I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill is put before the House in pursuance of Article 16.2.4º of the Constitution which requires that the constituencies, as determined by law, shall be revised at least once in every 12 years. The Constitution came into operation on the 29th December, 1937, so that the 12-year period began to run from that date and is now drawing to its close. The revision can only be effected by legislation and the legislation proposed will take some time to enact and still further time will be required to make the necessary arrangements to put it into effect. It is, therefore, not only desirable, but perhaps imperative that the provisions of the Constitution in regard to the revision of constituencies should be fulfilled without delay.
Clause 2 of the Article governing this matter, that is Article 16, prescribes that the total number of members of Dáil Éireann shall from time to time be fixed by law in such a way that there will be not less than one member for every 30,000 of the population nor more than one for every 20,000. The preliminary Report on the Census of Population, 1946, shows that the population of the State is 2,953,420. In the preface to the Report, as no doubt Deputies will have noticed, it is stated that this figure is provisional and subject to amendment; nevertheless I think it is sufficiently definite when a unit of 20,000 or 30,000 is concerned to enable us to proceed with the revision now. After full consideration it has been decided to apply the lower ratio of population in fixing the total membership of the Dáil and accordingly the total membership of the House, as proposed in Section 2 of the measure, has been fixed at 147.
If this proposal is approved, the next Dáil will have nine members more than the present House. The only criticism I have seen so far of the proposals in the Bill has been directed against the proposed increase. This criticism emanated, I think, from the editorial chairs of the Dublin dailies; from the pens of those whose Parliamentary representatives live in the same town, perhaps even in the same district as themselves, so that they are readily accessible to them if they require to consult with them or seek advice or assistance from them. No doubt city newspaper editors and leader-writers seldom do seek such assistance or advice. On the contrary, they look down from their editorial arm-chairs and sheltered seats upon members of the Oireachtas, and think themselves competent to advise and lecture the practical men of affairs who are engaged here in the arduous task of administering the manifold public business.
That is not the situation, however, in which most people living in rural areas find themselves. There, in general, either they or their Parliamentary representatives have to travel great distances, should it be necessary for them to consult with each other upon a matter affecting the personal interests of the electors or of their class or district. Indeed the complaint which is most frequently heard is that Deputies are not in sufficiently close contact with their electorates. In the case of many of the existing huge, sprawling constituencies it is, I submit, physically scarcely possible for a Deputy to maintain that contact which is so essential if the collective wisdom, judgment and experience of his constituents are to be at his disposal to assist him to come to a right judgment upon the important issues that arise for decision here in the Oireachtas.
Indeed I think that a close association of Deputies with their constituents is essential for the proper working of our system of representative democracy. Saying that, I do not mean to imply that a Deputy should become a mere delegate or agent for his constituents. Far indeed from it. A Deputy should remember that the Oireachtas is a corporate entity, a representative Assembly, acting for the nation, that he is a responsible element in that entity, that in this capacity his obligations are not only to his constituents or to those of them who immediately supported him, but to the nation as a whole. As the whole is greater than the part, therefore, a Deputy's obligations to the nation must override every other. Nevertheless, a Deputy should frequently meet his constituents and consult with them upon their concerns and upon the public issues of the day, so that in discussion he may not only enlighten and guide them in regard to such issues, but may clarify his own mind, fortify his own convictions and enhance his capacity to speak and act in the common interest. I suggest, therefore, that everything which reasonably can be done should be done to enable this association to be readily maintained with ease and convenience to the people themselves. And in my view it would be a grave departure from right principles to make it even more difficult to do this than it is now, by further curtailing the already too - limited representation which the large scattered masses of our rural community have in the Dáil.
Rather should we endeavour to increase this representation, if possible, so as to make it easier for the people concerned to see and meet their representatives, should it be necessary for them to do so. It is true, of course, that under the provisions of the Constitution we may not be able to do very much at the moment in that regard. Indeed, in the present instance by reason of what I hope will be only a temporary decrease of the population in certain areas, the problem has been to maintain the rural representation in general, while having due regard to other factors which I shall mention later.
But if we endeavour to provide for the needs of the rural areas by maintaining or, where permissible, increasing their present representation, we cannot, in an unjustifiable attempt to keep the membership of the Dáil to a minimum, endeavour to offset the increase in the membership allocated to rural communities by depriving the cities of their due and rightful representation in the Assembly of the nation. Indeed the Constitution forbids it, for sub-clause 3 of Clause 2 of Article 16 prescribes that so far as practicable the population ratio per member for each constituency shall be uniform throughout the country. Therefore if the representation accorded to rural areas is increased, or with a falling population therein is only maintained, the representation of the larger urban units must, in accordance with the principle of uniformity, be increased also, for beyond any doubt such an increase within the terms of the Constitution is quite practicable. It would not be equitable, for instance, to allot only one member to every 25,000 people in the County Borough of Dublin, while giving one for every 17,500 persons in some rural constituencies. Bearing in mind, therefore, the two considerations which I have mentioned, viz., first the need to allocate representation to the rural areas with due regard to the needs and convenience of the inhabitants thereof, and, second, to give effect to the provisions of the Constitution in regard to uniformity, so far as is practicable—and in determining what is practicable we must advert to certain considerations which I shall mention later—it has not been possible to fix the total membership of Dáil Éireann at less than 147. If any smaller number had been taken, not only would some rural areas have been deprived of adequate representation but other important considerations could not have been given due weight when making the revision.
While population may be applied to measure the representation to be accorded to any given unit of territory, there are other factors to be taken into consideration if a rational scheme of constituencies is to be evolved. For instance, as I have already stressed, the area of the constituency must not be so large that effective representation of its inhabitants is not possible, nor should it be broken up by difficult physical features, so that sections of its population are virtually isolated from each other. Indeed, the people of an area which is to be constituted as a constituency should have a certain identity of interest and local tradition, a character, so to speak, of their own, a clannishness, not indeed narrow and parochial, but sufficient to make them sensible of a common social obligation to each other, which will influence them not to take too personal or selfish a view in public affairs. And last, but not least, the constituency should be as administratively convenient as possible.
Administrative convenience can hardly be claimed for quite a number of existing constituencies. Take the present constituencies of Wicklow and Wexford, for example. Both of these constituencies now include large portions of the administrative County of Carlow, so that the constituency of Carlow-Kildare (so-called) only includes the remnant and not the whole of County Carlow. Again the constituency which has been officially named Meath-Westmeath, despite its name, does not include the whole of Westmeath. It includes a large part of that county, the remainder of which is merged with the whole of County Longford and about one-fifth of Roscommon in the constituency which is known as Athlone-Longford. Similarly the present constituency of County Dublin includes a large portion of Dublin County Borough; Clare appropriated a large slice of Galway and Leitrim a substantial portion of Sligo; while Waterford absorbed parts of Cork, in the shape of Youghal and its environs.
The difficulties and confusion occasioned by the anomalies I have mentioned have been such that several authorities in the local administrative units concerned have been moved to protest against them and by resolution have requested me to make the scheme of constituencies consistent with the existing local government administrative units. These resolutions have been kept in mind in formulating the new scheme, and therefore the new constituencies have been delimited so as to be consistent, within reason and where practicable, with the boundaries of the administrative counties. No doubt if the area and configuration of every county had been better adapted to our task a better and more uniform scheme could have been devised. But the sizes and shapes of the several counties being what they are, it is exceedingly doubtful if a better scheme could have been prepared than that which I am now putting before the House.
By Sections 3 and 4 of the Bill, Deputies will see that the total membership of 147 is allocated among the several constituencies in accordance with the particulars set out in the First Schedule to the measure. The First Schedule not only makes this allocation but particularises the several constituencies and sets out the districts which are to be included in each. The constituencies consist in the main of the administrative counties. An administrative county is the functional area of a county council, so that these areas are well known. They will be easily recognisable therefore by the general body of electors who will know that they will vote in that part of the administrative county in which they pay their rates.
In some cases it has been necessary to sub-divide an administrative county. In these cases the division has been made on the lines of well-defined smaller units in the shape of the district electoral divisions but so that the population to member ratio will be reasonably uniform in the same county. For example, in the case of Cork, the ratio is practically identical in each of the four rural constituencies ranging from 19,505 in Cork south to 19,756 per member in Cork north.
In the borough constituency it is 21,407 due to the fact that in constituting the new constituency suitable district electoral divisions contiguous with it had to be joined with the county borough and that it is not practicable to divide these. It was not considered practicable or desirable, either, to alter the boundaries of existing constituencies merely in order to equalise the population ratios where the difference between them was not too great; and this applies to the existing constituencies in the Counties of Donegal and Mayo. In North Kerry, which has now four seats and which it is proposed to retain under the new scheme, the population per member is 19,000, while in South Kerry the ratio on rechecking has been found to be 18,072. A slight adjustment of the boundary between the existing Kerry constituencies is proposed in the Bill because we were proceeding there on the basis of the old rural districts so that it might follow the boundaries of these old rural districts. It now transpires, however, that the proposed adjustment would reduce the population ratio in South Kerry relative to that in North Kerry and it may be necessary to move an amendment in Committee to restore the existing Parliamentary boundary between the constituencies. That boundary, of course, lies within the County of Kerry. In the case of the constituencies within the County Borough of Dublin, the ratio, with one exception, ranges from 19,674 in Dublin North East, to 21,263 in Dublin North Central. The exception is Dublin South Central, where it is 23,159, but here advertence has been had to the fact that the population is likely to be reduced by further housing operations, as well as to the convenience and desirability of conforming to the existing ward boundaries where possible. It may be desirable, however, to make a further adjustment of the boundary between Dublin North Central and Dublin North East, so as to equalise the population-ratio of the new constituencies and I think that can be done in such a way as to give us a straighter and more easily identifiable boundary.
In making the revision every effort has been made to keep the ratio of members to population, so far as is practicable, uniform throughout the country; but this uniformity cannot be more than partial because of the wide diversities in the area, population and geographical characteristics of the different counties. It is obvious that if the administrative county generally is to be taken as the fundamental unit there must be variations of appreciable size. On the other hand, if constituencies were to be so defined that the ratio of members to population was identical everywhere the areas so created would be difficult to identify clearly and define. Furthermore, the people in such constituencies formed after this fashion would not be bound together by any of the affinities which constitute an essential feature of a real constituency.
From the Schedule to the Bill it will be seen that the maximum number of members to be returned by any constituency is five. There are nine constituences returning five members each, nine returning four members and 22 returning three members. Under this arrangement, no real effective interest is debarred from securing representation in Dáil Éireann. At the same time, it is made easier for a Party which may be called upon to shoulder the responsibility of Government to get sufficient seats to enable them to undertake that task with adequate Parliamentary support.
In considering the proposals for the several constituencies it is essential to remember that the ultimate purpose of a general election is not only to provide the State with a Legislature which will be fully representative of the opinion, will and sagacity of the people, but also to provide it with a Government which will be stable and capable of acting with authority, decision and leadership in all the nation's affairs. No Government can be a good Government unless it is effective, and under our system of government no Government can be effective unless it is firmly supported by an adequate majority in Dáil Éireann. The history of every Government since 1923 illustrates that fact. We have had general elections in June, 1927, February, 1932, July, 1937 and June, 1943, all of which failed to give a decisive result, so that the Governments formed after these elections were compelled by the exigencies of the day and of the Parliamentary situation to make a fresh appeal to the electorate after a brief period of office. Thus we had the elections of September, 1927, February, 1933, May, 1938, and May, 1944. Now, it is folly to have to do by two elections what should be done by one, namely, to provide the foundation and representative support upon which a strong and stable Administration may be based. It is as necessary now as ever that the country should possess such a Government. As Professor Hogan says in his book, Election and Representation:
"There are the strongest reasons why we should welcome, under almost any conceivable circumstances, the possession of a strong and constant majority in Parliament by whatever properly-constituted Government happens to be in office."
Again he says:—
"There could be no fallacy more disastrous in its consequences than to think of the representative process as primarily designed to neutralise, checkmate, or obstruct the activities of Government."
And from this he goes on to say that
"the fatal flaw of proportional representation is that in so far as it tends to the coalition form of Government—and full proportional representation and some kind of degree of coalition are actually inseparables— the coalition is bound to be made up of minorities, and must accordingly be lacking in the basic condition of stability and initiative."
How true this is has been evidenced by the recent history of Governments in Europe since the cessation of hostilities in August, 1945. The adoption of systems of proportional representation in France and in Italy have produced a plethora of minority parties in their Legislatures. In consequence those countries have had a succession of coalition Governments, each of which has endeavoured to maintain its precarious tenure of office by political shifts and bargains among parties in order to form coalitions so that when they most needed it, countries, whose affairs they were endeavouring to administer, were left without that firm and decisive leadership which only a Government with sound and adequate support in Parliament can give.
Proportional representation, however, is enshrined in our Constitution, and while we may frankly recognise its defects as an element in the process of constituting a Government, we must accept it as a principle and apply it for the purpose of securing a Legislature.
But in doing so we are bound not to forget that, as I have said, a general election has a dual purpose: it is intended not only to provide us with a Legislature but with a Government as well. And we must attach at least as much importance to the latter as to the former. In short we must remember that while the Legislature should be representative the Government must be strong.
Professor Hogan, in the work from which I have already quoted, considers these two desiderata and comes to the conclusion that so far as our country is concerned,
"if we are to find the right point of equilibrium between popular representation and popular government"—we would require—"in the first place a considerable increase in the number of three-member constituencies."
This, as will be seen, is provided for in the Bill which proposes to increase the number of such constituencies from 15, as at present, to 22. The professor further suggests the introduction of a number of two-member constituencies into the general scheme. It is, however, not thought feasible to adopt such a proposal, since the Constitution prescribes by sub-clause 3 of Clause 2 of Article 16 that "no law shall be enacted whereby the number of members to be returned for any constituency shall be less than three".
It has not been possible with due regard to the other considerations which ought to be taken into account in delimiting the several constituencies to have only three-member constituencies, and, therefore, five-member and even four-member constituencies have had to be provided for in the scheme. Though the results in five-member constituencies tend to be less decisive than in three-member, nevertheless, they are preferable to four-member areas, because they do tend to give a decision in favour of a Party and a policy. Four-member constituencies on the other hand almost invariably result in such a division of Parties that it is safe to say that if all the constituencies in Dáil Éireann were on a four-member basis, a single-Party Government and, therefore, stable Government could not be formed; so that the country's affairs would be administered by coalitions. As to the desirability of which, I may again quote Professor Hogan, who says:
"Inasmuch as the personnel and policies of such coalitions are necessarily in the nature of a compromise between the different claims and viewpoints of the Parties concerned, the main business of their formation will have to be effected after election and behind closed doors...""Proportional representation in creating the necessity of coalition, at the same time creates a Parliamentary oligarchy, a Government by Parties rather than a Government by the people through the medium of Parties."
I have tried, therefore, to avoid the creation of four-member constituencies in the Bill. That has not been possible, but I have managed to dispense with seven-member constituencies of which at present there are three: one in Dublin City South, one embracing Tipperary County, and one embracing Limerick County. The net result of the revision will be that instead of 34 existing constituencies, the Bill will provide for 40, of which 22 will be three-member constituencies, as against 15 at present. Four-member constituencies will number nine instead of eight; and nine will be five-member again instead of eight. On the basis of this distribution the country should be able, when called upon, to give a definite decision as between parties and policies, while at the same time the truly representative character of Dáil Éireann will be adequately safeguarded by the reasonable application of the principles of proportional representation.
To provide for this is the main purpose of the Bill. The measure also contains certain minor machinery sections. Section 5 is one of these. Under it the constituency of South Galway will be deemed to be the constituency corresponding to East Galway for which the Ceann Comhairle was deemed to have been elected in the Revision of Constituencies Act, 1935.
Section 6 is another. It embodies a necessary consequential provision whereby the registers of electors will indicate the existing and new constituencies. Should it become necessary to hold a by-election for an existing constituency between the date of the enactment of the Bill and the next general election, this section makes it possible to use for that by-election the register prepared for the general election. The general election, however, though it may take place on the same register as a preceding by-election will take place in the revised constituencies.
Section 7 defines the returning officers. There is no real change here, but the sheriff for a county or county borough will be the returning officer where a sheriff is appointed. In Dublin County, however, the present under-sheriff will continue to be returning officer for the area approximate to the area for which he is under-sheriff, and for which he acts as returning officer at present.
I may say that the Bill represents a consolidation of the law relating to the revision of constituencies. In the Second Schedule the provisions of the 1923 Electoral Act dealing with the division of the country into Dáil constituencies and the entire of the amending Act of 1935 have been repealed and it is proposed to re-enact them in this Bill.
