáil and simply introduce some very practical guillotine measure. They had had assemblies of this kind in Portugal and Spain over the years where all you have in the appropriate totalitarian parliaments are a group of "yes" men. We are supposed to be here in a democratic parliament where we debate measures of legislation, where there is an enormous amount of time and expense, not just on the part of Members of the Dáil and the Seanad but enormous amount of time and expense to provide the official back-up for the preparation of Bills and so on. There is the Parliamentary staff associated with this group of buildings. All these people are involved in pursuing the democratic forces. Are the democratic forces to be debased in this manner, with not one single comma of an amendment over a whole sheet of amendments offered to this House? In effect the Minister for Local Government told us here last week that he was going to chop everything anyway. If that is to be the purpose of our Assembly there is not much point in any of us being here. The whole purpose of the exercise might have been better served by a guillotine within 24 hours of a sitting in line with the guillotine applied in the Dáil.

Mr. Yeats

We must all agree with what Senator Lenihan has said in that, while there is no consistency at all in the way in which the constituencies have been arranged, nonetheless there is a very strong vein of what one might describe as political consistency running through the Bill and running behind all the changes and arrangements made in this Bill.

It is very easy to impute political motives to others, to suggest that in making a particular provision the Minister had party political aims in view. It is not necessary to impute or suggest motives in regard to this Bill. The Bill speaks with the utmost candour. No matter where you look in the country, no matter which part of the Schedule to this Bill you examine, no matter how you assess the methods used to organise the 42 constituencies laid out in the Schedule to this Bill, you find there is a strong vein of sheer opportunism involved.

Starting off, for example, in our own city of Dublin we have in all of this area just one four-seat constituency. All the other are three-seaters. There are and will be until the next general election eight four-seat constituencies in the city and county of Dublin but only one is to remain. We find of course, that of those eight the one chosen was the only one that could not be changed without either gaining Fianna Fáil a seat or losing the present Government a seat. In the present constituency of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown there are three Coalition supporters and one Fianna Fáil. To reduce it to three would lose a Coalition seat. To increase it to five would add a Fianna Fáil seat. Therefore, from the Minister's own partisan viewpoint, it had to be left alone. Even accepting his own view that 43 seats was the correct number for the Dublin area and that therefore this involved one four-seat constituency, even accepting this any one of the eight constituencies could have been chosen. But we find that the only one of the original eight that remains is the one best suited to the Minister's own narrow party purpose.

Looking further afield we find that of the 42 constituencies at present in existence there were 21 which, taken by themselves, could have been left unchanged. We all know that although a constituency may in itself be within the constitutional limitations, it could be affected by adjoining constituencies. We accept this. It would be unreasonable therefore to expect that all 21 of these constituencies, even though they were within the correct constitutional population ratio, would be left unchanged. We find that the Minister has changed nine of these completely and left 12 as they were. It is no surprise at all to find out when we examine the nine that, as mentioned already in the debate on this Bill, in not one of these nine constituencies, which from the Minister's viewpoint were unsatisfactory, is there a Coalition majority. Nor were we surprised to find that of the 12 that were left unchanged, eight had Coalition majorities and were, therefore, satisfactory from the point of view of the Minister.

In Clare and Galway, where the population has increased during the past five years, seats are being taken away. In areas of the west where the population has declined rapidly, such as a decline of 6,000 in Mayo and of 6,000 in the adjoining counties of Sligo, Leitrim and Roscommon, the number of seats was left unchanged. It is no surprise to find this because, as we know, the areas of Clare and Galway where Fianna Fáil were strong but where the population was increasing are those in which the Minister chose to take off seats. The other areas where the population is decreasing and the Minister has maintained representation are those in which his own party or his own Coalition partners of Fine Gael are strong.

You have this pattern consistently right through this Bill. But perhaps the most grotesque instance of where the Minister failed to fulfil his proper constitutional duty in this Bill, which was not that of adapting constituencies for pure narrow party purposes, is the county of Cork. If one examines the constituencies set out in this Bill for the county of Cork one finds that, taking the boundaries as a whole, no change is made on the previous redistribution. There has been a great deal of criticism of the former redistribution by Mr. Kevin Boland, allegations not in any way justified by facts. I do not know whether there was any gerrymander in the county of Cork on the previous occasion, certainly no such allegations have been made. In any event, the Minister in framing the borders of Cork North-East, Cork South-West and Mid-Cork, left the boundaries exactly as they were. Every little townland that was included five years ago is included again, the reason being of course that no changes were needed.

The population of the constituencies of Cork city and county had remained almost unchanged. The only thing that was required was a switch of perhaps 2 per cent of the population of Cork city into adjoining constituencies, because the population of the city had risen and therefore it was slightly outside the constitutional limits. Instead of doing this the Minister, having left all the other boundaries unchanged, took an enormouse section right in the centre of Cork city and put it into Mid-Cork for the sole purpose, as far as one can see, of trying to establish a possible quota for a Labour candidate in Cork city. Of all the changes made in this Bill this was the most outrageous. There has been no effort made either by the Minister or by any Senator opposite to justify this, or indeed to justify any of the sections in this Bill or any of the entries in the Schedule. One of the most remarkable things about the debate in this House on this Bill is that we on this side have put up reasoned arguments and amendments. We have discussed this Bill, section by section, line by line, entry by entry. Senators opposite, with a few exceptions, have remained silent. It seems quite clear from their attitude that, while they hope to gain something politically from this Bill, they feel that it is utterly impossible to defend it as an instrument of justice. They know as well as we do that the Minister in this Bill has not fulfilled his constitutional duty. The Minister has not in any way acted as he should act, in a quasi-judicial rôle. His duty in regard to a Bill of this kind is to fulfill the constitutional requirements and to make whatever changes may be required. Above all, they know as well as we do, that the Minister has not in any sense fulfilled the task he claims to have set himself. In his opening speech in both this House and the other House the Minister said he had done his best to avoid breaching the boundaries of counties and city boroughs and to avoid splitting communities of people. Every section of this Bill shows that he has not done that and the long continued silence of Senators opposite shows more conclusively than anything I can say that they think the same.

Mr. McGowan

When this Bill passes—and it looks as if it will pass without any recognition whatsoever having been given to the most reasoned arguments put forward—I should like to suggest that the Minister sends copies of this Bill to all the political parties in the North of Ireland. They are watching with interest what is happening to this piece of legislation here. It is of special interest to them. They have had to live in the North with gerrymandering and discrimination for the past 50 years. I know that they regard this piece of legislation, and the manner in which it is being pushed through, as a backward step. The Minister has turned back the clock 50 years. He will not get off by saying that the Fianna Fáil Government did the same when they revised the constituencies.

This Government, when they came to power, put themselves forward as the masters of fair play and as the talent and brains of the country. They promised to open a new era in Irish politics. Certainly, as one who lives quite close to the Border, I know that the root cause of all of the trouble there has been either gerrymandering or discrimination. If those two causes were removed from the North then the whole northern problem would be solved automatically overnight. At a time when people are desperately trying to bring about a solution and repair the damage that has been done by discrimination and gerrymandering, here we are adopting legislation that is a disgrace to anybody who would claim to be part of a democracy.

This Bill, no matter what the speakers opposite say or what the political commentators say, will be seen as a measure which those involved in politics in the Six Counties would not touch with a 40-foot pole. The Minister has put up the barriers, turned back the clock and made it politically impossible for reasonably-minded people in the North of Ireland to come in and join with the South. The Minister has demonstrated that this is the most selfish legislation any government in the world, except perhaps a dictatorship, could put forward. No Opposition amendment can be considered. The Minister and the Government will regret the day that they bulldozed this legislation through the House. It will be thrown at them by those with whom they will be anxious to compromise and unite. These people are not foolish enough politically to join with a party that would stand for that.

Mr. Dolan

I should like to say a few words in regard to rural Ireland. I should like the people of rural Ireland to know that this Government have, by their manipulation of these constituencies, county boundaries and so on deprived the people of the western seaboard of representation, counties which, because of their numerical strength, would have had sufficient people to ensure that 30 Deputies could be elected, and yet by this manipulation the number has been cut down to 28. There is a loss of two Deputies in that part of Ireland, a part of Ireland that needs representation in both Houses of the Oireachtas and needs, if anything, excessive representation.

In Roscommon it takes 21,000 to elect a Deputy but in Dublin city it only takes 19,000. I want to register a protest in this regard. I should also like to register a protest regarding the fact that we in the province of Ulster are losing two seats in this transaction. The Minister has made no attempt whatever to justify in any way why he did not make Cavan a three-seat constituency and Monaghan a three-seat constituency. The Minister has refused point blank to accept any of the amendments we have put forward. He has also carved up County Clare which, with the addition of 2,000 voters, could have been a four-seater; but the Minister has made it a three-seater.

The Minister has not been consistent in any of his arguments. He has treated shabbily and with scorn all our amendments. Indeed, he said at one stage of the debate that he was not prepared to alter one syllable. That is the type of treatment we have received. We are not worried about it politically. We, as a party, will take them on in the next election. What we are worried about is the fact that, because of the manner in which the constituencies are now divided, the people of rural Ireland will be losing representation irrespective of whether they are for Fine Gael, Labour or Fianna Fáil. We do not like to see the rural areas of Ireland losing representation in the national Parliament.

Mr. E. Ryan

If an independent commission is introduced in the near future, as has been promised by the Minister, this will be the last Electoral Bill of this type to come before the Houses of the Oireachtas. To that extent the Minister will have a place in history as having introduced the last Electoral Bill. It seems to me a great pity that, if that is the case, his image should be such a poor one when this Bill is looked back on. It will probably be believed in years to come that a commission was set up because of the inequities and distortions in this Bill. If that is the case, certainly the Minister's image will not be a very good one. When I talk about a commission, of course, I am merely relying on what the Minister has said. As I mentioned earlier the gap between what the present Government say they will do and what they do gets wider and wider as every month passes.

It is a pity this Bill does such injustice to the sparsely populated rural areas. This is a point that has been made again and again but it cannot be made too many times. The Bill merely increases the difficulties of communication which exist between Deputies and their constituents. An opportunity was there to do otherwise and in spite of all the arguments which were put forward advantage was not taken of that opportunity.

It is a shame that such a gross injustice should have been done to Clare. It has not been done for any good reason but merely to help a lame political dog over the stile. It is deplorable that Cork should have been carved up in the crude and completely unnecessary way in which it was done. Again, this is an example of something which appears to have no justification and which was quite unnecessary. It is one thing where some change has to be made and one does not agree with the particular change that was made, but in this case it was a question of a change being made where no change at all was necessary. For that reason it is particularly deplorable.

It is quite extraordinary and inconsistent, lacking any principle or policy or pattern, that whereas in Dublin three-seaters seem to be imperative and all the arguments were in favour of them, in the second largest city in the country where the same arguments should have applied, apparently three-seaters were all wrong and the three-seaters that were there were removed. It is impossible to justify that, to explain it or to stand over it. The explanation of it is a sordid one to which the Minister could not admit.

There was an opportunity in this Bill to allow proportional representation work in a fuller way than it has in the past in certain areas. Although I was not an enthusiast for PR, those who were enthusiasts, and that includes the two parties forming the present Government, and the Minister who brought in this Bill, did not avail of this opportunity. This could have been done in Dublin by having bigger constituencies. Instead, the exact opposite has been done. We have three-seaters in Dublin, the one place where the essence of PR, that is a situation of having large constituencies and letting smaller sections of the community have representation, was not availed of for reasons which have not been explained to the satisfaction of any "impartial observer"—to use a phrase the Minister introduced.

There is no use going over all these things again except to deplore the injustices and inconsistencies which run right through this Bill. In the long run what has been done in having three-seaters all over Dublin is something to which I do not object because I do not enthuse about PR and it will have a very healthy effect on the political system in this country. When the tide of reaction against the Government which is already running reaches a flood, there is no doubt that in almost every constituency in Dublin Fianna Fáil will get two out of three seats. Political commentators in the future will wonder what a Labour Minister of the day was doing in having three-seaters in Dublin. By then it will be too late.

Mr. Brosnan

Having failed to persuade the Minister and the Government to accept our Fourth Stage amendment, and having heard what the Minister, through his Parliamentary Secretary, said and admitted today, it appears to be a waste of time, my time, and the time of all the Members of this House to say much more. It now transpires, in the opinion of the Minister and of the Leader of this House, that our proposal relating to Clare was a reasonable, reasoned and constructive one, as also were some of the other amendments proposed by us. Indeed the Parliamentary Secretary, reading from what was obviously a prepared brief, admitted that the Minister would have considered them if these amendments were put forward at an earlier stage. I do not know what he meant by an earlier stage— whether he meant in the other House or at an earlier stage in this House. He stated that it was now too late to consider them. As Senator Lenihan very eloquently and correctly pointed out, this is an appalling reflection on this House. I endorse every word Senator Lenihan said about the Minister's admission. What the Parliamentary Secretary said, on behalf of the Minister, was an insult to this House and to every Member on every side.

The Minister agreed that he would have considered amendments which only involved marginal changes, as in the case of our amendment today. I should like to ask, as I have asked already, why in that case the Minister did not accept our amendments in relation to the city of Cork, where, without any breach whatsoever of the borough boundary, he could have retained the two three-seater constituencies in Cork city.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Minister would probably be out of order if he answered because it is not in the Bill.

Mr. Brosnan

The same argument would apply to Mid-Cork. The same argument applies even more cogently to the amendment which was debated here today. I am the only Senator from that area who has dealt with this matter in the Seanad. We have a Senator from the city of Cork, Senator Quinlan, and I should like to hear his view on the making of a five-seater in the city of Cork. I am sure he will not disagree with what I have said and with what many other people, including Members of the Oireachtas, have said. I asked the Minister repeatedly last week to offer a reasonable explanation for what he did in Cork, and in replying he did not offer me or anybody else any explanation, even an unreasonable one. He refused completely to address himself to the topic. He made reference to Deputy Molloy when he was Minister, but he refused to deal with the specific questions I put to him.

I am now asking the Minister if there is any explanation for the way in which he arranged these three constituencies other than to provide a seat for a member of his own party and to try to consolidate the position of his own party in those three constituencies. The general public and the people of the constituencies involved are entitled to some kind of an answer and explanation.

Mr. McGlinchey

When this Bill is passed tonight no doubt toasts will be drunk in the Fine Gael and Labour rooms of this House and in Glengall Street, Belfast. Fine Gael and Labour, and the supporters of Glengall Street, have a common interest in this legislation. It is the most disgraceful legislation introduced since the foundation of the State. It has been introduced by a week, inept, undemocratic Government, whose only purpose in putting this legislation before this House is to provide the means by which their weakness can be overlooked by the electorate and by which they can be re-elected in time to come.

This legislation was put before us by a Government which could be described as a Labour tail wagging a Fine Gael dog. One has only to study the legislation to realise that in Dublin city and Dún Laoghaire, the Labour tail wagged effectively but that in rural Ireland it gave way to the Fine Gael Dog. In Dublin city and county the Minister has taken the precaution of ensuring a strong bonus for Labour but in rural Ireland he has given the bonus—he thinks—to Fine Gael.

Before the Fine Gael Members of the Oireachtas drink too many toasts tonight I should like to ask them to study very carefully what this legislation could mean to them. The wealthy element in the Fine Gael—and there are many—only want to be associated with Labour until such time as it becomes unnecessary. As far as they are concerned, the shorter the term the more suitable it would be. The Minister for Local Government in this legislation is attempting to ensure that never again in the history of this State will Fianna Fáil get an overall majority. But the Minister is shrewd enough to realise that Fine Gael only agreed to an alliance with Labour as a very last resort; and if they had any possible chance of securing an overall majority on their own they would not touch the Labour Party with a 40-foot pole.

The Labour Party know this, the Minister for Local Government knows this. So we find in this legislation that he has taken steps to ensure that not along will Fianna Fáil find it difficult to secure an overall majority in the future but that Fine Gael will never get such a majority. Labour have written into this legislation a charter guaranteeing that if there ever is a Government other than Fianna Fáil elected in this country they must be part of it. I would say that despite this legislation, despite the gerrymandering that has occurred, Fianna Fáil will face the electorate with confidence in the future and with confidence that the people of this county will give their true and just answer to the Government for this misdeed and their other misdeeds during the last 12 months. I also would say with confidence that as a result of this legislation Fine Gael will never be elected as a single party Government.

It is a pity that in the year 1974 any Government in this country should consider it necessary to put before the Houses of the Oireachtas undemocratic legislation such as we have before us tonight. I believe that not alone is it undermocratic but that it is unconstitutional. In his speech on the Second Stage the Minister stated:

The population of each constituency shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.

It is obvious from studying the explanatory memorandum issued to us that that is not the case, that the population of the constituencies vary drastically. The Minister also stated:

It is generally accepted that these provisions mean that it is not sufficient to have equality of representation at the time of the 12 yearly review. This equality must, as far as practicable, exist at all times.

I submit that that equality of representation which may have existed when the census was taken in 1971, does not exist today as a result of the growth in population in certain centres, particularly in the Sligo town area and in County Donegal. It is not stated anywhere in the High Court ruling of 1971 that that equality must exist only at times when the census is taken. That ruling clearly states that that equality must exist at all times.

If this case was tested in the High Court it could be proved beyond doubt that in the Sligo-Leitrim constituency, for example, the population has risen to such an extent that the ratio per Member is in excess of the 21,123 persons laid down by an earlier High Court ruling. In Sligo-Leitrim the population ratio per Member is 21,010, which is only 113 people fewer than the maximum allowed by the High Court. This means that if the population of Sligo town increased by more than 300 people since 1971 the ratio per Member today has gone beyond the maximum. When one considers the growth of Sligo town, the industrialisation of that town in 1971, 1972 and 1973 and the number of new factories provided there, it would not be difficult to achieve an increase in population in that area of more than 300 people. I am convinced that if the numbers were counted now it could easily be established that the population of the Sligo-Leitrim constituency has increased by at least 1,000 people in three years.

The same situation applies in County Donegal where for years, since the Famine, our greatest curse was that of emigration. During the last three of four years there has been a marked changed of pattern. This has taken place for two reasons. First, the availability of more jobs and the desire of more people to remain at home. Secondly, the economic situation across the water and the lack of employment there has discouraged people from emigrating. If we look at the figure of the population ratio per Member for the Donegal constituency we will notice that the Minister has laid down that it takes 21,102 people to elect a Deputy. That is only 21 people fewer per Deputy than the maximum laid down by the High Court rulling.

This means that there has been a population increase of more than 105 in County Donegal, that the population ratio per Member exceeds that provided by the High Court and that this legislation, so far as County Donegal is concerned, is unconstitutional. Since this census was taken in 1971 there has been a population explosion in County Donegal. It is difficult to assess this from the register of electors because of the availability of the vote for 18 years olds.

Even taking this into account it is clear that the population of this constituency has increased from 500 to 1,000 people, approximately, since this census was taken. If that is so I suggest that the legislation before us tonight is unconstitutional. I mentioned this point during the Committee Stage of this Bill but I failed to get a comment on it. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

It is regrettable that legislation such as this should be considered necessary by any Irish Government in 1974. I hope, no matter what Government is in office in future, that this is the last time such legislation will ever be put before us. It is a definite attempt by the Government to gerrymander the constituencies in a most ruthless, arrogant and undemocratic way. The only purpose was to ensure better representation for themselves in the future.

I feel that the excuses made by supporters of this Government are simply not acceptable. It is categorically and emphatically wrong to say that this legislation is necessary because of the Constitutional requirements of this country and because of the High Court decision in 1961. It is true to say that legislation of some kind or another is necessary. It is very wrong to attempt to confuse the people of this island by saying that the Constitution of the land laid down that two seats should be taken from the Western seaboard of this land and given to Dublin city. The only reason two seats have been given to Dublin city is because the Minister and the Labour Party believe that those two seats will go to Labour. The only reason why Dublin city has been turned into 14 three-seat constituencies is because the Minister, the Labour Party and their allies in Fine Gael are convinced that this Government in the future will win two out of three seats in each constituency. If they had been left as four-seat constituencies the result in most cases would have been two seats for Fianna Fáil and two seats for the Government. This would have been a democratic result and would indeed have reflected the wishes of the Dublin city electorate. The voting pattern or percentages between Fianna Fáil and the parties comprising the Government would have very little between them.

For Fianna Fáil to win two seats out of four would have been a fair and democratic result. This Government, in order to maintain themselves in office and in order to ensure reelection on the next outing, obviously were not interested in democracy. They were interested only in getting in Dublin city a two-to-one result, which is completely out of proportion with the voting patterns.

Once again I make a strong and emphatic protest at the reduction in value of the country man's votes in comparison with those of the people living in Dublin. In order to secure this gerrymander and to give three seats to Dublin South-East the Minister was fit to adopt a population ratio per Member which is practically the minimum allowed by the High Court ruling. We find in the three-seat constituency of Dublin South-East that the Minister and the Government are satisfied to have 19,292 people electing a Deputy in that constituency.

In my constituency of County Donegal it will take 21,102 people to elect a Deputy. It will take almost 2,000 people more in County Donegal to elect a single Deputy than in the constituency of Dublin South-East. This, to my mind, suggests that in County Donegal almost 10,000 people have been disenfranchised by this Government. The Minister has previously denied that this is so, but the explanatory memorandum is there, the figures are there and the population ratio per Member for each constituency is there for all to see. Anyone with an sense of fair play and justice must acknowledge that it is painfully obvious in the city of Dublin, in many constituencies, it takes 2,000 people fewer to elect a Deputy than in the north-western portion of this country.

That has been done for one reason and one reason only. It was done to give this Government a two-to-one majority in this city. The Minister has stated that the electorate judge a Government on their record and that if they approved a good Government they would be elected again. The Minister said that if the people believed they were a bad Government they would be defeated. The Minister is in public life much longer than I am. He knows, and I know, that in this country the family voting pattern remains the same. While there are signs that this is changing in regard to the younger generation the facts are that throughout the length and breadth of this country many people still vote the way their fathers and mothers voted. Many people still vote the way their grandfathers and grandmothers voted. The Minister must know that in his own constituency in County Meath there are people who would vote for Labour and vote for him no matter how bad this present Government prove to be.

While I say that there is definite evidence that the pattern is changing in regard to the younger generation, it will take another decade in this country for any dramatic changes in this field. I believe the Minister knows that as well as I do. The Minister knows perfectly well that in the city of Dublin the voting patterns will not change all that dramatically, although I would say that they will change more quickly here than in the rest of the country. For that reason the Minister is smug and happy to have a situation where the constituencies, particularly in Dublin city, are so devised and divided in three-seat constituencies that they ensure a two-to-one majority for his Government.

Objections to the proposal to have Dún Laoghaire a four-seater constituency have been raised many times during the course of this debate. The excuse given at all times has been that 43 cannot be divided by three evenly. Forty-two could have been divided by three. While I realise it would not be in order for me to discuss anything that is not in this legislation at this state——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Hear, Hear, I am glad you realise it.

Mr. McGlinchey

——and while I realise I cannot develop the point I would like to make, nevertheless I am entitled to lodge a strong protest because the constituency of Dún Laoghaire has been made a four-seat constituency. It has been left a four-seat constituency because the Minister and his Government realised that if they were to follow the pattern in the rest of the city of Dublin a definite loss for either Fine Gael or Labour would have been recorded. They knew, in their wisdom, that Fianna Fáil could not possibly have lost in this constituency and that the loss would have been a definite one for either Fine Gael or Labour.

It was not one of the Minister's priorities in drawing up the constituencies to devise them in such a way as to prove a loss for either Fine Gael or Labour. His list of priorities were clear and simple. Only constituencies which would mean a loss to Fianna Fáil were to be tolerated. Only constituencies which would result in a Fianna Fáil Deputy losing his seat were to be drawn up. If a situation were to arise where there was the remotest chance of either a Fine Gael Deputy or a Labour Deputy losing his seat, then that situation was not to be tolerated. We find that the constituency of Dún Laoghaire—the Minister at some stage reminded me that he had gerrymandered Rathdown—has been left a four-seater.

The constituency of County Donegal now becomes a five-seater. I am sure it will be a source of great joy to our Unionist friends in Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh and Belfast to be in a position in the future to point out to those who would accuse them of undemocratic practices during the last 50 years——

Mr. W. O'Brien

Did they not get an opportunity in regard to the straight vote in 1969?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator McGlinchey to continue without interruptions, please.

Mr. McGlinchey

As a result of a fair Constitution drawn up by Mr. Eamon de Valera the people of Ireland got an opportunity of deciding whether there should be a straight vote or not. When Fianna Fáil gave that right to the people of Ireland that Constitution was opposed by people such as Senator O'Brien and Senator O'Higgins.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is not relevant to the debate on the Final Stage of this Bill.

Mr. McGlinchey

I realise that the truth hurts. I realise that some of these people on my right deep down in their hearts feel guilty that these undemocratic principles are being flouted in this country, and that deep in their hearts it is a source of pain to them. It will be a source of great joy to the Unionists in Northern Ireland to say that there is a Government in Dublin, and a Minister for Local Government who introduced legislation in Dáil Éireann, depriving the people of County Donegal of a necessary voice in Dáil Éireann. We now have a situation where a Deputy residing in Inishowen has to travel 120 miles through the county of Donegal to meet his constituents. When one considers that that is as far as the distance from the city of Dublin to the city of Limerick, and as far as the distance from the city of Dublin to the boundaries of County Galway, I do not think that we can be blamed for protesting very strongly to the Minister.

In any legislation it is the people of the country who should be given consideration. In any legislation it it the people who should really matter. While the new constituency of County Donegal will be a burden on the five representatives in the future it will be a much greater burden on the 105,000 electors. Many of these people live in the coastal areas of that county and on the islands off the coast, such as Tory Island, Inisbofin and Aranmore, right down to Donegal Bay. It will be a physical impossibility to give those 105,000 people the representation to which they are entitled.

The Minister should realise that 100,000 Donegal people are entitled to at least the same representation as the people in the city of Dublin, in the county of Louth or in the county of Meath. In order to satisfy the desires of his Government, the Minister is denying the people of Donegal the representation to which they are justly entitled. He has gone about it in a most undemocratic manner. During the discussion on the Bill the Minister tried to tell us that in the future a person in County Donegal would be represented by five Deputies instead of three as in the past and that this was an improvement.

It is the Minister's job to defend his legislation to the best of his ability. I must say that he did just that. He fought his corner and fought it well. He came in to do a rough and tough job and he did it. That Fianna Fáil believe it was an unjust and undemocratic job did not appear to worry him in the slightest.

To suggest that the people of Donegal are better represented or will be better represented in the future than comical for words. If the Minister mical for words. If the Minister really believed that, he could have grouped Louth and Meath together and made them a seven- or eight-seat constituency. He must realise that at this moment County Donegal is represented by six Deputies in Dáil Éireann. As a result of his knife, as a result of his gerrymandering, only five Donegal men will be in Dáil Éireann comical for words. If the Minister believes that that is an improvement for Donegal, all I can say is that he is obviously anticipating the defeat of one of the Fine Gael Deputies. The boundary was drawn in County Donegal in the most dramatic manner—I find myself back in the town of Ballintra. While it may be repetition, I would invite the Members of this House to study carefully the map of the Donegal constituency and the boundary line between that and Sligo-Leitrim. I certainly will get a photostat copy of that boundary line. I believe that in south Donegal and in Sligo-Leitrim it could be used very effectively in the forthcoming local elections as a master example of the Minister's gerrymandering.

As I said before, if there was such a thing as an Oscar for gerrymandering then the Minister for Local Government should win it on the Ballyshannon-Ballintra road. Here we have his best performance in any constituency. One can leave the town of Ballyshannon while going into Donegal, drive for three or four miles in the Donegal constituency and then find oneself in Sligo-Leitrim for another three or four miles, and then return to Donegal constituency again. When one arrives in the town of Ballintra one finds that once again one is only 100 yards from Sligo-Leitrim. That beats all. I am sure the people in Belfast responsible for the gerrymandering in Newry, Derry, Armagh and other places must consider our Minister for Local Government an absolute genius at gerrymandering, because he has taught them a lesson in this art.

The Minister did this for one reason only: to ensure that the Fine Gael Deputy living in the town of Ballyshannon will be retained in the Donegal constituency. As I said on the Second Stage, this, in all fairness to the Minister, was not his original intention. The Minister did not intend driving through the Ballintra road and crossing it several times. He intended drawing a straight line in the town of Ballintra and putting the town of Ballintra and the southern portion of Donegal, including Ballyshannon and Bundoran, into Sligo-Leitrim. This would have meant that the lower part of Leitrim would have gone into Roscommon-Leitrim.

Here again the Minister had problems. If you study the explanatory memorandum, you will see that these three constituencies have the highest population ratio per Member in this country. They are very close to the constitutional requirements of the 1971 census. The Minister could not afford to give any more to the constituency of Sligo-Leitrim or Roscommon-Leitrim. The population ratio for Roscommon-Leitrim is 21,119, only four less than the maximum allowed. If the Minister has devised Roscommon-Leitrim in such a way that there would have been ten extra people per Member, then not alone would we suspect that the legislation would be unconstitutional, we would know and even the Minister would know that it was.

The Minister's initial plan was to cut off Ballintra and the most southern portions of Donegal and put them in with Sligo-Leitrim. I do not intend weighing in great depth the reasons why he was forced to change his mind except to say that Deputy White of Ballyshannon in no uncertain terms told the Minister that it simply was not on. The Minister suitably obliged, because Deputy White was not having any of it. We find that instead the Minister is crossing the Ballyshannon-Ballintra road very often, and his excuse during the Second Reading debate was that this was a district electoral division established over 100 years ago and it was necessary for him to do what he did. Naturally I did not expect the Minister to stand up here and admit that he had to change this area, that he had to ravage this road in the manner in which he has done, to satisfy the whims of one of the Fine Gael Deputies. We have the most unusual road in this entire country.

There have been plans in the Department for some years to carry out major reconstruction works on the national primary road from Ballyshannon to Donegal town. It would be interesting, if it became necessary in the future, to have questions asked in the Dáil about this particular portion of that national primary road. We could have a situation where the five Deputies from Donegal would ask questions about two-thirds of it and the three Deputies from Sligo-Leitrim would ask questions about the remainder.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Tully)

Would that not be wonderful representation, eight Deputies interested in a few miles of a road?

Mr. McGlinchey

Yes, I would agree with the Minister that it would be wonderful representation for 12 miles of road, but surely he would agree that it would be a very expensive exercise if the questions of eight Deputies about a small stretch of road were to be answered. I think it would be a worthwhile exercise if we put up notices on this road, one at Ballyshannon saying: "You are now entering the Donegal constituency", one a few miles further on saying: "You are now entering the Sligo-Leitrim constituency"——

Mr. Tully

It would not be the first time——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think Senator McGlinchey is in danger of repeating himself on the subject of the road to Ballintra. The Senator pointed out a few minutes ago how he drove in and out of this constituency of Donegal and Sligo-Leitrim. I appreciate the Senator's concern to emphasise the point but I will not have any repetition.

Mr. McGlinchey

I have never mentioned notices before.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator mentioned the road several times. Please proceed.

Mr. McGlinchey

I have only one more notice to put up. Three miles further on another notice saying: "You are now entering Donegal constituency".

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that the end of the notices?

Mr. McGlinchey

We could put up another at Ballintra saying: "You are very close to Sligo-Leitrim". I am sure that if the Minister comes to Donegal, we will welcome him.

Mr. Tully

As he often does.

Mr. McGlinchey

No doubt. Nevertheless he would blush a little if he saw these notices. There is one thing I am absolutely certain of: he will know this road when he comes to it. That is a glaring example of what this Government have done. I could pick constituency after constituency and at the risk of repetition say the same thing. I am not going to do so, although I am just in the mood to do so.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I hope the Senator is not going to be repetitious.

Mr. McGlinchey

No. I just said I am in the mood to be repetitious, and that covers a multitude. I could deal with aspects of this Bill for every constituency without being guilty of repetition, but what is the point? It is quite clear that the legislation before us, because of the majority the Government have, is going to go through and that the Minister is not prepared to change one iota of it. We on this side of the House could speak for a week on the subject. No matter what appeals we made, it was glaringly obvious that they would not be accepted by the Minister or by the Government, because this legislation is a package deal. It is quite clear that when it received its blessing in the Fine Gael and Labour rooms the message was a simple one: not another change. The Minister got his instructions that, no matter what the case might be, no matter what suggestions would be made, they were not to be accepted.

It is a pity, because as a result of this legislation there will be one Donegal man fewer in Dáil Éireann and there will be one Cavan or Monaghan man fewer in Dáil Éireann. That is probably the greatest mistake of all, that this tiny little portion of the province of Ulster, consisting of the counties of Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan, should be deprived of two Deputies. No matter what the Minister might say, the facts are that at this moment Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan are represented by 12 Ulstermen and that, as a result of this legislation, in the future Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan will be represented by ten. This takes place so near the other portion of Ulster, where for so long the politicians were accused of practices similar to those which the Minister has introduced in this Bill, that it is obviously a source of tremendous consolation to them. In the future when they have to attempt to justify themselves they have not to point to Galway, to Cork or to Dublin. They need only point to County Donegal, County Cavan and County Monaghan and say, without fear of contradiction from anyone prepared to tell the truth, that there is a Minister for Local Government in Dublin and a National Coalition Government in Dublin who gerrymandered these three counties in such a way that two seats have been taken from them. They will give the clear and emphatic reasons why this was done. I said earlier, and I am not sure if the Minister was here when I said it, that a photostat copy of this map should be of tremendous political advantage to Fianna Fáil in the coming local elections.

Mr. Tully

They will need something.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is repetition.

Mr. McGlinchey

The Minister has stated we need something. I can assure the Minister that both he and his Government have given us for this election, as a result of their ineptness, as a result of their failure to implement their promises, the greatest ammunition any party could have——

Mr. O'Toole

I thought there was plenty of ammunition in Fianna Fáil.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. McGlinchey

If the Minister for Defence makes a statement, the Tánaiste and the Government may issue a statement the next day saying it is not true.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is not relevant to what is before the House. I must ask both sides of the House to stop interrupting Senator McGlinchey.

Mr. McGlinchey

I am afraid the first interruption came from the Minister himself who was concerned that we might not have a programme for the local elections. I am prepared to have a little bet with the Minister that Fianna Fáil will improve their position in the local elections in this country. The Minister will be a contributing factor in Fianna Fáil's victory. I think I am in order in saying this because the very legislation we are discussing here is the principal contributing factor. It has been my experience in recent weeks that this is the situation. Many people were codded by the present Government before they were elected, during their election and particularly after their election. We had heard of the Just Society. The Government have consultation——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator's last few statements are not relevant to the Bill.

Mr. McGlinchey

This disgraceful legislation is the work of a Government whose members claim to be just and talented. To me it is quite clear that the talent must be very scarce because injustices of this kind will not be tolerated forever. The electorate in due course will realise the seriousness of the legislation before us. The day is not too far distant when many members of Fine Gael and Labour will realise that this legislation was their greatest mistake. History will record that the fortunes of the National Coalition Government began noticeably to wane following the passing of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill of 1973. If it should become apparent that this legislation is responsible or will prove responsible for the downfall of this Government, then I would advise the Minister to keep looking behind him. Those who cheer him on might attempt to have him dealt with at a later stage.

Mr. Tully

It is a pity you did not give that advice to Kevin Boland.

Mr. McGlinchey

When the Minister first drew up this legislation there was a story circulated that he walked into the Labour Party rooms, laid it on the table and said: "Friends, comrades, countrymen, I come to bury Fianna Fáil, not to praise them. The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred in their bones."

Mr. Tully

The Senator is back to Brutus again.

Mr. McGlinchey

I am leading up to Brutus.

Mr. Killilea

Which of his friends did he stick a knife in?

Mr. Tully

Ask Senator McGlinchey.

Mr. McGlinchey

The Minister does not know me very well. He will admit that. I do not think that the Minister from the little knowledge he has of me is in a position to decide who played the role of Brutus and who played the role of Caesar.

Mr. Tully

The Senator's fame has gone before him.

Mr. McGlinchey

And if I were to go back and read the Dáil reports of yesteryear——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It would be quite out of order.

Mr. McGlinchey

——I believe I would find from the Minister's opinion of certain Deputies in Dáil Éireann that it could happen that he might be giving them the role of Brutus. As I say the story goes—I do not know if it is true or not—that that is the way the Minister put this legislation before the Labour Party. While he may deny this or suggest that I would play the role of Brutus, I think he would admit that I am neither lean nor hungry looking.

Mr. A. O'Brien

That was Cassius.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Shakespearean quotations are very interesting but they are not relevant to the Bill. Senator McGlinchey should address his remarks to what is contained in the Bill.

Mr. McGlinchey

The Minister knows that if he was picking a Cassius in this House who sits in that seat there. Perhaps——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. McGlinchey

——Senator Dr. Noel Browne——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

He is not mentioned in this Bill.

A Senator

Go back to Ballintra.

Mr. McGlinchey

If the Senator wants me to return to Ballintra I could speak on that for the rest of the night.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I can assure the Senator that if he did, he would be repeating himself.

Mr. McGlinchey

I believe I could speak on the Ballyshannon-Ballintra road without repeating myself.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should allow the Chair to decide when he is out of order.

Mr. McGlinchey

I would not like to rub this into the Minister again. He becomes annoyed when one talks about County Meath. When the Minister was fixing the constituencies for his colleagues could you blame him for fixing his own constituency?

Mr. Tully

I could not fix one for the Senator. Even making his constituency a five-seater will not do him any good.

Mr. McGlinchey

You never know.

Mr. Tully

I did my best.

Mr. McGlinchey

Only time and the Almighty will decide that.

Mr. Tully

And the electorate.

Mr. McGlinchey

They will have a say in it, too. The Minister is a political animal and self-preservation comes first. He has seen to it that there is a nice constituency in County Meath. I would not object if the Minister when arranging the constituencies along the eastern seaboard had given the same type of representation as he has done in the west. This is one of the most unjust results of this Bill. It is obvious that the eastern seaboard has been given an unfair and an unjust bias solely because it is politically beneficial to the Coalition Government. We are coming to the last run-in. We have described this Bill as the most undemocratic ever introduced in this State.

I consider it to be unjust, unfair and despicable. It has been rammed down the throats of the Houses of the Oireachtas and rammed down the throats of the people by an obviously weak, inept and undemocratic Government. In due course the people will realise this and when that happens they will give their answer in no uncertain terms. It would be wrong for the supporters of the Government to think that because they have this legislation on the Statute Book they are in office for all time. The reaction among Fianna Fáil supporters is that this legislation has given us a desire to fight this Government even harder. We will carry that fight not alone through the local elections but also into the next general election. When that election comes, despite the gerrymandering efforts of the Minister and his Government Fianna Fáil will return to office.

Mr. Killilea

I shall be brief. During the past few weeks we have discovered that the Members of the Government parties in this House were not able or were not allowed to state "Yea" or "Nay" on this Bill. It is the beginning of the destruction of democracy for a political party or political parties to be directed not to make contributions on a Bill.

Senator Lenihan stated that the Minister would have been as well off if he had used the guillotine at the beginning and not to have gone through the process of not allowing even a comma or an apostrophe to be changed in the entire Bill. Through all the Stages we on this side of the House tried in a constructive and logical way to——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

On a point of order, on the Fifth Stage of the Bill Senators are entitled to discuss only what is in the Bill and not to proclaim their efforts to amend the Bill.

An Cathaoirleach

Senators are entitled to comment on what is in the Bill and are entitled to compare what is in the Bill on Fifth Stage with what was in the Bill on Second Stage. Senator Killilea should be allowed to develop that point. If in developing it he goes beyond the bounds of order the Chair shall intervene.

Senator Killilea

Thank you, a Chathaoirleach. We in the Opposition tried in a logical and in a most mannerly way——

Mr. O'Toole

No doubt.

Mr. Killilea

——to be most constructive, but we were stopped short on each occasion by both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. We did not get a logical answer to our logical questions. The records of the House will show that we tried earnestly to make a constructive contribution on this Bill. Most Senators on this side of the House were disappointed that we were not told by Members of the Opposition whether what we were saying was right or wrong.

There are five-seat constituencies in Donegal County and Cork city. But the principle of having three-seat constituencies applied in Dublin was not applied in Cork city because a major portion of that city was taken out and put in with the county of Cork. We have had two pages of amendments concerning the situation in Clare-Galway. The Minister is aware that our amendments on Report Stage today are again constructive amendments. I am sure he is aware, too, that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Leader of the House agreed they were constructive amendments. Yet no effort was made to meet us in any way on any of those amendments.

Of course I can grasp why one section of the National Coalition in this House today said that the amendments were reasonable and logical. I explained to the House earlier today one fact: in case the Minister may not have time to read it I will tell him of what are known now in Galway as the telephone conversations and the telephone pressure that was applied this week-end——

An Cathaoirleach

If what was said on the Report Stage was relevant on that Stage it cannot be relevant on the Fifth Stage. Recapitulation would not be in order.

Mr. Tully

I would be interested to know where the telephone conversations were carried out and with whom.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid the Minister's curiousity cannot be allowed to interfere. It is not in order.

Mr. Yeats

I am surprised they got through.

Mr. Killilea

We had amendments on Committee Stage to make Clare a four-seater, to make West Galway a three-seater and to make East Galway a five-seater. When those amendments were read in the country, particularly in County Galway, the south County Galway delegation of Fine Gael made numerous approaches to the Minister for Local Government.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator cannot discuss amendments already disposed of by the House. It is the context of the Bill that we are concerned with now.

Mr. Killilea

I accept the Cathaoirleach's ruling. I was trying to explain Fine Gael's recognition of the logic of our amendments——

Mr. Tully

Where did they do this?

Mr. Killilea

——Fine Gael's acknowledgement of the logic that applied to our amendments.

An Cathaoirleach

The House is concerned now with the Schedule as it appears in the Bill before us. The Senator should direct himself to the Bill.

Mr. Killilea

I will have to have recourse to some other place to inform the Minister for Local Government of the Fine Gael pressure to accept our amendments on the Galway situation so that he could reverse the situation where Labour were cutting into the ice of Fine Gael in that particular county.

Mr. Tully

Pressure on whom—on me?

Mr. Killilea

Fine Gael were not accepting and do not accept, but now they will have to accept the Government's gerrymander. Fine Gael may in fact lose a seat in an effort to gain them a seat in the West Galway constituency. The logic of the Minister may seem bright in regard to this West Galway constituency. You can travel by boat from Lahinch to Inishbofin or by road via Clifden through Galway city——

Mr. Boland

Tell us about the bikinis in Salthill. It would be more relevant than what you are going on with at the moment.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Killilea, on the contents of the Bill, without interruption.

Mr. Killilea

I live 16 miles from Salthill and in the West Galway constituency. I am being relevant. Senator Boland is not. If Senator Boland has travelled to Salthill and knows where it is, he understands exactly why we have tried to make West Galway a three-seat constituency: because Connemara and Galway city are a unit known throughout the length and breadth of this country and indeed throughout the world. The Minister for Local Government saw fit in this Bill to change that.

If Senator Boland has viewed the beauties of Salthill and not commented on them, that is his loss. When we see beauty in Salthill we comment on it. If there are irregularities in Salthill or in any other part of this country we comment also. As public representatives, duly elected by the people, we are entitled to comment on irregularities as well as on beauty. If Senator Boland, when he comes to Salthill, cannot recognise the beauty there, then he has nothing to do but phone me and I shall take him to Salthill and show him the beauty there in every sphere. If he is jealous of the beauty in Salthill, he should be ashamed of himself. He has rested his oars on the east coast all his life and he is not used to the beauty to be found at Salthill. We would welcome Senator Boland and other critics and particularly the Minister for Local Government to come to Salthill——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator, in location if not in matter, should not come to the east coast, whatever he does.

Mr. Killilea

There is this abnormality between the west coast and the east coast. The Minister begged pardon when he was dealing with the suggestions regarding the west of Ireland: he said he did not know much about the west of Ireland. He asked permission of the House to use his brief a little more than he would in regard to other parts of the country.

It is obvious to me that Senator Boland is not used to coming to the west. Maybe he could hitch a lift with the Minister for Local Government and I would show them what they have missed in the application of this Bill. They have separated a people who have their own culture and who are known throughout the world as having that culture. They have put them in with people for whom I am sorry also—the Clare people. He has put them in with people with a different type of culture.

Senator Boland made only a limited contribution to this debate. The same applies to every other Senator opposite who spoke. If they want to make a contribution to the debate rather than a contradiction of what I am pointing out, they should rise after me and do so. Even at this late stage they may have some influence on the Minister for Local Government. In particular the Fine Gael people in the National Coalition may have some influence at this late stage considering that the whole of Connacht, and particularly Galway, have seen the Minister's gerrymander in favour of Labour and against Fine Gael. That I believe is an undeniable fact.

When the Leader of the House rose today to try to defend the Minister his defence was by one means only—attack. He attacked me about something that he claimed was correct. I am not going to inform the Leader of the House what was the correct situation in that case.

There was in our party, as I am sure there is in every other Party, a little leniency too in such cases. The eastern part of this country is now the place to be, rather than the western area.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

Senators should allow Senator Killilea to make his contribution without interruption.

Mr. Killilea

I am sure the Cathaoirleach knows Galway and that is why I have his respect this evening. He understands the exact case that I have been making regarding Galway city and Connemara.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair will protect Senator Killilea when he is relevant and rebuke him when he is not but the Chair has no view on the merits of the argument.

Mr. Killilea

We had the situation in Mayo where we had a little more Fine Gael pressure than we normally would have expected when, to the detriment of Senator O'Toole, the senior, respected member of Fine Gael, Deputy Kenny, put pressure on the Government, and I am sure on the Minister for Local Government in particular to rearrange Mayo so that it would be arranged in his favour. Of course, we know that is why Senator O'Toole has a little sore thumb in this House and, in fact, turns a little purple on occasions here when the plain facts are presented to him. Even after the nice gentlemanly way he has received his seat in this House I am afraid it will be his last trip to this House and, in fact, his last chance of a trip to the other House, too, because Deputy Kenny, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, certainly saw to the ending of Senator O'Toole despite the fact that last weekend Senator O'Toole, in his efforts in Mayo, heard the deathknell—and I am sure played a major part in this of a local councillor who played a major part in the Fine Gael organisation but who has been extricated and eliminated from the county council election so that Senator O'Toole has the ground much clearer for himself in order to put forward a false idea that he may be elected at some distant date to this House. That may happen but I can assure him it will not be in the next election which cannot be too far away when one listens to the statements of the Minister for Industry and Commerce who blames the world situation for our difficulties, while the Minister for Defence blames the civil servants for the present state of affairs. Deputy Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins will blame the "Tullymander" for her difficulties. If we have a general election in the near future it will be fought bitterly although it will be much harder for Fianna Fáil to gain a victory because of this absolute gerrymander that has been completed by the Minister for Local Government.

There is no doubt, as I said at the outset, that the Minister should have been true to his form and used the guillotine. One would class the Minister with that great national Frenchman whom, at times, the Minister resembles when he stands up to present an argument in this House.

Mr. Tully

Who was he?

Mr. Killilea

The little corporal. The Minister knows who he was.

A Senator

The Senator has been watching television.

Mr. Killilea

Mark you, it must have some effect when it draws wonder and amazement from the Minister who, perhaps, is privileged by me referring to him as "the little corporal", otherwise known as Napoleon. I do not know if his loves are the same but his love for gerrymander is unequalled. His absolute execution of gerrymander will go down in history. He may not be known throughout the world as as famous a man as was Napoleon but he will be known as a gerrymanderer supreme in common with all those great Northern people who have gerrymandered all their lives, who have been accused of it and who have not denied it. Mr. Craig was described as being an altar boy to the Minister.

Mr. Tully

"Acolyte" was the word he used.

Mr. Killilea

This debate proceeded and the Bill was continually pushed through this House by the Minister with every means of abuse possible, stooping so low, in fact, as to make an ignorant statement here last week concerning the previous Minister, Deputy Molloy. He, of course, knows now he lost that argument because he did not do his homework.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is wandering from the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Killilea

In this Bill he stated that he would only have 11 seats in Galway and Clare and the point I was making was that the previous Minister had in fact in this famous threatened document by the Minister for Local Government given Clare and Galway 12 seats. The Minister did not take time to study that document.

Mr. Tully

Did the Senator look at the amendments today?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Killilea

The previous Minister was giving three-seat constituencies to West Galway and North-East Galway, to Clare and to Clare-Galway. That was a total of 12 seats. The Minister has admitted that he is only giving 11. Therefore, he has made an utter fool of himself by bringing this alleged terrible evidence of the former Minister for Local Government to light and he has turned the muddy water on himself and made a very ludicrous situation out of the whole affair. We will no longer have these threats made across either this House or the other House. The former Minister for Local Government gave an example to the present one. If he so desires he may follow that example and, consequently, will be an honourable man leaving office in the near future. When statements have to be made daily about the Minister for Defence, and by the Minister for Finance, and through the Minister for Labour, we are truly in the muddled waters of the National Coalition Government. They will not survive much longer. This gerrymander is, I think, complete. The Minister will go down in history books as the man who executed the greatest gerrymander in the history of Irish politics.

Mr. Tully

It is very difficult to know how to conclude because there does not appear to have been much of a debate on the Fifth Stage. I am sorry that Deputy Killilea is in such a hurry to go away because I have a few kind words to say to him before he goes.

Mr. Killilea

Not Deputy, yet.

Mr. Tully

Thank you very much for reminding me. Senator Killilea wanted one thing above all others in this Bill. He said that he had no objection to my making an eight, 11 or a 13-seater for East Galway. I do not think it would do him much good even if I made a 13-seater out of it. He seems to forget that the amendment which was discussed today and which was not included in the Bill suggested 11 seats for Galway and for Clare, not 12.

Mr. Lenihan

No.

Mr. Tully

Senator Lenihan need not correct me because it is his own amendment and he spoke at length on it. Eleven seats were proposed and those 11 seats were a bit of a change from——

Mr. Lenihan

On a point of correction, the Minister was not here and I should like to keep the record right. Parliamentary procedure dictates that you cannot move an amendment on Report Stage when it has been defeated on Committee Stage. We were circumscribed on Report Stage on what to move as an amendment so we decided that the rational thing to do would be to concentrate on a simple rearrangement between the four-seater in West Galway and the three-seater in Clare as proposed by the Minister. We suggesed a four-seater in Clare and a three-seater in West Galway as being more appropriate to the territorial, administrative and natural regions involved. This did not imply or mean any reflection whatever. The Minister gets my point.

Mr. Tully

The facts are that Fianna Fáil on the Report Stage today proposed an 11-seater, two fours and a three, but they had been talking for hours and hours about it before and said that was wrong.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

I wish to point out that in fact the amendment which was disposed of on Report Stage cannot properly be the subject for discussion now. We are concerned with what is in the Bill.

Mr. Tully

What I wanted to say before I was so rudely interrupted was that, in fact, I was giving 11 seats to Galway. This is what Fianna Fáil wanted. They are getting 11 seats in Galway and Clare and that should satisfy them. Switching a bit of Clare to a bit of Galway and a bit of Galway to a bit of Clare does not make an awful lot of difference. If it was just a question of doing what Fianna Fáil wanted it was all right.

Mr. Yeats

On a point of order, the Minister was not here to deal with our amendment on the Report Stage. He is now attempting, on the Fifth Stage, to deal with it.

An Cathaoirleach

What the Minister has said does not, in my opinion, contravene the rules of order because the Minister was referring to what is included in the Schedule as it is at the moment and was relating this to the subject of the Report Stage amendment. It would be out of order for the Minister to dwell on or discuss that Report Stage amendment.

Mr. Tully

In fact, as Senator Yeats so well knows, the reason I was not here was because I was engaged in the other House on very important legislation and I could not be in two places at the one time. Three times a reference was made to the fact that I was not here. However, I assure the Senators that I have a very good Parliamentary Secretary and officials who kept excellent notes. I know everything that was said here although there was not very much said anyway.

The debate already has taken over 60 hours in the Dáil and over 50 here. All sorts of points have been raised including a number of points of order. Some of the points raised were good, some were bad and some were indifferent. A revision of constituencies touches us all. We are, as somebody said this evening, political animals. Whether we are sitting Deputies or prospective candidates it affects us all and it is inevitable that there should be a certain amount of heat in the debate.

The present Bill has been criticised on a number of grounds, the first being that there was no provision in it for a constituency commission. I explained the position about this on a number of occasions. When I took office a revision of constituencies was overdue. In fact, the preparations were being made to prepare such a revision and certain work had been done. There was an obligation on this Government to get that revision under way and in the shortest possible time I did that. I wanted to get it through the two Houses so that it would not be cluttering up and holding up other important legislation.

I stated clearly in the debate here and in the other House that I am in favour of a commission for future revisions. I am prepared to have discussion with the Opposition on this matter but I want to make it clear that the Opposition are not going to have it both ways. They cannot do as they did before, be entirely opposed to it until it suits them and then they come out in favour of it. If they want it I am prepared to discuss it with them and if they do not want it let them say so. I felt it was essential that we should put the place in order and now that we have a reasonable division of constituencies we can offer it to a commission. It was said by one of the Fianna Fáil speakers on this debate that the Bill should not have been changed because the commission would have decided that the way it was, possibly, was the right way to leave it. If one reads back in the debate one will see where that peculiar argument or not so peculiar argument was made.

The Bill was criticised because some county boundaries continue to be breached for constituency purposes. I have explained the tolerance which is regarded as being permissible. We all agree that 1,000 one way or the other is pretty small and that the only way we could avoid breaching county boundaries was by creating constituencies of eight, 11 or 13 Deputies. Senator Killilea wanted 13 but I do not think even that would do him much good. It is clear that few, if any of us, would want 13, apart from him. Even eight would be a bit big. We decided that five was the maximum we should have. Therefore that is the way it is.

The Bill treats county boundaries much better than the 1969 Bill. I want to make this very clear. I also want to make it clear that Cork City which we have heard so much about, has reverted to what it was before the 1969 Bill and to what it was all down through the years. Waterford, Louth, Meath and Westmeath are all being restored as counties. Roscommon and Leitrim are faring better than they did previously.

Mr. Killilea

But not Clare.

Mr. Tully

It was not the Coalition who broke the boundaries and put Clare a three-seater, it was Fianna Fáil. They deliberately made it a three-seater and the only time they found that they would like to have it a four-seater was after they had gone out of office because in the proposals which had been made it was a three-seater. Senator Killilea may be assured that the proposals which were there were for another three-seater for Clare. For goodness sake do not let us have any more childishness about this. Fianna Fáil wanted a three-seater, the only reason they want a change is because they are out of office.

Like a good many other things when Fianna Fáil went out of office they found that it was a good idea to have something different, but as long as they were able to do it themselves they did not want it. As I pointed out before, what happened about the commission is that one minute after Fianna Fáil had conceded the general election Deputy Jack Lynch was prepared to agree that a commission was a good thing. For goodness sake let us not hear any more about that.

It has been alleged that the Bill is favouring Dublin as against the rural areas. I pointed out that the balance is, if anything, slightly in favour of the country. In Dublin each Deputy will represent 20,142 people while in the whole country the ratio will be 20,116. It is not my fault if any Senator cannot subtract one from the other and know the difference. Those are the facts and, as I said before, Senator Killilea was not really good on figures unless they had bikinis on them and then he put a motion down at the county council to have them chased out of the county.

Mr. Yeats

The Minister is very smart.

Mr. Tully

Thank you very much. So far as the number and size of constituencies are concerned the position is very much the same as before. The number of three-seaters is the same; the number of four-seaters is slightly down and the number of five-seaters is slightly up. Some speakers felt we had too many constituencies of a particular size. Others said that we had too few.

Mr. Killilea

Who said that?

Mr. Tully

It is hard to know because every second speaker who got up said a different thing.

Mr. Killilea

That is not a true statement.

Mr. Tully

It is true and if the Senator reads the debate—he has more time than I have to do so—he will find it is true.

Mr. Killilea

On a point of order, if the Minister makes an accusation here that somebody said something should he not give us the quotation and tell us who said it?

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister appears to be paraphrasing the debate and, I think, that is in order.

Mr. Yeats

He does not know what was said. He is making this up as he goes along.

Mr. Tully

Senator Yeats was, I believe, a good Cathaoirleach, but without the Chair he has got into the habit of always being right. He does not ask questions and wait for an answer; he asks questions and he gives the answer. I have mentioned it twice before that he reminds me of nothing more than Alice in Wonderland. He has the answers every time.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. Tully

All of the Senators on the opposite side made statements which they thought suited themselves.

Mr. Killilea

That is a false statement.

Mr. Tully

It is not a false statement. It is a statement of fact. If the Senator has time to read the debates he will have plenty of time to read the debates after the next election— he will find out that it is correct. We are told we should have three-seaters where we have five-seaters and vice versa. Some said we deliberately put three-seaters where Fianna Fáil would have won if there were four- or five-seaters, and then, when we put in five-seaters we were told we did that to damage Fianna Fáil. Some speakers said there was no pattern at all in the sizes of constituencies and others said that the pattern was all too clear. This is the sort of over and back we had with them.

Mr. Lenihan

It was all too clear in the political sense. That was the point that was made. That is the worst of answering a debate in that manner. All too clear in the political sense was what was meant.

Mr. Tully

We had, of course, charges of gerrymandering. This kind of charge could be made about any revision. I should like to mention something which Senator McGlinchey said. This Senator is not, apparently, aware of the fact that there has been a change in the North because, he talked about the Unionists in the North taking example and that they would, in future, be able to refer across the Border. The Unionists in the North, as he should know, are no longer fixing the constituencies no more than Fianna Fáil are fixing them here.

The last time the constituencies were revised they were revised by the then Minister for Local Government, former Deputy Kevin Boland. He deliberately stated, as we all know, the reason he did it. The idea of saying that this is a gerrymander and that the Simon Pures of Irish politics who are sitting in the Fianna Fáil benches would not do anything like that at all is all wrong. They have been doing it all their lives and now when somebody else is trying to make a good job of it they are afraid of their lives.

The charges of gerrymander will always remain about any revision. I have said it is an emotional subject and that some people may feel they have been badly treated by the changes, but some Fianna Fáil Deputies said I treated them better than their own man. I assure them that I had no intention of fixing them. One Senator did say he was very grateful for the change that was made, but he must have been courtmarshalled that night because he attacked me viciously the next day.

Mr. Killilea

The Minister fixed himself supreme.

Mr. Tully

I could not fix the Senator. If I gave him the 13-seater I could not fix him.

Mr. Killilea

It is the greatest "Securicor" job of all times.

Mr. Tully

In cooler and less emotional moments we will have to admit that under our system of PR and with the very tight rules about parity of representation, gerrymander, as it is normally understood, is to all intents and purposes impossible. When we were in Opposition we said to Fianna Fáil that it was a gerrymander. Gerrymander, I believe cannot be used under proportional representation and to those who say, as some of the Senators here pointed out, that we would need five-seaters all over the country or upwards in order to work proportional representation properly, I say that it is only a half truth. It is not a truth. With a three-seater, as long as there is a transferrable vote, proportional representation of a kind works. The Irish system of proportional representation has worked. There is no point in people trying to make out that there is something peculiar about all this.

Mr. Lenihan

As long as the three-seater is consistent across the board in, say, Dublin city, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford. As long as the three seat system is consistent. In fact, I would welcome it right through rural areas as well, as long as it is consistent.

Mr. Tully

The trouble about it is that when Senator Lenihan was a Minister he was not able to get that done. Why does he expect me to do for Fianna Fáil what he could not do for them? It is not my job to look after Fianna Fáil.

Mr. E. Ryan

The Government with all the talents, surely they can do better than that?

Mr. Tully

The people will decide who will represent them after the next election and who will form the next Government. I said before that it depends on the record of the Government in four years' time whether they come back here a National Coalition Government or whether a Fianna Fáil Government or whatever other party is supreme at the time will come in to the other House. There is no use trying to pretend that simply by pulling constituencies a bit this way and bit that way any Government can secure their own return.

Mr. Killilea

The Minister for Defence did not help you.

Mr. Tully

The Minister for Defence has not bought arms or sold arms to anybody. Nobody had to be sacked out of the Government for non-national activity.

Mr. Killilea

Who bought the arms?

An Cathaoirleach

I must ask the Minister not to be tempted by interruptions.

Mr. Tully

Let me say, in conclusion, that while we had a lively debate in the other House and a lively debate here, we are all politicians. The Opposition speakers have had their say, I have had my say, and the next election will be fought on this Bill. When the election is over the electorate will return the next Government. I hope that by that time we will have reached agreement on a commission which will draw up another set of constituencies which will be pretty close to resembling what we are passing here tonight.

Mr. Killilea

I propose we should buy the Minister a set of bag pipes.

An Cathaoirleach

Interruptions are always disorderly. To interrupt when the question is being put is highly disorderly.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 16.

Tá

• Blennerhassett, John.
• Burton, Philip.
• Butler, Pierce.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Farrelly, Denis.
• Fitzgerald, Jack.
• Halligan, Brendan.
• Harte, John.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Kennedy, Fintan.
• Kilbride, Thomas.
• Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
• McAuliffe, Timothy.
• McCartin, John Joseph.
• Mannion, John M.
• Markey, Bernard.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Mullen, Michael.
• O'Brien, Andy.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Toole, Patrick.
• 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, Séamus.
• 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 Halligan; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Garrett.

Question declared carried.

The Seanad adjourned at 9.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 9th May, 1974.