I was very interested in Deputy McGilligan's contribution to this measure last night. I find myself in agreement with him on a number of points which he posed to the Minister. The first and most important point at the moment is whether the Government intend, after the passage of this Bill through the House, to have it tested in the courts as to whether it is sound with regard to the Constitution or otherwise. I think the Minister should tell us, when he is replying, whether the Government intend to take that step. We have enough legislation as it is and enough controversy in the courts without having this measure, when it becomes law, brought again before the court by a private individual of this House or a Senator or, perhaps, by somebody outside who has no connection with this establishment. Therefore, I think the Government should, in the circumstances, have the matter clarified.
I am perturbed as to whether it is the immediate census which was taken last Sunday night or the previous 1956 census upon which this Electoral Bill is to be based. That will have to be clarified. That is why I was very interested to hear the views of a very prominent legal man in relation to the census taken last Sunday night. Apart from that, my views on the question of representation in this House have not changed in the slightest degree since I spoke on the 1959 measure. There may be a question or doubt about which census, namely, the one taken last Sunday night or the previous census of 1956, this Bill is based on. I do not think we should worry about whether, if it was based on the one last Sunday night, we would have about 140 Deputies possibly instead of the 144 Deputies envisaged under this Bill. I think that would be all to the good.
I think we could do with between 80 and 100 Deputies to represent the Twenty-Six Counties. I often wonder whether the Government ever take into consideration that if we had the Six Counties back on the present system of representation in the Twenty-Six Counties, we would possibly have over 200 Deputies to represent this small island. I do not like having to draw comparisons very often in this House between ourselves and our neighbour, but in this instance I think it is no harm to point out that this little Parliament is almost an exact replica of the British House of Commons. We have made one substantial change in relation to the ratio between the number of people a member of the House of Commons represents and the number a member of Dáil Éireann represents. To put the matter in a nutshell: if Britain had the same proportion of the population to each member as we have here in Dáil Éireann, I doubt if Wembley Stadium would hold all the members of the British House of Commons.
The argument was put forward by Deputy Dillon and by the Taoiseach in the discussion on the 1959 Bill that it was not only desirable but necessary to have the maximum number of Deputies. The argument was based on the case that in order to have suitable Cabinet material, it was necessary to have a large pool of Deputies to draw on. It was further argued that a large number of Deputies was needed in order to man the various Parliamentary committees, such as the Committee of Public Accounts, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and so on.
I do not dispute the fact that very excellent work is done by these committees, but when considered carefully it is a terrible condemnation of the members of this House for the leaders of the two major Parties to suggest that it would be impossible to recruit good Cabinet material within the House, if the numbers were reduced from the present strength of 144 to, say, 100 or less. It is a condemnation of the members of their own Parties and it would appear to leave the leaders of both Parties open to the criticism that the best material available in the country is not coming into the Dáil through the political Parties. The argument put forward by Deputy Dillon and the Taoiseach that it was necessary to have a large pool of Deputies from which to draw Cabinet material would indicate that only a limited number of the men elected to the House are capable of or suitable for positions in the Government. If that is true, we must trace back to find where the fault lies that leaves a situation like that to be considered.
It would appear that the Parties themselves, in their conventions and selection procedure, do not select the best material, that it is the individual who has the best grip on the locality or on the organisation who is selected as a candidate and is jet-propelled into the House. If that is the case, and it would appear to be the case if we accept the argument put forward by the leaders of the major Parties, it is time these political Parties reviewed their own organisations. That is something that has to be solved outside this House, not inside.
The argument that suitable Cabinet material could not be obtained if the number of Deputies were reduced is no justification for the existence of 144 Deputies. It is a condemnation of democracy as we know it in Ireland.
That brings me to what has been described to this House as the rural bias which was contained in the 1959 Bill. At that time, the Minister and the Taoiseach expressed great solicitude for people living in the rural areas, particularly the inhabitants of the constituencies on the western seaboard. It was suggested that in view of the terrain, the geographical features, it was highly desirable to have a larger number of Deputies in the western areas than in the city areas. That argument was bluntly put forward. It was no longer correct to say that we should have the principle of one man one vote, but that a man in, say, Spiddal or Oughterard, Donegal or Kerry, would have one and a half votes to every vote the man in a city area would have.
That was tested in the courts. I should like to say that I have a great regard for the individual who, on his own, took the necessary action which brought about a change of mind in the Government, forced the Government to change their attitude in that regard. I refer to Senator O'Donovan. I do not think he got much support from his own Party, for the simple reason that a number of them were highly embarrassed by the idea that the numbers in rural Ireland would be reduced. I think the Senator was in more danger of political execution by members of his own Party than he was by members of Fianna Fáil for a while.
I mention that because when the 1959 Bill came before this House, I personally took the view that even if it meant that only one Deputy would represent the whole of the West of Ireland, in the long run we must accept that fact on the basis of population. The judge in the High Court made a very excellent contribution as a neutral person. In a capacity that could not be described as favouring any political Party in this House, he brought us all back to earth with regard to what the functions of a Deputy are under the Constitution, not what has grown up in the years as a result of the activities of particular Deputies.
When the rural bias in the 1959 Bill was brought to the attention of the House, some Deputies were prepared to accept that the Government were sincere in that, that they were interested in all rural areas, but it is very significant that the areas in rural Ireland where the old representation was kept, where no change or reduction was made in the number of Deputies, were notorious as Fianna Fáil strongholds. Fianna Fáil may not like that description "notorious." I will alter it slightly and say that they were well known to be Fianna Fáil strongholds.
Donegal was discussed at length in the debate on the 1959 Bill. It was discussed in the High Court at a later stage and the same arguments were put forward there by the Minister for Local Government as he put forward here in the House, that there were mountain ranges, long distances to be travelled, scattered population, the necessity for a Deputy being available to meet his constituents in the most out of the way places for the purpose of filling up forms for housing grants and rural improvement schemes and telling old people that they would get the old age pension, that he would make representations on their behalf. That bluntly was the line of country pursued here as the justification for keeping up the representation in Donegal over and above what it should be, if we accept the principle one man one vote.
Great difficulty was experienced in this House by a number of Deputies in finding out whether the mountains in Donegal run from north to south or from east to west. I think Deputy McGilligan at the time suggested that he would volunteer for service there with a couple of sherpas so that it could finally be decided in what direction this range of mountains runs. That range of mountains figured very prominently here as far as representation was concerned. You could not have a Deputy crossing this high, dangerous range of mountains to interview a constituent on the far side.
I distinctly remember listening to the Taoiseach pointing out that the reasons for holding the strong representation in Donegal were the geographical features and the difficulties involved with regard to the mountain ranges. I asked the Taoiseach, in the course of his contribution, where the range of mountains came into the picture as far as County Galway was concerned and, naturally enough, he turned a deaf ear to that question. The same solicitude was displayed by Fianna Fáil for Galway as they displayed for Donegal, but there was no range of mountains in Galway which might cause difficulty to Deputies in crossing when they wanted to meet their constituents. Therefore, uncharitably, I suppose, I assumed that the reason there was no change in the representation in Galway was that it was known to be a Fianna Fáil stronghold.
At that time my own constituency, Roscommon, lost a seat. It was reduced from a four-seat to a three-seat constituency at a time when Deputy Blaney, the Minister for Local Government, and the Taoiseach had said their sole aim was to preserve sufficient representation in rural Ireland. I do not think they stayed awake any considerable length of time worrying about the decision to lop off the seat in Roscommon. Fianna Fáil realised that if they did lop off a seat in Roscommon it would make no difference to their Party. The seat that would be eliminated would be a seat that would normally go to somebody who was not a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, so it was no harm so far as they were concerned to get rid of some thorn, whatever that thorn might be, in their side.
It is beyond dispute that Galway at that time had nine members to represent the county. Roscommon had four. On a strictly mathematical basis, Roscommon was not entitled to four in the light of the population figures and it was reduced to three. I said in the House at that time I was quite satisfied with that, that on the figures available we were not entitled to it. I also pointed, out, however, that if the same yardstick of mathematical calculation were applied to Galway as was applied to Roscommon, Galway would have had not nine seats but seven. Nobody can deny that there was gerrymandering there, not with regard to boundaries but with regard to manipulation of population figures. The sole idea in relation to Galway was not to look after the interests of the poor unfortunate person out in Rossaveal, Clifden or any other part of Connemara but to preserve in this House the number of Deputies who would be well disciplined to obey the Party Whip.
The judgment in the High Court was such that that little manoeuvre did not come off and now, even on the 1956 census, Galway comes down from a nine-seat representation to an eight-seat representation but if the actual population in Galway were taken into consideration they would be entitled, at the maximum, to seven seats. If this Bill were postponed for another two or three months there would be another casualty in the Fianna Fáil camp as far as Galway was concerned. They do not want that. I suppose it is human nature to try to hold as many as they can.
I have referred to the judgment of Justice Budd. It was highly desirable that somebody with the standing of a judge should make the position clear as to what the duties of a Deputy are supposed to be. The argument has been put forward in this House and outside it that it is desirable to have Deputies available all over the country for the purpose of listening to grievances night, noon and morning. It has been pointed out by that learned judge that there is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that a Deputy's duties were to interfere as a grievance officer in the administration of the various Departments.
Over the past 30 years this system started to grow and grow to what it is today. It would be very difficult now, I presume, to change the system. It is almost accepted now that a Deputy's main function is to listen to grievances, act as ombudsman and then, when he is free from all these duties, he can come into the House and vote whenever his Party puts on the Whip.
I want to make my position clear. I have no objection in the world to listening to a grievance from a constituent. It is my duty to listen to him and, if I feel that he has a genuine grievance, to do what I can about it, but I do not think it is the duty of any Deputy to go around the country to cumann meetings, craobhacha or anything else you like to call them, and infuse into people's minds the idea that the only way to get a housing grant, an old age pension, a land project grant or any other grant or facility made available by this House, is to make representations to a Deputy.
I do not want to be taken as blaming any particular Party for that. That seems to be accepted all over. I have seen examples myself, for instance, with regard to bog development schemes. I am talking strictly of rural matters which are no concern of city Deputies, but I should like to give them an idea of what happens in rural areas. For instance, Deputy X belonging to a political Party goes down to his local town and holds a meeting at which he distributes rural improvement schemes forms, or minor relief schemes forms for the making of roads or for drainage. Six months afterwards, two or three drains are inspected by the engineers of the Board of Works or the Special Employment Schemes Office, and the local political group who support that Deputy put a notice in the paper thanking the Deputy for getting Scheme A, B, C, D, E, F or G on the list and carried out. What effect has that? That gives people in rural Ireland the idea that the only way to get your rights is to go to a Deputy. People come to me and ask me will I make representations to get them old age pensions. After examining their case to the best of my ability, I often find, with my limited knowledge of departmental procedure, that they are entitled to the old age pension without any representation at all.
