I was dealing with some further points which Opposition Deputies had suggested I should deal with, although I felt myself I had dealt with some of them adequately already. I think I should refer to a point raised by Deputy Norton who suggested that in view of the fact I had made it clear that the overall effect of the provisions of this Third Amendment of the Constitution would be to move closer towards having the value of a rural vote the same as an urban vote, it might be better to put a provision into the Constitution to the effect that representation would be based on the electorate rather than as at present on total population on the grounds that this would be a better way and would ensure that votes in every part of the country would be of the same value.
The figures have disclosed that the present position, which the Opposition are so tenaciously trying to hang on to, ensures that it will take a considerably greater number of voters in rural areas to elect a Deputy than it will in urban areas. Deputy Norton then suggested it might be a good idea to change the requirement in the Constitution entirely from population to voters. I would agree that, if this were feasible, it certainly would be more democratic than the present position which the Opposition want to maintain. The present position is not even theoretically democratic as distinct from being practically democratic.
I made it quite clear from the figures that to do what is required by the present interpretation of the Constitution would result in the infliction of injustice on considerable sections of the community in different parts of the country without conferring any corresponding benefit on those people. There are however a number of reasons why it is more desirable to base revisions of constituencies on census figures rather than on the figures of the electorate which are compiled annually in the compilation of the register in different constituencies.
The first point is we already have this requirement in respect of population in the Constitution. It was considered better to amend the Constitution—to get rid of the constitutional infirmity to which Deputy J.A. Costello referred the last day—rather than introduce completely new requirements with regard to voters. Particularly in view of the manner in which the Opposition Parties oppose everything on the basis merely that it has been proposed by the Government, to make a fundamental change like this would be likely to lead to even more vehement opposition than usual.
As I said, the same result is achieved by this provision allowing some slight scope in the revision of constituencies in order to do justice to the people involved in such a revision. What I have pointed out during the debate on this Bill is that what we are proposing will result in rural votes in general being of the same value as urban votes, but at the same time the effort to avoid the injustice and anomaly of breaching county boundaries in certain cases will produce local divergencies in particular areas.
For example, I stated that if you take the area of Kerry-Limerick as a whole, the population in that area would make it justifiable to maintain the same total representation there but that the present constitutional requirement necessitates, in order to do that, the transfer of some of the population of Limerick to Kerry. What I pointed out was that there was no net gain to the people of the area as a whole and that I was quite sure the people in Limerick whom the Opposition want to transfer to Kerry would be just as pleased to remain and vote in their own county, even though it might take marginally a greater number of votes to elect a Deputy there than it would in the neighbouring county of Kerry and that it was not required by any democratic principle that these people should be uprooted and required to vote in County Kerry rather than in Limerick. I did not believe they would look on this as any vindication of their democratic rights.
While you would have these local differences, at the same time the effect of what is proposed will be to redress the differential of voting power that otherwise the present constitutional requirement confers on people in built-up areas generally. To change to having a rigid requirement, to basing the representation on voters rather than population, would have the same overall effect but at the same time it would not avoid local injustices such as those to which I have referred. In addition to that there is the fact that populations are compiled by means of the census every five years. They are ascertained on a national basis by a nationally mounted, complicated and costly process. Census figures generally are accepted as being authoritative. They are carried out under the control of the Central Statistics Office, whereas with regard to registers of electors, although they are compiled as carefully as possible, still, anyone concerned with elections realises that they are not always, at any rate, 100 per cent accurate. The compilation of registers of electors must be an annual operation and the same elaborate organisation and expense as for the compilation of the census would not be justified. Censuses, in fact, have before now disclosed that other statistics have not been accurate.
I think it is undesirable that constituencies should be based on figures whose accuracy is not absolutely unimpeachable. As we know, the standard of accuracy in the compilation of registers often varies from county to county, or from constituency to constituency, whereas the census is compiled on a national basis under the direction of the Central Statistics Office. So, in a number of ways, the census figures are more reliable. It is this rigid requirement in the Constitution that necessitates this injustice being done to certain sections of the community because of the fact that no consideration can be given to the percentage of voters in the total population in the different areas of the country.
In addition the census must be compiled at five-yearly intervals. For this reason it has an element of stability which is not possessed by the registers which are almost continuously undergoing a process of revision. They have to be revised every year almost. If this requirement were to be inserted in the Constitution, that is, if the constituencies were to be based on the number on the registers rather than the population as ascertained at the previous census, there could be practically continuous pressure for a new revision of the constituencies.
Basically I would agree with Deputy Norton that the number of voters per Deputy is a more relevant factor to take into consideration, but it is clear from the figures I have given that the overall effect of operating some scope such as we are proposing in this Bill over the country as a whole for the purpose laid down in the Bill—to avoid breaching the county boundaries —will be to even out representation over the country.
On the whole I think the present proposal, if carried, is reasonably satisfactory. I believe that even if we were to amend the Constitution so as to base representation on voters rather than on population it would still be desirable to have some such scope in regard to the numbers per Deputy in individual constituencies as has been proposed here; so we would be making two changes instead of one.
Deputy Dunne raised a number of points. I do not know whether I should reply to them. His whole contribution showed the capacity of the Opposition to ignore the facts. Deputy Dunne maintained that the effect of this will be to give greater representation to some sections of the community whereas, in fact, the figures disclose the exact opposite. The present position does exactly what Deputy Dunne and other Deputies pretend they want to avoid. It gives greater representation to some sections than to others. For instance, I showed on the figures of the last census and the last available registers that, if the revision of the constituencies which is now required is carried out on the basis of the present constitutional position, it will take only 10,206 voters to elect a Deputy in certain parts of Dublin city, whereas it will take over 13,500 voters to elect a Deputy in parts of rural Ireland. That is the position which Deputies apparently want to retain.
Mainly I have been answering queries and arguments put forward by the Opposition and I have been accused of filibustering and delaying the passage of the Bill through the House. Of all the allegations that Deputies have been making that is the most amazing of the lot, when we consider that on Second Reading which opened on 28th February, 1968, and ended on 3rd April, 1968, 21 Members of the Fine Gael Party spoke. As we all know, there was a majority of only one in favour of the position now being taken by Fine Gael.
