Cavan): I intervened in this debate yesterday to put the record straight on certain statements made in regard to the proposed constituency of Monaghan-Cavan. I pointed out, clearly I hope, that the proposed constituency of Monaghan-Cavan was a much more workable unit than the two three-seat constituencies which it replaces. For example, Cavan as at present constituted is a three-seater but it embraces——
Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I am very desirous that order and quiet should be restored to the Chamber.
(Cavan): The constituency of Cavan as at present constituted is a three-seater but, in order to qualify as such, it has to take in parts of Meath. I emphasise “parts” because it takes in a part of Oldcastle and district and it then leapfrogs Carnaross in the Kells district and goes over to Moynalty for another portion. That surely is butchery and carving up at its worst.
I pointed out that in the case of Monaghan it is even worse because to qualify Monaghan as a three-seater the former Minister had to take in pieces of Meath from Drumconrath and Kilmainhamwood to Nobber. Not having got sufficient there he went away up to County Louth and took in the town of Ardee and other areas there. That was a very clumsy effort to create two three-seat constituencies especially when the counties of Louth and Monaghan have very little in common whereas the counties of Monaghan and Cavan have always had a great deal in common. They are Ulster counties. They have had a joint hospital for as far back as anybody can remember.
The names of Monaghan and Cavan have been linked together in the sphere of health for many years. I do not think, however, that the Opposition Deputies who are criticising the proposal to amalgamate Monaghan and Cavan and create a five-seat constituency are serious. Neither do I believe they are honest. If they are honest and serious they must have been out of touch with their Minister for Local Government, Deputy Molloy, because he had proposals last year, which he did not finalise, to revise constituencies and, strange as it may seem, one of the proposals was to create a five-seat constituency consisting of Monaghan and Cavan, the very thing about which Deputy Molloy and other Opposition Deputies are complaining now. The sort of job he was going to do—the Minister will tell the House more about this later—was to create a five-seat constituency of, I think, all Monaghan and a part of Cavan and he was going to shift a part of Cavan into Leitrim.
I note the Minister said "I think". Is he sure?
(Cavan): Wait and see. I would suggest to Deputy C. Murphy, if he has any doubts, that there is one man with whom he is probably very friendly— one would not really know who is friendly with whom in the Fianna Fáil Party at the moment, but I presume Deputy C. Murphy is friendly with the former Minister for Local Government——
I am friendly with everybody.
(Cavan):——and I suggest he should have a chat with him because Deputy Molloy can put the matter beyond doubt. In those circumstances it is extraordinary that we should have Deputies on the Opposition benches coming in here now complaining about this proposal. I think the explanation for the reaction of the Opposition to the Bill is because it is a very traumatic experience for the Fianna Fáil Party to find themselves discussing the Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973, from those benches. It is a very traumatic experience and I am sure a great many questions have been asked within the party. I am sure Deputy Lynch has been asked why did he not let Deputy Molloy revise the constituencies last year. That is the first question. I am sure the next question the poor man is being asked is why did he rush the general election in January of this year. (Interruptions.)
We cannot have questions across the floor of the House on the Second Stage of this Bill. The Minister for Lands must be allowed to speak without interruption.
(Cavan): Deputy Leonard, by way of interruption, says he mentioned them. He did not make much of an impact if he did.
I mentioned them also and it did not make any difference.
(Interruptions.)
May I advise Deputies that interruptions are disorderly? The Minister for Lands must be allowed to speak without interruption.
(Cavan): I am quite right when I say it is a very traumatic experience for Fianna Fáil to be discussing this Bill from the Opposition benches. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition was asked why he did not allow the Minister for Local Government to revise the constituencies last year. I am sure he has also been asked why he held the general election so early this year.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
(Cavan): Deputy Lynch lost the general election—he lost his memory for a while —and he lost the by-election.
(Interruptions.)
I must intervene here. Deputies will appreciate there is a time limit on this debate and, in the interests of order, the Chair must insist that speakers, be they on the Opposition or Government side of the House, must be allowed to speak without interruption. Interruption must end here and now.
(Cavan): I can assure Opposition Deputies that I shall speak for about a quarter of an hour, or thereabouts, this morning and, if they have the patience and take their medicine, I shall get through what I have to say about Leitrim.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy C. Murphy, if you cannot listen to what the Minister has to say there is a remedy. There is a way out.
(Cavan): If Deputy C. Murphy wants to help me to make a long speech, I have no objection. I will not be annoyed. At any rate, I have given the explanation why Fianna Fáil are so annoyed. They just cannot bear to see someone else revising the constituencies. I suppose that is understandable in a way because they revised the constituencies in 1937, in 1947, in 1961 and again in 1969. Surely they had a fair innings. They made a fair, good job of it when they were at it. There is no use now in Opposition blaming the Minister for Local Government because Deputy Jack Lynch did not get on with the job last year and did not delay the general election this year until he had an opportunity of revising the constituencies. There is no use blaming us for that. There is only one man the Opposition can blame for that.
On a point of order, there is a time limit. Is there a certain amount of repetition in what the Minister is saying?
The Chair will decide where repetition is con cerned. I might remind the Deputy that he made a long speech lasting one hour and 35 minutes and he should now bear with the Minister this morning.
That is true, but repetition is not allowed.
(Cavan): There is no use now blaming Deputy Tully, Minister for Local Government, or me for the non-revision of the constituencies last year or for the general election early this year. The only person Opposition Deputies can blame is Deputy Jack Lynch or those members of Deputy Murphy's party who were making things so uncomfortable for Deputy Jack Lynch at the beginning of this year that he had to take the plunge. That is all I want to say about that.
It is laughable, remembering the performance of the Fianna Fáil Party on the matter of constituency revision over the years, to hear them now criticising the proposals of the Minister for Local Government. I spoke at length on the last Electoral (Amendment) Bill. I was at the time spokesman for Local Government in the Fine Gael Party. The one county that stuck out like a sore thumb on that occasion was Leitrim. In order to demonstrate clearly to the House that Fianna Fáil have no reasonable case whatever to make against this Bill all I have to do now is deal with County Leitrim and show how it was dealt with by the Fianna Fáil Administration in 1961 and again in 1969. In 1961 they took a piece of Leitrim and put it into Roscommon. In doing so, they left out the town of Ballinamore, the idea being to make it impossible for a member of the Reynolds family to be returned to Dáil Éireann. That was the object of that operation. They put North Leitrim into Sligo, the hope being that Fianna Fáil would get two seats out of three in Sligo-Leitrim and two seats out of three in Roscommon-Leitrim. That operation misfired badly because the reverse happened. Fine Gael got two seats out of three in Sligo-Leitrim and two out of three in Roscommon-Leitrim. In the 1969 revision they were determined to punish Leitrim, to use Deputy Leonard's expression, for returning two Fine Gael Deputies and no Fianna Fáil Deputy. Good gracious, what a job they attempted to make of it! When Mr. Kevin Boland as Minister for Local Government in 1969 introduced the last Bill the name "Leitrim" as a county did not appear. It was divided into three different constituencies, part in Roscommon, part in Sligo and part in Donegal. The name of County Leitrim was removed from the Electoral Bill. It was not as simple as that. They made sure that the towns of Ballinamore and Drumshanbo, where Deputy Reynolds would get his votes, were put not into Roscommon but into Sligo. Deputy Reynolds had to drive about 17 miles in the Carrick-on-Shannon direction before he could get one vote. That was calculated to put Reynolds out of public life and it did between 1969 and 1973 only. They then went to North Leitrim and put most of North Leitrim——
On a point of order, Deputy Reynolds is a Member of this House in the same constituency——
It is hardly a point of order.
(Cavan): I said for the time being. I will come back to that.
The Minister should refer to Deputy Reynolds not Reynolds.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
(Cavan): Everybody knows who Deputy Reynolds is, particularly Fianna Fáil and Senator Brian Lenihan. If I mention Reynolds I will not have to identify him further so far as Senator B. Lenihan is concerned.
(Interruptions.)
I have already drawn the Deputies' attention to the fact that this is a limited debate this morning. Consequently, there ought not to be any interruptions. I appeal to Deputies' sense of fair play in the matter.
(Cavan): I have dealt with the Roscommon-Leitrim constituency which was created by the last revision Bill. I will now deal with the Sligo-Leitrim constituency. The previous Bill created the constituency of Sligo-North Leitrim. It excluded Manorhamilton and Dromahair and put them into County Donegal to try to ensure that Deputy Joe McLaughlin did not survive. That was the sole object of that operation. They did not exclude him from Dáil Éireann in 1969 but they did exclude Deputy Eugene Gilhawley. They put Glenfarron, Manorhamilton and Dromahair into County Donegal and created a monster of a constituency extending from Cavan to the upper end of Donegal. The object of that disgraceful performance was to destroy the County Leitrim as a political unit, but more particularly to make it impossible for Deputy Reynolds and Deputy McLaughlin to get elected. It succeeded in 1969 because Sligo-North Leitrim secured two Fianna Fáil Deputies and one Fine Gael Deputy and Roscommon-South Leitrim returned two Fianna Fáil Deputies and one Fine Gael Deputy. In 1973 the position was reversed. The most spectacular return of the 1973 general election was the return of Deputy Reynolds to the House at the expense of the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, now Senator Lenihan. In Sligo-North Leitrim we had a return of two Fine Gael Deputies and one Fianna Fáil Deputy.
My own return was just as spectacular. The Minister did not expect it.
(Cavan): I would like to deal with that. We had a change in Cavan. We had a change in Monaghan. There were peculiar circumstances prevailing.
That is the first time I have been called that.
(Cavan): There were peculiar circumstances prevailing then. I do not want to get personal with Deputy Wilson but I could safely say, without being offensive to him——
That will be a change.
(Cavan):—— that he is all things to all men and all things to all people in different places at the same time. That happened in February of this year. We had an election in Monaghan since and the position was reversed. God forbid that there will be a by-election in Cavan——
The Minister is looking well.
(Cavan): I am convinced that if there were a by-election in Cavan we would have a repeat of the Monaghan performance and we would be back——
That is what is called whistling past the graveyard.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please. We are having interruptions again.
(Cavan): I am accused of repetition but I must answer when challenges are thrown at me. As I pointed out yesterday, if one sought a cross-section of Irish public life one could not get a better example than the constituency of Monaghan, where there are conservatives, extreme Republicans, the poor land of Monaghan and the rich lands of Meath and Louth. We won there with a swing of 6 per cent.
We got 2,000 extra votes.
(Cavan): We got a swing of 6 per cent. We got the seat and that is what counts.
The loan of it for a while.
(Cavan): That all arose out of my saying that the most spectacular win at the last general election was the election of Deputy Reynolds at the expense of Senator Brian Lenihan. That was an indication of the indignation of the people of Roscommon-South Leitrim at the carving up which was done in 1969. The people of Sligo-Leitrim reacted in the same way. They returned two Fine Gael Deputies.
I do not intend to trespass much longer on the time of the House because it would not be reasonable to do so. When one points out how the present Opposition dealt with Leitrim in the last revision of constituencies one answers completely, and utterly, any criticism Fianna Fáil can level against the present proposals of the Minister for Local Government. Opposition Deputies have complained that Leitrim had not been restored to a single unit. It is laughable to hear such things. I suppose a person can say anything. The people who made three of Leitrim are now complaining that it was not restored to one. There was always a north Leitrim and a south Leitrim and the Minister for Local Government has now restored it to two, one half of it going with Sligo and the other portion going with Roscommon.
There has always been a lot in common between Sligo and Leitrim, especially between Sligo and North Leitrim. For the southern portion of Leitrim to be put in with Roscommon is, in my view, a perfectly reasonable proposition and one which will appeal to the people. Having dealt with Cavan, Monaghan and the three parts of Leitrim, I am satisfied, taking the Bill as a whole, that it is a vast improvement on what was done by the previous Administration. There has been a shift of population from Connacht to Leinster and the present Government cannot be blamed for that but that necessitated a loss of seats for the west and a gain of seats for the east. That is laid down in the Constitution and nothing can be done about it. On a number of occasions Fianna Fáil tried to change the Constitution in this respect but the people did not give them authority to do so. That is all I wish to say on this matter. I intervened to highlight some of the outrageous points made by Fianna Fáil and to shoot them down. I believe I have done so.
Deputy Wilson rose.
On a point of order, last night when I rose to speak with the Minister for Lands no offer was made from the Fianna Fáil benches. Is it in order now for a Fianna Fáil speaker to be taken before a speaker from this side of the House considering that last night none offered?
The matter of the choice of speaker is the function of the Chair. The Chair usually calls from one side of the House to the other. The Chair is now calling on Deputy Wilson.
The enthusiasm of Deputy Byrne will be satisfied in a few minutes because I have a very short contribution to make.
One seeks a philosophy in a Bill of this kind and one is entitled to look to what a man said in the past to indicate, in some way, what his philosophy might be. While the Minister for Lands was eloquent from time to time in a patchy kind of way on various constituencies, he did not enlighten us as to how the great change of heart came about from the time he was advocating that this House, or the Government, should not decide where the borders of constituencies should be.
In 1968 the present Minister for Lands said it was desirable that an independent commission, presided over by a High Court or Supreme Court judge but subject to the control of the Oireachtas, rather than Dáil Éireann directly as at present should make these decisions. The Minister gave as his reason then that he was convinced that it would be fundamentally undemocratic and against natural justice to entrust this to a Minister for Local Government. Now, five years later, he has turned his back on what sounded very good and sounded like something proceeding from conviction. In this approach he had the backing of the present Minister for Local Government.
I should like to know why what looked like something basically held, an important tenet in a person's philosophy, could change so quickly and so utterly. The fact is that it was only a game he was playing. He did not have any conviction on the matter at all, at least the conviction did not last five years, nor did it last a change of Government. I did think there was running through the whole conception in this Bill a philosophy that from now on only urban Ireland would count. This is what it looks like to me. Because of increased organisation generally in the world one could see, and one could regret, how a Government could come to this decision. It is true that all over the world the people involved in agriculture and the people living in rural communities are becoming fewer and fewer and that urbanisation and industrialisation are the trends of this century.
As a representative of a rural constituency, I regret this decision of the Government. Looking at the lay-out, particularly of the Dublin constituencies, one could say that this is a possible reason for the way the constituencies are arranged. The point has been made already that a completely different philosophy, a complete change of horses, a quick switch took place in regard to the constituencies in the second largest urban concentration in the country. In fact, there is no philosophy except expediency; there is no effort to treat this in a rational fashion. The attitude seems to be: "They are my principles there if they suit me but I will change them if they do not suit me."
We have a different approach in Fianna Fáil. People have stated that under a Fianna Fáil Administration the rural population declined.
(Cavan): Presumably Deputy Wilson has a different philosophy on certain things from that of Deputy O'Connor.
The Minister should not interrupt.
(Cavan): He has interrupted very little.
I welcome the Minister's interruptions. Their feebleness encourages me. As I was saying before I was mildly interrupted——
(Cavan): Is the Deputy going to deal with the interruption?
I shall. As I was saying, this trend is a world-wide one. Our basic philosophy which is written into the constitution of the Fianna Fáil party is to maintain as many as possible in reasonable comfort on the land. We saw the world trend and, needless to say, we could not hope to stem a world trend, but we did think out the best way to combine industrialisation with continuing residence on the land, with a continuing fairly stable population on the land. We went about this by designating special areas for industrial development. I am afraid that this Dublin-dominated Government has given up that idea. The indications in this particular Bill are that that approach, that effort to maintain a stable rural population, has been given up.
The Minister for Lands spoke a lot about Monaghan and the by-election there but he did not refer to the fact that right in the middle of that campaign an indication was given that there was a possibility that the county development teams whose sole aim was to bring industrialisation to the rural areas so as to maintain that rural population were in danger from the Coalition Government. The philosophy of the Fianna Fáil Party is logical, persistent and, as usual, practical. We set about doing something about this world situation of the trend from rural to urban areas. I hope that when the next Electoral (Amendment) Bill is introduced by a Minister for Local Government of a Fianna Fáil Government we will be able to set in motion again this move to increase the industrial capacity of rural Ireland and, consequently, to increase the population and that we will not then have to link up two neighbouring counties. Cavan and Monaghan get on well together, and will get on well together, and will return three Fianna Fáil Deputies at the next general election. I am as much entitled to my crystal ball as the Minister for Lands is. Why—and perhaps the Minister for Local Government would refer to this—if he has such faith in a commission, and he said in all circumstances, no matter what Government was in power, this would be desirable——
If Deputy Wilson is quoting me would he please give the reference?
Yes, I will: "We believe that such a procedure would be desirable at any time."
Quote.
November 26th, 1968. I cannot give the Minister the column number.
The Deputy cannot, of course.
I shall hand it in to the Minister.
The Deputy cannot claim to quote unless he quotes his source.
It refers to the procedure of having a commission decide the boundaries of the constituency rather than that well-known political savant, the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Tully. As I said, my big complaint is the lack of a consistent philosophy, applying one set of principles where Dublin is concerned, another set of principles where Cork is concerned, running every way: the good old Duke of York who had the 10,000 men, he marched them up the hill and then he marched them down again. That is the whole philosophy behind this Bill. There was reference as to why we did not introduce such a Bill, why the constituencies were not revised by Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil were heavily engaged in legislation, in fact had as much legislation in the pipeline as has not been dealt with by the present Government even yet. This is the only child, the only fruit of their office so far, the only one that belongs to themselves alone.
It might turn out to be a premature, weak baby.
It will not be nurtured anyway by the kind of arguments we heard here. This is the reason: we were concerned with other things, what we regarded as more important things. The Minister for Lands questioned why the general election should be called at that time and he talked about what happened. I would remind him that 22,000 people more than in 1969 recorded their first preference votes for us, and if I were the Minister for Lands I would not go around boasting about a policy that was quickly put before the people and succeeded in getting 22,000 extra first preference votes for Fianna Fáil.
(Cavan): Do I gather the Deputy is claiming a moral victory at the last election?
Morality I leave to the man who says one thing in 1968 and something completely different in 1973. I leave anybody to decide the mores of that kind of situation. I would appeal to the Minister for Lands and to the Minister for Local Government, who both represent rural constituencies and know the rural scene, and who at least have empathy with the problems of rural Ireland, to get behind the rural lobby and see to it that Dublin will not have a better representation than the rural constituencies, that they will not have more TDs per voter than rural Ireland has. Let them express themselves in this regard and make sure that the rural voice is heard. If they do not, I am afraid that this completely Dublin-dominated Administration will see rural Ireland badly done by.
(Cavan): This Dublin-dominated Government included Monaghan, Cavan and Longford in the congested districts, which Deputy Wilson and his party refused to include.
The Minister has only 50 acres of land to give them.
(Interruptions.)
Order. The Chair has called Deputy Hugh Byrne.
(Cavan): There are more acres being acquired than there were last year, in Monaghan, and they will not have to pay black market prices as they paid under Fianna Fáil.
Order. I am seeking to get a good hearing for Deputy Byrne.
I welcome the opportunity of contributing to the Second Stage of this Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1973. I was not here in the House when the last Electoral (Amendment) Bill was enacted. However, one of the shortcomings I noticed in that when going for election in June, 1959, was the way in which the Ballymun satellite town had been divided into three separate constituencies: Dublin North County, Dublin North-West, and Dublin North-East, returning to represent that area 12 TDs in toto. I wish now to say a few brief words in connection with the division of the Ballymun satellite town area and adjoining areas. I believe that no more urbanised area could exist in this State, and to include it in a county area could possibly be an error in respect of the increase in the onerous task the public representatives would have, and also might not do justice to the citizens of Ballymun satellite town who need the optimum ability and quality in their public representatives.
Why this has happened I am not sure. I do know that the total satellite town is now in the one constituency, but I am saddened to see that the constituency stretches as far as north of Balbriggan town. I can only surmise that something has happened in County Louth and County Meath to take part of the proposed three-seater in North County Dublin, and perhaps in the end the victims of these two four-seaters will be the 23,600 people who live in the four borough areas making up the satellite town and adjoining areas.
One of the many things we discussed in the last Dáil was the bureaucracy of the townland areas, and, particularly, the Dublin county borough line, which prevented Ballymun children from obtaining school meals, because they lived in a corporation area and within the Dublin county borough line, although their school was across the road in the Dublin County Council area. Not much has been done to improve this. In fact, we shall be faced with a duplication in Ballymun, and once again a multiplication, whereby the representatives for the Drumcondra North County A and North County B areas of Ballymun will be county councillors, whereas the representatives for the Santry A and Finglas East E areas will be city councillors.
In that regard we have not advanced very far. The population of Ballymun satellite town is gradually increasing as dwellings are being completed. It would be very difficult at this stage for me to ask the Minister to consider steps to bring Ballymun satellite town back into the city representational area where it would have much more in common with the urban area rather than with the county. It is not untrue to say that the next farm to the flat furthest to the north in Ballymun satellite town comprises 200 acres of very good farm land and from there on, as you go northwards, the farms are lush and valuable. As recently as on yesterday's paper one saw where a farm in the Naul district comprising 450 acres was sold for £½ million. There is nothing in common between the type of farms in that area and a flat 14 or 15 storeys up in Ballymun satellite town. There is very little in common between places like Brackenstown House and Ballymun satellite town. I am quite familiar with the area having had the privilege of being associated with that area for a long time during my childhood and having been on holiday there as a child. I would ask the Minister to consider the possibility of changing in some way parts of County Louth or County Meath in order to make up for the population of North County Dublin which has been depleted in some way.
In passing, I should like to compliment the Minister on the fact that he has made every effort to bring Ballymun satellite town into one constituency, where identification with public representatives can be more facile for tenants in the area. At the same time, I think that these tenants might find it difficult to communicate with their public representatives if they were to live 18 miles away in the northern part of the constituency. It is not for me to prophesy as to who they may be but certainly over the past four years I do not think the 12 public representatives at any one stage attended a public meeting in Ballymun and certainly not since the change of Government have the three Ministers for the area been in constant attendance. Whatever has happened in the northern constituencies to have caused this, I do not know. I have heard the Minister referring to what the previous Minister for Local Government, Deputy Molloy, had in his Bill for a particular constituency but I wish to go on record as saying that I do not know or did not know at any stage what was contained in Deputy Molloy's Local Government (Amendment) Bill and I certainly did not at any stage know what was contained in this Bill, nor do I think that I should have known or that any Deputy should have known. It is entirely a constitutional function which the Minister for Local Government and his Department must duly exercise, of balancing the number of public representatives per head of the population, with a variation of 1,000 either way. That has been done. In certain instances people have alleged political advantage to one party or another. Be that as it may, the people who matter most are the electorate. These are the people whom we must represent to the best of our ability. No matter what may happen in a constituency, representatives will always be found and they will do their best.
The Ballymun satellite town, now being introduced as one unit for parliamentary elections, will continue to be divided into two units for the purposes of local elections, That is very sad. Possibly the switching of the Finglas West A, B and C area and Finglas East A area, which comprises a population of 23,360, compared with the Drumcondra North County A and B and Finglas East E and Santry A area which comprises a population of 26,000 might be a fair swop and might help the people in Ballymun satellite town to return to the city for purposes of parliamentary representation. If the Minister considers the matter and decides not to do it he will still have my support for this legislation; that goes without saying; but I would say that people from the Ballymun satellite town have mentioned to me that they are a little more than mildly concerned with the change envisaged and I do not think it augurs well for their morale. They are very fine people to have had the privilege of representing over the past four years. I do not think that one could have wished for a greater privilege than to have represented them. Naturally, I will not be able to offer myself to them again in the future but I would ask the Minister to give that area and the people in it consideration. I am quite sure he will do that but possibly he could give them a little further consideration.
This is the first time that I have had an opportunity to speak on a Bill dealing with the revision of constituencies. I was not a Member of either House when the 1968 revision was being debated. When the Bill now before the House was introduced I set about checking the Dáil Debates for 1968. I found my name quoted by Deputy Clinton, who is now Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, in the debate of 4th December, 1968, at column 1969 of the Official Report. I shall not criticise the Minister, then Deputy Clinton, for mentioning my name at the time. He was trying to make a case for the area known as Walkinstown. He claimed that the Walkinstown area should have been included in the constituency to be known as South County Dublin. That is something that I feel I would have had to agree with if I had been a Member of the House at that time. That is water under the bridge now. The reason why I rose to speak on this occasion is that I have read the remarks made by Deputy Clinton as he was at that time in relation to Walkinstown and in relation to the No. 3 council area. I should like to quote what Deputy Clinton said at that time:
When you live in a constituency and you are intimate with what is happening in it you know the moves behind the scenes.
Will the Deputy give the source of the quotation, please—the Volume?
I have already done so —column 1969, 4th December. The then Deputy Clinton said:
When you live in a constituency and you are intimate with what is happening in it you know the moves behind the scenes.
Since the general election last February there were certainly moves behind the scenes in Walkinstown. This matter was discussed in public houses by members of political parties. They discussed how Walkinstown could be divided. I want to say to the Minister for Local Government that it was neither himself nor his advisers who revised this area known as Walkinstown, which is part of my council area. I feel that recommendations were received by members of different political parties in this regard. During the last debate we heard about road boundaries and that the Naas Road and the Blessington roads were natural boundaries.
I see that Deputy McMahon has come in. I know I will have his support. We heard about the Naas Road being a natural boundary. We still hear much about this road from the point of view of safety. The Naas Road has been crossed three or four times during this revision of the constituencies. In relation to the revision of the constituency concerning the whole of County Dublin, I would like to ask the Minister why the No. 3 council area was picked on in order to pick bits and pieces from here and there. I referred to what the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Clinton, said during the 1968 debate in regard to Walkinstown being included in the constituency to be known as South County Dublin. That would have been a natural revision. This time the Minister has made quite sure to pick bits and pieces from here and there and to split the area of Walkinstown.
We then look at the Naas Road which is part of my council area. We come to Saggart, Rathcoole and Brittas. This area was natural to South County Dublin and would be natural to Mid-County Dublin. Nobody can deny that these areas would be natural to the new constituency to be known as Mid-County Dublin. We now find they are placed in the constituency known as West County Dublin.
The last time Deputy Clinton said that if he stood for the constituency of North County Dublin he would not be able to vote in the constituency in which he was living. That is very true. At that time Deputy Clinton would have had a very safe seat if he were to stand for South County Dublin. As a person who is involved in politics for some time and who has some knowledge of where support comes from, I know that Deputy Clinton would have had a very safe seat in South County Dublin. It was well known that he had to move to North County Dublin to make way for the then Deputy Tom O'Higgins, later to become a Presidential candidate. We heard much about natural boundaries during that debate. We heard about the Navan Road, the Naas Road and the Blessington Road.
In this revision the Naas Road has been crossed on many occasions. We will look at the Drimnagh Road area. A piece is to be taken out which was part of South-West Dublin, Going out along the Naas Road, a cut was made into the little townland known as Kingswood. There is Saggart, Rathcoole and Brittas. In case there might be any doubt about what I am saying, and as Deputy McMahon is here, I would remind him that he had a resolution passed at the time in the Dublin County Council criticising the then Minister for Local Government about the manner in which the constituency of County Dublin was being revised and the fact that Walkinstown was to be included in North County Dublin. That is on the records of Dublin County Council.
Coming back again to road boundaries, I find that the only real boundary which the Minister decided on in this revision was Cromwellsfort Road. There is a particular purpose behind this. It is well known in every part of County Dublin that this is where my greatest support comes from. I suppose the Minister cannot be blamed too much. He listened to his advisers from that area, and perhaps the people checking the ballot boxes on the day of the count. I do not wish to be too critical of the Minister. I know he has had some difficulty in his own area also. As a person who stood in a number of elections, I was elected the last time and I must say now this would make my re-election much more difficult despite all the efforts made by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Clinton, during the debate in regard to the area of Walkinstown.
During the Monaghan by-election we heard many speeches about the area of Meath and the fact that Ardee is being included in Monaghan. I would like to know how the Minister could decide to include Leixlip, Maynooth and part of Kildare in the constituency of West County Dublin. As regards Mid-County Dublin, it starts at the village of Terenure and goes through Brittas along the Blessington Road. Brittas is included in the constituency of West County Dublin. The border into Wicklow is then crossed to get back to Mid-County Dublin. I would like to know why there was so much talk the last time about the preservation of boundaries. I appreciate that a number of constituency boundaries were crossed the last time. I do not deny that. I will not refer to sores of the past. I want to refer to the present revision and to what I heard about the constituency of North County Dublin and the constituency of South County Dublin at the time of the previous revision.
Nobody can make a case that the area of Maynooth and Leixlip is natural to the constituency of West County Dublin, taking in part of Walkinstown and Drimnagh. At the same time with regard to Maynooth in the new constituency of Mid-County Dublin, starting in Terenure and going through Rathfarnham, Firhouse and Tallaght and then having to drive through the constituency of West County Dublin before coming back into Mid-County Dublin does not seem natural. If anyone tried to make a case and say that the area of Blessington, Kilbride and Lackagh should be part of the new constituency of Mid-County Dublin he would need to be well-versed in the legal sense to do so successfully.
I started by referring to my own council area and the area generally in County Dublin. I admit that I am not very well-versed in regard to the corporation area of Dún Laoghaire or the Borough of Dún Laoghaire. All the other council areas are within the constituency of County Dublin which is described as a full constituency. The No. 3 council area is the one the Minister chooses to pick bits and pieces from. One finds one has to travel into Wicklow to get sufficient votes to make a constituency to be known as the new Mid-County Dublin constituency and then to travel into Kildare, Maynooth and Leixlip and some other parts of Kildare to get sufficient votes to have a constituency in West County Dublin. These are the points I make.
This is the first time I have spoken in this type of debate. I am glad to be a Member of the House and to have had the opportunity to speak on this point. I wish to refer to some of the points made by some of the speakers in regard to the area known as Walkinstown. It was very much spoken about. My name was quoted and it was said that I had put down resolutions which were passed at council meetings deploring the attitude of the then Minister for Local Government about the manner in which the people of Walkinstown were being treated. I find it very difficult to understand why this area should be so mutilated on this occasion.
I will be very brief. First, everybody knows that when a Bill of this nature is being introduced all kinds of political motives are attributed to the Minister, but anyone who is fair will agree that a Minister has a difficult job when he comes to introduce a measure of this kind. My knowledge of the country in general is so limited that it would not be right or proper for me to speak of the different constituencies.
A lot of play has been made about Kildare and for that reason I will say a few words about it. Kildare has an unusual history in this context. In the revision which took place before the previous one, the Fianna Fáil Minister for Local Government at the time played a certain trick. Representing my party in that constituency at the time was the Leader of the Labour Party, William Norton. The Fianna Fáil Minister knew that the Fianna Fáil prospects of getting two seats in a three-seat constituency were nil and he decided that in the interests of Fianna Fáil Kildare would become a four-seater. In order to do that he did the most extraordinary cutting up. A small corridor was cut through Meath to take in some of Westmeath that did not even adjoin Kildare. That stayed there until 1969 and the constituency was called Kildare. Then, on account of a traitor having been elected for the Labour Party in Kildare, a man who had turned his back on the fine principles of his late father——
Is it in order for a Deputy to accuse a man who is not here to defend himself in bitter terms like that?
The Deputy should not use a word of that kind.
He used the word "traitor" which is ill-mannered and bad tempered, to say the least.
I will withdraw the word and will substitute it by saying that this man changed the position of his late father, a very strong position——
He learned a little sense.
When the 1969 Bill was being introduced Fianna Fáil said: "Now with the problem solved in regard to the Labour Party, Kildare should be a three-seater." Some of the people of Kildare were cut off and put into Meath and we had weeping and gnashing of teeth. I am sorry to lose the areas that I am losing because of this Bill. I made good friends in those areas and I got a substantial vote in them in the last election. However, the Minister was faced with the problem either of adding 11,000 people or taking off 9,000. One or other had to be done and anybody who studies the area will agree that Leixlip, which is an off-shoot of Dublin and in which 400 house have been built and are occupied mostly by people who would be living in Dublin, was one of the parts to be taken away.
An article appeared in the Evening Press stating that I have made representations to the Minister not to do this or that. I want categorically to deny that I ever made representations of any kind to the Minister. Knowing the Minister as I do, I know the short shrift he would give me. My colleague, Deputy Power, was almost in tears about the fate of the second Fianna Fáil Deputy——
He is seldom in tears.
He was shedding crocodile tears on that man's behalf. He said that the revision of the area was done in the interests of the Labour Party and he used the term "stag party". Most people did not understand that term but I did. There is a man living in that area who is one of the greatest workers for the people. He is a member of the Labour Party. He did not have any influence on the drawing of the line and to say that he did is nonsense. I would say that the Minister for Local Government does not know the "Mr. Stag" referred to by Deputy Power. Nobody in the Labour Party or any other party had anything to do with the drawing of the line in Kildare. As I have said, I am sorry to be losing the good friends I have in the areas cut off from me but I am not afraid to face Kildare as a three-seater. I am confident now that we have restored the Labour Party in Kildare to what it was before the event of which I spoke and that we will continue to hold our one out of three seats. I realise the Minister had a terrible job——
Did a terrible job.
The Deputy need not try to put words into my mouth. Before I was so rudely interrupted I said the Minister had a terrible problem in regard to that constituency and most people will agree that he did a reasonably good job. I know for a fact that the man in Kildare on whose account crocodile tears were shed is very satisfied and intends to return to this House in the near future.
Terry Boylan.
I will not delay the House very long. I congratulate the Minister on what I consider to be a good job. He had to have a good look at all the constituencies and had to rearrange them which meant that slight alterations were made in many constituencies to justify the number of Deputies. As for myself, in the next campaign I will be standing in a constituency which has been changed four times. First, when Fianna Fáil were in power I was in the Sligo-Leitrim constituency. Fianna Fáil being disappointed at losing a by-election there decided to divide County Leitrim in two so that they could succeed. Leitrim was divided into a Sligo-Leitrim and Roscommon-Leitrim. On that occasion we succeeded in holding our seats despite the revision which was intended to deprive us of them. There was another carve-up in 1969. Leitrim was then in two parts while traditionally it had always been Sligo-Leitrim. In 1969 Fianna Fáil decided to make three parts of County Leitrim. This was resented by many people. They then had Donegal-Leitrim which stretched from the farthest end of Donegal down to Derry and up to Drumkieran in County Leitrim, although we were told that this was done to make it convenient for Deputies to represent their people. You had Sligo-Leitrim stretching from Bunduff Bridge up to beside Boyle, County Roscommon, and a constituency stretching from the Cavan border at Newtowngore back to Enniscrone or convenient to Ballina. We were still told this was in the interests of having closer cooperation between elected representatives and the people.
It was done for one purpose only and it succeeded in 1969. Deputy Reynolds lost his seat in Roscommon-Leitrim and Deputy Gilhawley lost his seat in Sligo-Leitrim. But the people took a good look at it next time they went to the polls and reversed the decision: they gave two Fine Gael seats to Sligo-Leitrim and two more to Roscommon-Leitrim because they very much resented what had happened. That is the history in my constituency.
I should like to say thanks to the many people who helped to elect me under very difficult circumstances. All North Leitrim which was beside where I lived and where many of my friends, relations and supporters were, was not free to vote for me; they were voting for people far down in Donegal. I am very grateful to those good friends 50 miles away who rallied and gave me loyal support and worked hard for me and returned me and to the many people in Sligo and South Leitrim also who did such a trojan job in bringing back Deputy Gilhawley as a second member in that constituency. That shows the people do not want gerrymandering; they want fair play. North Leitrim should always have been left with Sligo if Leitrim were to be divided in two. That is why we have two seats—because the people took exception to it.
In Roscommon-Leitrim it has been proved that when the people saw how they were being treated they decided to give two seats to the Opposition party and by doing so they returned Deputy Reynolds and Deputy Joan Burke for the one constituency. The position as it is today shows some common sense. We are on the way back to seeing Leitrim as a county with boundaries restored. Nobody ever objected to Sligo-Leitrim being a constituency. It does not interfere in any way with the boundaries. The Minister has made the first move in bringing back North Leitrim and a small part of Donegal to make up a constituency which will prove to be a compact one because both Deputy Gilhawley and myself and Deputy MacSharry in Sligo town will be quite convenient to any part of our constituencies. That is how it should be.
It was strange, after the 1969 election, to see how some of us were called to attend meetings to try to have Leitrim restored to its place on the map and identified as a county. It was strange to be called to these meetings to see what we could do about having this done when what had happened had been done by the Fianna Fáil Party for only one purpose. I attended some of those meetings and I said that we knew who had done it and why it was done. However, the county is now on its way back and I think the Minister is doing a reasonably good job. Let us hope we shall be alive to go into those matters again and achieve the best possible results. The Opposition cannot find any fault with this change because it means a compact constituency; it does not mean carving a county into three parts. No county deserves to be made into ribbons with a bit here and there. I think the Minister is doing a good job.
I shall not delay the House very long but reading in the Dáil reports the various comments about the west of Ireland and the concern several Deputies expressed in that connection I felt it was my duty to say a few words on this Bill. All of us were aware that this Bill had to be introduced. We knew it would be illegal to hold a general election until the Bill had gone through the Houses of the Oireachtas. Deputy Lalor has been concerned about the west of Ireland but, as a Deputy from a constituency that has lost 9,500 people, I would have asked him if he were present in the House who was responsible for that loss.
It is a world trend.
In the last ten years the north-west has lost 40,000 people. If the Government who were in power were as interested then in the west at that time, there would have been no need for the area to lose seats. In my county there are two constituencies, East and West Mayo. The county was butchered in the last revision. My constituency is 100 miles long, while the average throughout the country is 45 miles. The last revision was made with one political motive in mind. We had two Ministers from Mayo and it was quite clear they would not be elected in the south of the county if the area were not divided into east and west constituencies.
What is it now? It is even wider now.
The two Minister were put into two constituencies and, consequently, both were elected. We should not fool ourselves. That revision was for the benefit of a political party. I appreciate the concern of the Minister for Local Government and the great problem with which he was faced. He had to start from Donegal and go down as far as Clare. The only two Deputies whom I think will be slightly affected are Deputy White and Deputy Loughnane. Every other Deputy has been protected by the revision. I am convinced the Minister has made a thorough investigation into the entire matter and I am 100 per cent behind him in what he has done.
We do not like to encroach on county boundaries but if Mayo wanted to retain seats it was necessary to have a movement across the border. The portion of Roscommon that has come into Mayo is within 12 miles of my area. I can attend to that area but, to be quite honest, not in the same way as a Deputy from that county. A Deputy from a county can do far more than an outside Deputy. However, if I am elected and represent that area again, I shall do my best to represent the people from that part of Roscommon who have come into Mayo.
I have listened to the speeches of Deputy McLaughlin and Deputy Reynolds. I would ask the Deputy across the House why was Deputy McLaughlin put ten miles outside his constituency in the last revision, and why was Deputy Reynolds put 16 miles outside his constituency? Was it to help them? We must be realistic about the matter. The last revision took place in order to ensure that Fianna Fáil would get more seats. Nobody could agree that it was an honest decision to put two Deputies from the Roscommon-Leitrim and the Sligo-Leitrim constituencies ten and 16 miles outside their constituencies. However, the present Minister has faced the situation realistically. The people in the west do not want the sympathy of those who are crying about that area today. It is too late for that now. The Government are doing their best for the west and I am firmly convinced that when the next general election takes place the population in Mayo will have increased and we will not need any portion of Roscommon.
I should like to compliment the Minister on the realistic way he has approached this problem. He has dealt with the west in an honest way and I trust he will not have to make another revision of that area.
I am glad to be able to make a few remarks on this Bill. For a start, we should bear in mind that the Government have been obliged to introduce the Bill because the results of the 1971 census showed a considerable shift in population within the country, particularly affecting the east and west. It was not a question of the Government attempting to impose an electoral solution of their own choosing on the public.
Perhaps we could forget for a moment the interests of the Government and Fianna Fáil and consider the general public. One of the major advantages in this Bill, as opposed to the 1969 Act and the previous Act, is the fact that there has been a substantial decrease in the number of four-seat constituencies and a proportionate increase in three-and five-seaters. For example, we had 14 four-seaters as a result of the 1969 Act, which represented about 33 per cent of the constituencies in the country. Under the proposed 1973 Bill, it is suggested there should be ten four-seaters, bringing the proportion of such seats from 33 per cent to 23 per cent.
I would respectfully suggest that this is a very significant matter where the general public and political scientists are concerned because it is generally accepted that if you want swings, if you want changes, if you want a situation where the public might hold their own destiny in their hands to a greater extent than has happened, electorally, then you can achieve this type of situation with the odd numbers, the threes or the fives, which allow for effective change within constituencies. It has been proved over the years that four-seat constituencies tend to allow for a continuation of the status quo. In that sense it would seem to me that members of the Opposition might even welcome aspects of this Bill from their Opposition viewpoint. It is quite obvious that the strategy of the Fianna Fáil Party in previous Acts, other than their obligation under the Constitution, had been to insulate themselves securely in so far as was possible to continue in Government. This fact has since been admitted by the Minister for Local Government who was involved in the carve-up of 1969.
It is quite obvious, in relation to the Dublin area where Fianna Fáil may bleat at present in relation to what they charge to be gerrymandering, that there was an extremely undesirable situation. There was a high proportion of the vote of this country contained within Dublin but, to a great extent, that vote was impotent in the sense that there was an enormous number of four-seat constituencies and, statistically, we know that in four-seat constituencies a party with much less than 50 per cent of the vote can achieve two out of four seats. This is precisely what happened in Dublin so the Fianna Fáil Party contesting a four-seater with, perhaps, only one-third of the votes came through with two out of four seats. I do not think the general public would agree that this was an altogether fair situation. By the same token, if Fianna Fáil chose to use this strategy in Dublin, it does not come very well from them to be critical of the present Bill. Personally, while I might have some regard for the opinions of the general public or vocational groups representing elements of the general public, I have found the attitude of Fianna Fáil quite hypocritical in relation to this Bill because they are the party that carved the country electorally in 1969, obliged to do so under the Constitution but with the sole motivation of party political advantage, a fact which has since been admitted by the then Minister for Local Government, Mr Boland.
For that reason the Opposition's present charges of gerrymandering fall on very deaf ears so far as I am concerned and, I believe, so far as many members of the general public are concerned. Frankly, where the public are concerned—and this is probably one of the weaknesses of those of us who are politicians; we tend sometimes to underestimate their interest or lack of interest or intelligence when we are wrapped up in our own affairs—it strikes me that this whole question of the Electoral Bill is falling on fairly deaf ears. The public at large are finding it a rather boring matter. Among them I do not believe it is at all generating the sense of outrage which is sanctimoniously expressed by the Opposition. Bearing past performance in mind in this area, I do not think the public are in sympathy with the Opposition's tactics.
Of course, there are changes. By the nature of things one cannot introduce electoral reform or proposed changes where constituencies are concerned without the changes affecting individual Deputies, prospective candidates and political parties. Of course, there are isolated incidents of dissatisfaction from particular Deputies and in a sense from political parties. You cannot possibly have change without effects. The Opposition must also concede that there are undesirable effects in certain areas as a result of this Bill for individual Deputies and prospective candidates on this side of the House. Obviously, the effects running across the country, in a particular constituency and in bordering constituencies in rural areas, create serious problems for all parties and most candidates.
Like my colleague, Deputy Finn, who has just spoken and Deputy McLaughlin and Deputy Reynolds, I am amused at the extent to which Fianna Fáil spokesmen have referred to the west of Ireland in this debate and the effect on the west of reduced representation. I am particularly amused that the expressions of concern have not been at all confined to western Deputies in the Opposition. We had Deputy Lalor, Deputy Colley, Deputies from the north, the east, the south, suddenly finding great concern for western population trends, western development and related topics. Deputy Finn spoke from his heart, living in the area, of the disastrous situation that had existed in Mayo for a generation in terms of population statistics and Deputy Wilson interjected to say that, of course, it was not their fault, that this was a world trend.
Which it is.
No, it is not a world trend.
Would the Deputy believe Scotland, the United States, Brittany?
It is facile to explain what is happening in parts of this country that have been denuded of people by inferring that what is happening is due to world trends. We know there is depopulation in rural areas throughout the world; we know there is depopulation in rural areas of western European countries, but the point is that, statistically, the level of under-development and the loss of people in the west of Ireland bear no comparison with the areas mentioned by Deputy Wilson in Brittany or any other part of the EEC countries.
Rural Scotland is one. Scotland is a big industrial country.
World trends are of shifts of population from rural districts. You can attempt to call something a world trend if there is a movement of people at the rate of 5 per cent in a decade or in a generation from a particular area. This can be classified as trend. Deputy Finn referred to a situation which was typical of Leitrim, Roscommon and other western counties.
Cavan.
In Mayo from 1952, the year of the introduction of the Underdeveloped Areas Act by the late Government, with the supposed objective of sorting out the problems of such regions, the population dropped from about 130,000 to 100,000, a reduction of 25 per cent in the total population over a 20 year period.
Only for our industrial policy it would be more.
I challenge Deputy Wilson, if he says this is a world trend, to show me statistics comparable to that from any other area in western Europe.
Rural Scotland.
I will concede the point if he does and I trust he will concede it to me if he does not show me these statistics. A generalisation suggesting levels which are completely different is not acceptable. The depopulation in the west of Ireland does not bear any relationship to any other part of western Europe.
Would the Deputy not agree that industrialisation and organisation are world trends at the expense of the rural community?
I accept Deputy Wilson's point but it does not necessarily follow from that that what has happened in the west of Ireland bears any comparison to what has happened in what are termed the underdeveloped areas of other countries in Europe. I challenge the Deputy to produce statistics to prove his point and if he does not do so, I suggest that he concede to me.
I will produce them. The Deputy has not produced any statistics.
Deputy Staunton.
As Deputy Finn has stated, during most of that period the Fianna Fáil Government were in power and, consequently, they held the destiny of this country in their hands. I accept that there were trends. I accept also that there is an extent to which a government can go but very much more could have been done. There could have been much more stabilisation in western areas but the last Government must bear some of the responsibility for what occurred.
We tried.
Therefore, it does not behave them to break their hearts here in talking of the depopulation of the west. Their bemoanings will fall on deaf ears so far as the people of the west are concerned. The change proposed in respect of the west is justified on the basis of statistics. Under our Constitution these statistics demand that there cannot be the same number of Deputies in the area as there have been. In the same way, increased population in the east of the country demands increased representation.
There is another aspect of the Opposition's viewpoint regarding this Bill to which I take considerable exception. The underlying reason for the Bill is the drastic population changes that have taken place. Deputy Colley in particular alleged that the Government in introducing this Bill are attempting to be undemocratic and are setting out purposely to allow a greater number of people elect a Deputy in the west and a lesser number elect a Deputy in the east. The Deputy was speaking of the tolerance factor and of the differential we have of about 1,000 per member but which, under the Constitution, we can use and he was suggesting that we should automatically allow the western representation to stand at the lower level in terms of population and the eastern part of the country to stand at the higher level. I would like to take Deputy Colley to task in regard to these remarks and I do so for a very fundamental reason which should be noted. In 1969 Fianna Fáil adopted this tactic of allowing, practically to an inch, representation for fewer people in the west and for more people in the east despite population statistics available then of which they were aware and which predicted future trends fairly accurately.
There is a higher percentage of voters in the west.
Deputy Staunton.
The point is that the decisions of the Government in 1969 were based on the previous census of population and they knew that from the time of that census until the Act of 1969 there was depopulation in western areas and increases in the eastern areas.
Would the Deputy agree that there are more votes in the west because there are more children in the east than in the west?
That is a factor but a fairly minute one. My point is that in 1969 the census of population had taken place and the Government, being aware of that census, arrived at conclusions which they thought were to their advantage politically and under which they allowed the minimum number of people in western areas to elect a Deputy and the maximum number in the east to elect a Deputy. Nationally, this was very bad policy because between the time of the census and the 1969 Act there had been further depopulation in the west but further substantial increases in population in the east. The result was that the 1969 Act was to become unconstitutional within a short time. Statisticians could have predicted very accurately for Fianna Fáil what would be the population trends for the next decade.
The population has been increasing.
I take the Deputy's point but he is again speaking glibly in the context of world trends. He is speaking nationally rather than specifically.
I am entitled to do so.
Deputy Staunton.
Fianna Fáil took no account of these statistics in 1969 and for that reason this country only a short time later is faced with major electoral reforms. Why should this waste of the people's money and of our time be necessary now? I respectfully suggest that if the last revision had been enacted in view of future population trends it is possible that this Bill might not be necessary for another decade, thereby saving the public a great deal of time and money. To that extent the very poor approach of Mr. Boland and of the then Government resulted in our discussing this Bill at a time when there is much else to be discussed, such as Estimates and other Bills of importance to the nation.
The particularly interesting aspect so far as the general public are concerned is that Dublin is becoming politically more significant. It had been thought nationally that Dublin was extremely important in the matter of changing governments and of producing swings. I do not think this was so in past elections due to the constituency arrangements; the reality of the last general election suggests that this was not so. In fact, the reality in the last general election suggests that trends in rural Ireland, particularly in the part of Ireland from which I come, led to a change in Government.
Again, in 1969 the re-election of the then Government was due to the situation in rural Ireland. Dublin did not have all this influence nationally. It was fairly impotent, as I have suggested.
Of course, this situation has changed completely because in Dublin you are faced with 13 three-seat constituencies and this will lead to a substantial interest in political matters. I would think this should be welcomed by the Opposition because of the fact that the public will be susceptible to individual candidates, to Governments and to Oppositions and, it would seem to me, that if we are to fight a fair fight this situation should be welcomed by any political party. With the much higher proportion of three-seaters and five-seaters representation is more prone to swings. We welcome this as a Government. If we were attempting to insulate ourselves we might move towards four-seaters throughout the entire country. We will be glad to go to the public at a future election when the time comes.
I should like to refer briefly to certain specific matters around the country. The Minister had an extremely difficult job to do. I do not envy him his task. I am pleased, as a Mayo Deputy, that we have at least retained our two three-seat constituencies despite the fact that there was depopulation of the area. We have managed to do that because of the fact that an area outside Mayo was brought into Mayo. We are glad that we have retained our two three-seaters at least.
Does the Deputy prefer east and west or north and south?
Frankly, I prefer east and west. I believe the Minister should take a look at the internal boundaries within Mayo. For example, a not altogether desirable position has arisen where the boundary is concerned at the northern end of the constituency in that Crossmolina town is very much part of the Ballina area and is in the Ballina electoral area. It is a town with a population of about 1,000 people. It is only about seven miles from Ballina. If you like, there is a great deal of commuting between the two towns. There are many people in Crossmolina who work in Ballina. Their local newspaper is in Ballina and their major services are in Ballina. They are very much part of that area. There is a measure of dissatisfaction because of the fact that it is proposed to incorporate Crossmolina and certain other parts of that area in West Mayo. The Minister and his advisers should look at this situation to see whether within the Mayo boundaries a certain change might be made which might be desirable and which would be welcomed by the general public.
The problem in Mayo is that, if you start bringing other areas into it, you are in an area of huge territory. The constituency which I represent extends about 100 miles from Shrule to Blacksod. Naturally, it is very difficult for a Deputy to service an area of this size and communications are difficult when you spend three or four days in Dublin. I appreciate the problems the Minister had in Donegal. A five-seater seems fairly rational as a solution there. I am pleased that the Minister did not find it necessary to alter Sligo-Leitrim or Roscommon-Leitrim in any substance. I am not really qualified to talk about the Cork situation. That seems to be another world within this country.
Guilty conscience?
I am sure Deputy Wilson will welcome the Cavan-Monaghan five-seater. Briefly, those are my views on this Bill. I want to revert again to a fact which I mentioned which has not been brought to the notice of the public to the extent which should be possible, that is, the underlying fact that in 1973 an Electoral (Amendment) Bill is introduced by the Government although a major Electoral (Amendment) Bill was introduced in 1969 by the previous Government. In this very short period of four years the fact that a change is again necessary under the Constitution——
I realise the Deputy's difficulty but he is repeating himself.
I should like to thank the Ceann Comhairle for his patience and to thank Deputy Wilson for his patience in listening to my supposed repetition. As a Government we will be glad to face the general public when the next election comes. We would welcome the same attitude by the Opposition. Let us have done with this Bill which, in a sense, is a waste of the time of this House. Let us get on with the job. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment as Minister. This is the first occasion I have had to speak to this House in regard to any area of his responsibility. I found him to be very accessible. I believe he is doing a very good job. I compliment him on this Bill. I do not envy him the task he had.
First of all, I should like to say that I am grateful to the many Deputies who took part in this debate and remembered that it was a debate in Parliament on a serious subject. Most Deputies on both sides of the House did so but, unfortunately, a few seemed to forget that they were not at a church gate and indulged in some things which are not acceptable in ordinary Parliamentary circles.
What kind of indulgences at church gates?
I listened to a few of them at the Monaghan by-election but I will tell Deputy Wilson in private.
About the indulgences?
That is right. I sat right through the debate with the exception of a few days when I was in Sunningdale. While I was listening to the debate, a number of people on the Government side made points which proved that they did not agree with everything in the Bill. When a referee referees a match, if one side agrees with him on everything and the other side disagrees he is a bad referee, but if both sides find fault with him usually he is fairly fair. There seemed to be an element of that in the debate on this Bill.
A couple of people from the Fianna Fáil side not only made wild statements while I was here but also when I was over in Sunningdale the wailing of the lost souls in Fianna Fáil reached me there. They were either terribly afraid of the outcome for some reason or other, or they were putting on an act. I do not know which. What amuses me about all this is that a number of people in Fianna Fáil, and particularly ex-Ministers, seem to have a persecution complex. First of all, they accused RTE of being against them and showing them up in a bad light, then the Government Information Bureau, then the national newspapers, and now they have descended on me and are saying I am deliberately persecuting them and putting them on the cross, and God knows I would not do that to anybody.
Poor you. I feel sorry for you.
I suppose we may expect that sort of thing. From some of the comments made by ex-Ministers it would appear that they are making a very bad mistake. They are judging the Government by their own standards and, when they do that, they expect things to be done which we would not dream of doing. I suppose it is one of those things.
One thing I resented very much— and unfortunately I was not present to hear it—was that at least one Deputy on the Fianna Fáil benches took the opportunity to make an attack on the officials of my Department and on other officials. I should like to say that anything in this Bill which is disliked by Fianna Fáil, or by anybody else, is my responsibility and I take responsibility for it. The officials of the Department are an excellent group doing a good job irrespective of who is in power.
Hear, hear.
It is very unfair that someone should take advantage of this House to make an attack on such officials, particularly as one of the people who made the attack was a rather senior member of the Fianna Fáil Party. It is rather a pity that it should have happened.
We had during the debate a remarkable statement by some of the Deputies opposite to the effect that, in order to make the Bill a good Bill, there should be a definite pattern of some kind. Deputy Molloy seemed to go to town on this. He talked about the three-seat constituencies and the five-seat constituencies. Let me make something very clear, if it is not already clear to everybody in this House and outside it: nobody can guarantee an election result. Nobody can guarantee in 1973 what the result of an election will be in 1977 or 1978 following a change in constituency boundaries. Is it not quite true that no matter what Government are in power, when there are a number of three-seat constituencies, as there are, particularly in Dublin, if the Government in power are doing well when the election takes place then the Government will benefit by three-seat constituencies; if they are doing badly then the Opposition will benefit. For goodness sake, would people exercise ordinary common sense about this?
I am glad Deputy Molloy has graced the House with his presence because there are a few things on which I should like to comment, things I am sure in which he will be very interested. Deputy Molloy and a number of other Deputies said we had not brought in much legislation since we took office. Where my own Department are concerned, I should like to point out that the following Bills were brought in by me: the votes at 18 Bill, the Bill to validate the reduction in the rates following the Government's decision re health charges and housing, the Bill for the local elections and this Bill.
Before going on to deal with the Bill in general, I should like to deal with a reference Deputy Lalor made when he was speaking. Quite frankly, Deputy Lalor being an ex-Minister, I did expect a little bit more from him. Perhaps I expected too much. I want to make it clear, in spite of the impression he tried to create, that in the 1961 general election I headed the poll in the Meath constituency. I got 27 per cent of the valid poll. In 1965, I got 29 per cent, again heading the poll with 1,000 votes over the quota. As a result of Fianna Fáil manipulation of the constituencies in the Electoral (Amendment) Act of 1969 the area in which I was born and reared was taken away from me and divided between two constituencies. I then had a very reduced poll in the new constituency, a constituency which was drawn for the purpose of getting Fianna Fáil more support, and it achieved that result. My vote dropped to 19 per cent, but I still got elected. On the last occasion I got 19 per cent again and I still got elected. I want to put that on record to correct the impression given that I was a hind tit man who was dragged in at the tailend.
Now what I am doing on this occasion is putting the areas taken away, back where they belong, back from Cavan and Monaghan and, because of something I shall explain later, I am also taking a portion of Kildare; this will comprise a four-seat constituency. Frankly, I have no doubt at all but that there will be a fight between Fianna Fáil and the Coalition parties for the fourth seat and as of this moment I believe Fianna Fáil appear to have the edge. They were only about 1,000 behind on the last occasion and they should have a good chance.
You cannot win against people like Fianna Fáil in a debate like this because, when you take away a portion they think will do them harm, they yowl and, when you give them a piece that will be of assistance to them, they also yowl.
(Interruptions.)
I have survived a long time in this House and if Deputy C. Murphy survives as long he will look at it in the same way as I am looking at it now.
Deputy Molloy suggested that this was something new and we had, in fact, started off something that he did not consider very important at this stage. Drawing up the constituency changes, according to him, was not so very important. Just to refresh his memory, I should like to remind him that in August, 1972, he started the procedure officially. I do not know whether he himself was doing it or whether it was someone else but I want to make it very clear here that I drew up this constituencies Bill. I did not have anybody else, either a senior or a junior Minister, looking over my shoulder and saying: "Do this" or: "Do that". I drew up the Bill and I stand over it.
In August, 1972, Deputy Molloy started to draw up the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. I want to make that clear because of references made by him on a number of occasions, by myself and by others to the question as to what was left in the Department and what was not left when I took over. I am now stating that the originals of a number of proposals were not in the Department when I went in and, since Deputy Molloy had them under his control, I assume he took the originals away with him. Now he was perfectly entitled to do that, if he wanted to do that. I want to make that clear because suggestions have been made that I was inventing this. The originals are really not so very important because everyone who has been in ministerial office is aware that copies are kept of everything. Deputy Molloy should have been aware of that. I am sure he was aware that there were copies of what he suggested should be done which were left behind and which were made available to me when I asked for them, but not until I asked for them.
In August, 1972, there were proposals. It was proposed to have 148 seats and to give Dublin three additional seats and North Leinster one extra. There is no great change there. As I proceed with this I shall be able to show that by the time Deputy Molloy had finished with his proposals he had turned what was supposed to be a constituencies amendment Bill into a dog's breakfast. He will understand why I am going through this.
On a point of order, is the Minister replying to the debate that took place here or to what is he referring? As far as I am concerned I want to put it on the record again that there was no constituencies Bill prepared while I was in the Office the Minister now holds so none of the implications can be substantiated.
Deputy Molloy had better take this now because he will not wriggle out from under it. There were a number of proposals. I have got here the copies of the files which were prepared for and with Deputy Molloy. I have copies of them. I have copies also of the maps, maps he did not leave behind him, but I have copies of them if the Deputy would like to have a look at them.
Maps of what?
Maps of the proposals to change the constituencies for the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1973, which the Deputy would have brought into this House had there not been a change of Government. Let the Deputy not deny it because I do not want to accuse him of telling lies and, if he denies it, I shall have no other option.
He is suffering from loss of memory.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I am not a bit surprised that Deputy Molloy will try to do everything he can to prevent me from putting on the record of the House the dog's breakfast he proposed to make of the constituencies if he had been left in power a few months longer. I propose to stitch this into the record so that the Fianna Fáil Deputies who have been talking about this for the last few days will realise how terribly stupid they were. I am not a bit surprised that the new Deputies, such as Deputy Murphy, who attempted to make a constructive contribution, did not know what was happening. Ex-Ministers apparently were not shown what was going on and made fools of themselves—as I will prove within the next 30 minutes. They will be in a pretty bad way when, and if, they read it in the Official Report.
The Minister stated a moment ago that he did not apply to any of his colleagues.
The Government are usually shown net results of what has happened.
But if there was no net result at the time——
The trouble about little fellows like you is that you come along——
There was no net result available at that time.
We do not carry on here as we do in a secondary school.
There was no net result available at that time.
The Deputy does not know. He was not here.
The Minister used the word "net." What is the net result?
(Interruptions.)
Sit down and take your medicine. People do not think of their own health. It is on maps. I will produce the maps to the Press if necessary to show what was happening at this time. I am satisfied. I will not let Fianna Fáil get away with this charade which they have attempted to carry on for the past few weeks. I will tell what Deputy Molloy proposed to bring before the House.
That would be a miracle, because I did not know what I was going to bring before the House myself.
In August, 1972, he suggested that the county of Louth with a small area of County Meath could be made a four-seater. Monaghan with part of Cavan and the part of Meath already in the constituency of Monaghan would form a three-seater. The balance of Cavan, including the parts of Meath presently in the constituency of Cavan, with approximately 9,000 additional persons from Meath would be a three-seater. The balance of Meath constituency together with a small additional area from Kildare was to be a three-seater. The balance of Kildare would be within range for three seats and Longford-Westmeath would be within the range for four seats. That was not so bad at all.
No changes were proposed in relation to Laois-Offaly, five seats, and Wexford, four seats. It was proposed that part of Wicklow county, three seats, be transferred to Carlow-Kilkenny. Carlow-Kilkenny, five seats, would remain otherwise unchanged.
In the Dublin area, it was proposed that the city representation remain unchanged, that is, six four-seat constituencies and one three-seat constituency, that three extra seats be allocated to the county and that a new three-seat constituency, called West County Dublin be created. It also proposed that the overlap between city and county at Baldoyle be continued.
In Munster there would be no change in relation to North-East Cork, four seats, North Kerry, three seats, East Limerick, four seats, West Limerick, three seats, and North Tipperary, three seats. Both Cork city constituencies, two three-seaters were to cede a small number of persons to Mid-Cork, four seats, which, otherwise would remain unchanged. A small number of persons were to be transferred from South-West Cork, three seats, to South Kerry, three seats. These constituencies would remain unchanged otherwise. Finally it was proposed that South Tipperary, four seats, take in an additional part of Waterford, three seats. So far so good.
In the West all constituencies were to remain three seaters—each county boundary was to be breached. Donegal-Leitrim was to receive a small addition from North-East Donegal which would remain otherwise unchanged. Clare-South Galway was to receive a small transfer from Clare, which again would remain otherwise unchanged, and cede the area of Roscommon currently in Clare-South Galway to Roscommon-Leitrim. It was proposed that a small number of persons be transferred from West to North-East Galway. North-East Galway would return to Roscommon-Leitrim a small part of the area of Roscommon currently in North-East Galway. West Mayo was to be brought up to the required level by transferring persons from East Mayo.
What has that to do with the Bill?
Sit down when you are told. You will know in a few minutes.
The Minister is in order. The Deputy is wasting time. He should not interrupt the Minister. The Minister's statement is relevant to the Bill.
The balance of East Mayo plus part of Roscommon-Leitrim would form a further constituency. Sligo-Leitrim, it was proposed, would give population to Roscommon-Leitrim. Roscommon-Leitrim, which has now received population from Clare-South Galway, North-East Galway and Sligo-Leitrim and given population to East Mayo, made up the final constituency. Deputy Molloy changed his mind fairly quickly—he had alternatives. They were that parts of Wicklow were to be transferred to the proposed constituencies of South County Dublin and West County Dublin. Do you hear that Deputy Murphy? Parts of Wicklow to be transferred to the proposed constituencies of South County Dublin and West County Dublin. Does that sound familiar?
Yes, it does.
Each constituency would remain a three-seater. Part of Wicklow was to be transferred to Kildare. Kildare in turn was to transfer population to Meath and all would be three-seaters.
In September 1972 he again had a change. Here he has some gems. The counties of Cavan and Monaghan, plus part of County Louth were to form a five-seat constituency. County Meath with some additions from Louth and North County Dublin was to become a four-seater, while the balance of Louth was to remain a three-seater. Dublin, less population to Meath and Wicklow, was to have 40 seats (ten four-seaters). Wicklow with population from Dublin and Kildare was to become a four-seater. The balance of Kildare was to form a three-seater. These were all in September. He was working very hard at this time.
What date are we on now?
In September, 1972, proposals for the west were reviewed. The Minister indicated that the Oranmore-Annaghdown areas should not be removed from the West Galway constituency and that if possible, the part of Oranmore town, the new Kilraine estate which is not contained in the district electoral division of Oranmore should be added to the constituency. In the revised scheme which was submitted the townlands of Moneyduff and Oranhill, which include the Kilraine estate from the district electoral division of Clarinbridge, were added to the existing West Galway constituency. However, the previous scheme for the west envisaged that almost 3,000 people would be removed from West Galway.
As this could not be done under the revised proposals it was necessary to change the proposals already submitted for all of the constituencies in the area, except East and West Mayo and North-East Donegal, to bring them within the constitutional limits. The changes envisaged were as follows— here we come to the real meat—I should not say "meat" because I called it a dog's breakfast and there would not be much meat in that.
In relation to Donegal-Leitrim, in addition to taking population from North-East Donegal, it was proposed to transfer population to Sligo-Leitrim. Sligo-Leitrim plus the addition from Donegal-Leitrim was to give population to Roscommon-Leitrim and to Longford-Westmeath. West Galway, as outlined above was to receive population from Clare-South Galway. North-East Galway in addition to giving population to Roscommon-Leitrim was to take population from Clare-South Galway. Roscommon-Leitrim was to take population from Sligo-Leitrim, North-East Galway and Longford-Westmeath and to give population to Longford-Westmeath and East Mayo. Longford-Westmeath, it was envisaged, would give population to Roscommon-Leitrim and take population from Sligo-Leitrim and Roscommon Leitrim. Clare-South Galway was to give population to North-East Galway and West Galway and take population from Clare. Finally Clare was to give population to Clare-South Galway. He rested after that. In December, 1972, he decided to change the west again. All constituencies were to be three seaters. It was proposed that North-East Donegal in addition to giving population to Donegal-Leitrim would also receive population from Donegal-Leitrim. Perhaps Deputy Blaney would be interested to know why that was done. West Mayo was to take population from West Galway and East Mayo and to receive population from East Mayo in return. East Mayo, it was envisaged, was to take population from West Mayo and Roscommon-Leitrim and also to give population to West Mayo. It was proposed that West Galway would give population to West Mayo and take population from Clare-South Galway and North-East Galway. North-East Galway, in addition to taking population from Clare-South Galway was to give population to West Galway. The proposals for Roscommon-Leitrim were a combination of those already submitted.
In Munster no change was proposed in relation to East and West Limerick and Kerry. Additional transfers were proposed from South-West Cork to South Kerry, three seats. In the Cork region six three-seat constituencies were proposed as follows: South-West Cork plus transfer from Mid-Cork; East Cork was to comprise the southern part of the existing constituency of North-East Cork, together with a transfer of population from Cork City.
Here I want to make it very clear that Deputy Molloy, in each of his proposals no matter what they were, proposed to take almost the same amount of population from Cork City to a county constituency as I did. If that is not true Deputy Molloy can deny it. I am stating that this is what he proposed in all of his proposals. I was amazed Deputy Molloy asked me the other day why I did not take from North City and put it in with North-East Cork. He felt he might have some more backing if I embarrassed the former Taoiseach by going into his area. I did not do that because I have too much respect for that gentleman.
The fact remains that there were no proposals and that is what counts.
I am reading from them.
This is shuffling with figures.
Can we have the net result?
Order.
I can give the Deputy the net result, complete with maps if necessary. East Cork was to comprise the southern part of the existing constituency of North-East Cork together with a transfer of population from Cork City; North Cork was to comprise the northern portions of the present constituencies of North-East Cork and Mid-Cork. The balance of Mid-Cork plus several thousand persons from Cork City were to form the new Mid-Cork constituency; the balance of Cork City was to form two three-seater constituencies. Waterford, with part of South Tipperary, was to become a four-seater constituency and the balance of South Tipperary was to become a three-seater.
In South Leinster the county of Offaly and part of County Laois was to become a three-seater. The balance of County Laois plus part of Kilkenny and Carlow was also to become a three-seater. The balance of Carlow and Kilkenny together with part of Wexford—as at present—was to become a four-seat constituency. Deputy Lalor might be interested to hear of this because it was obvious from what he said in this House that he was not aware of what was going on.
The county of Louth, less population to be transferred to Cavan-Monaghan which was to be a five-seater as previously proposed and to Meath was to remain a three-seater. The county of Meath, together with population from Louth and less population to be transferred to Kildare, was also to be a three-seater. Kildare, with transfers from Dublin and Meath and less population to Wicklow, was to become a four-seater. Finally, Wicklow, with population from Kildare, was to become a four-seater. A scoop was put in in order to bring Deputy Bermingham's town into Wicklow. I am sure that was purely accidental and I would not accuse Deputy Molloy of having any ulterior motive in this regard. Accidentally his pen or the scalpel or whatever he was using, slipped.
I never heard of Deputy Bermingham until we returned here in March.
The Dublin constituencies were to remain as previously submitted and Dublin county was to have three four-seat constituencies.
The Minister might as well amuse himself with this great Christmas toy he has.
Having looked at this and some more with which I will not bore the House because it would take me more than three hours to read all the nonsense which Deputy Molloy carried on with over a period of a couple of months——
And he is still at it.
The Minister seems to be revelling in what he calls nonsense.
There is a slight distinction which the Deputy does not understand. I am revelling in the recitation of nonsense by Deputy Molloy who had the audacity the week before last to accuse me of breaching constituency boundaries which he said should be left alone.
The Minister said he did not wish to breach county boundaries; he kept implying that he did not want to do this. The Bill brought before this House blatantly does this. I am pointing out the inconsistency of the Minister.
The Deputy is only adding more stupidity to what he said last week.
The Minister is inconsistent. If he says one thing he should mean it.
Order, the Minister to conclude.
As far as County Louth was concerned——
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy must be playing marbles or something. As far as County Louth was concerned it only required a small bit to make it a four-seater. That is what I am doing. As far as Monaghan and Cavan are concerned I am making this a five-seater. In case Deputy Molloy's memory is not that good I should like to remind him that he proposed to transfer portion of Cavan into Sligo-Leitrim.
The Minister's entire argument is hypothetical.
It is not. It is down here in black and white. It is on record and it is there for anyone who wishes to see it.
The Deputy must have had a lapse of memory.
Deputy Molloy is getting the Bill now and he does not like it. As far as Meath was concerned the Deputy proposed to give back to Meath——
I proposed to give nothing and I will not stay here and be told by the Minister that I proposed to do anything because there were no definite proposals.
Deputy Molloy should desist from interrupting. The Deputy had his opportunity of speaking on this Bill.
The Chair is offering no protection to this side of the House. I was continually interrupted when I was speaking.
The Deputy may not make an allegation of this kind against the Chair. The Deputy will please resume his seat.
The Minister has mentioned "the net result" and we ought to be told the "net result".
I do not mind the Minister reading out 25 exercises that were carried out but I object to the Minister referring to those exercises as a proposal.
The Deputy should desist from interrupting.
No Bill was prepared while I was in that Department.
The Minister is in possession and must be allowed to continue without interruption.
The Minister is telling a lie if he is claiming that I had a proposal.
I am not telling a lie.
Deputy Molloy has inferred that the Minister is telling a lie or telling lies. He must withdraw that remark. It is not in order to accuse any Member of this House of being guilty of telling a lie. The Deputy must withdraw the allegation.
I said that the Minister is telling a lie if he is insisting that I had a definite proposal prepared in relation to the Electoral (Amendment) Bill and if the Minister continues on that line he is telling a lie.
I have not said that Deputy Molloy had a definite proposal. He had nothing.
That is fair enough. Now we have the truth, at last. The Minister can now go on and talk about the 25 exercises for the next four hours if he wishes.
What Deputy Molloy had was a group of proposals which he was moving about according as anybody kicked them. He rushed in three times in one month and changed the proposals. Between August and early September you had three efforts at it and they were going from bad to worse. You were trying to arrange to have Louth——
On a point of information, should these matters not be addressed to the Chair rather than to a Deputy opposite?
That is a matter for the Chair.
I am wrong, I should speak through the Chair, and I admit that. It is damn good that someone who is not a wet week in the House should start talking about rules of order.
I was elected by the people of Wicklow and I am proud to represent them.
Let us behave ourselves and get on with the business before us.
I want to point out that Deputy Molloy had intended to make Louth a three-seater; to make Monaghan and Cavan a five-seater with portion of Louth in on one side and a portion on the other side added to Leitrim. He proposed to give back to Meath——
This is all rubbish because my intentions are not known.
It is here in writing and on maps. Surely we are not going to be told that the former Minister was wasting the time of his civil servants doodling when, in fact, he was supposed to be drawing up an Electoral (Amendment) Bill. If he was not doing that what on earth was he doing?
No Bill was drawn up and it could not be there.
The whole lot is here.
(Cavan): It is no wonder Deputy Molloy is ashamed of it.
I must ask Deputy Molloy to desist from interrupting otherwise I shall have to invoke the Standing Orders against him.
The Chair did not give me too much protection when I was interrupted. You seem to be blind in the left eye.
The Chair seeks to provide proper reception for all Deputies and Ministers in this House but the Deputy is engaging in barracking which is a different matter altogether.
The position is that Deputy Molloy was preparing a Bill and he cannot deny this. I have not got the original documents because Deputy Molloy brought them away with him.
(Cavan): Burned them.
Burned them or did something with them. However, he did not know that the copies were left behind. He should have known that.
They are of no value.
(Cavan): They are very valuable.
Where is the original draft?
Deputy Molloy was putting back the portion that was taken from Meath and given to Monaghan and Cavan. He was having a little narrow constituency of Meath taking in Ardee from County Louth and a bit beside it and making it a three-seater. We know why he was doing that. He was then making a four-seater with the remainder of Meath, portion of County Dublin and portion of County Kildare. He was then taking part of County Kildare, moving the town of Athy nearly across country and putting it into Wicklow and making Wicklow a four-seater, because he was trying to cut out Deputy Joe Bermingham.
I had never even heard of Deputy Bermingham then.
The Deputy has heard a lot about him since and will be hearing about him again. Those are only some of the proposals Deputy Molloy had, and he was getting more and more bogged down in them. Then he and other Deputies have said that this was not the most important Bill that should be before the House, that we should be doing something else.
I did not say that.
If the Deputy did not say it he is about the only one in the Fianna Fáil Party who did not say it.
Do not quote me then as saying something I did not say.
I am not quoting the Deputy.
(Cavan): The Deputy cannot take it.
As far as the west was concerned, at one stage he was putting the whole town of Athlone into Roscommon-Leitrim, and a large tract of Leitrim was attached to Longford-Westmeath. This was a nice bit of doodling. This area would be drawn partly from the Sligo-Leitrim constituency and partly from the Roscommon-Leitrim constituency. The effect of this would be to divide the unfortunate county of Leitrim between four constituencies. At least I have divided Leitrim between two, and there is a natural boundary between the areas where I have drawn the dividing line which has been recognised by the people who live there. Deputy Molloy was going to divide Leitrim into quarters.
He was not going to do anything of the sort.
It is on top of Deputy Molloy and he cannot scramble out from under it. Part of West Galway around Leenane would go to West Mayo; a hunk of Roscommon would be added to East Mayo, and a further slice of Clare around Ennistymon would end up in Galway. If the youngest child who could use a pencil was doing this sort of thing it would be considered that it was wasting paper. Deputy Molloy seriously proposed this, and having done it had maps drawn to show what the result would be.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister, without interruption.
As a further refinement there were to be two-way transfers of territory between the two Donegal constituencies and between the two Mayo constituencies, and I am not offering any prizes as to what Deputies would suffer under those exercises. Deputy Molloy would give an extra seat to Cork but, strangely enough, the seat would go to Mid-Cork.
And the west was retaining its representation.
(Cavan): So there were proposals. Now the cat is out of the bag.
Mid-Cork would be made a five-seater. He decided then that this might not be the thing to do, so he said: why not change every constituency in the Cork area and establish six three-seaters? This is what Deputy Molloy probably meant when he talked about a logical pattern; he would make all three seaters around there, and under the arrangement Mid-Cork would include several thousand people from the city, including all the area outside Victoria Cross. It is extraordinary to see people shedding crocodile tears about the reasonable proposal I made to put portion of Cork City into a five-seat Mid-Cork constituency, when Deputy Molloy was putting it into a three-seat constituency.
I was putting in nothing.
(Cavan): The Deputy had proposals only in the west?
The number of seats in the west——
Order. The Minister without interruption.
It was not decided on.
The constituency of South Kerry was below the minimum for a three-seater and must get population from somewhere. According to Deputy Molloy, there was a very simple way to do it: you transfer population from East Limerick to West Limerick; and from West Limerick to North Kerry; and from North Kerry to South Kerry. What could be simpler than that? I am sure Deputy Tom Kyne would be glad to know that he was not in for the knife this time, because the area which was to be included this time which was going from Waterford to Tipperary included Portlaw and Rathgormack. Again, there are no prizes as to the intention in putting that little area in. Again in South Leinster there was a very interesting proposal. Deputy Molloy was going to break up the historic constituencies of Laois-Offaly and Carlow-Kilkenny. The county of Offaly and a small part of Laois was to become a three-seater; the rest of Laois, with a large slab of Kilkenny and a somewhat smaller slab of Carlow, was to be another three-seater. What was left over from the counties of Carlow and Kilkenny would be tacked on to Wexford to make up another three-seater. There is nothing like a logical pattern. Deputy Molloy really was going about it in the right way.
He had no proposals.
What am I quoting from?
This has been an exercise——
Deputy Molloy must restrain himself from continually interrupting.
A number of people were very interested in what was happening in Meath. It was said that as it was my area I was ensuring I would be elected. I shall be elected, in spite of Fianna Fáil, as long as I am able to stand up on a platform. I have proved that. I took a seat from Fianna Fáil after 25 years and I shall hold that seat as long as God spares me to stand for it, whether it is a three-seater, a four-seater or a five-seater constituency. Meath was to lose further large hunks to Cavan and Louth, and half of Cavan was to go to Monaghan. This was the original proposal. Then an alternative came up. Cavan and Monaghan and part of Louth were to form a five-seater, Meath, with a large part of Drogheda town and a strip of North County Dublin, was to be a four-seater. Wicklow, with a strip of Kildare and Dublin, was to be another four-seater. The possibilities of this are still not exhausted.
The whole thing is childish.
Of course it is childish.
(Cavan): It was sinister.
The point I am trying to make is that it was childish, and it was just too bad that we were saddled with a Minister for Local Government for a number of years who admitted he was childishly playing with the constituencies of this country.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
The Deputy is getting his "come-uppance" and he might as well take it.
The net result is the Bill before this House.
Deputy Molloy came in here the week before last talking about what was proposed to be done. I am telling the Deputy what he proposed to do.
You do not know what I proposed to do, because I did not know myself.
He put it down in writing and he put it down on maps, and the only refinement he could make was to do more harm to his political opponents. That was the only thing in his mind.
(Interruptions.)
When do we have a reply to the Second Stage of this Bill?
Would the Minister talk about the Bill he brought in?
I have introduced a Bill which includes a five-seater in Donegal. That five-seater could have remarkable results. One thing it will do, I am sure, is to return Deputy Neil Blaney. Fianna Fáil do not like that, of course, any more than they like Deputy O'Connor. I do not know what they will do to get rid of him.
(Cavan): Paudge Brennan might get back.
Some people have said we might see a Unionist being elected there. I think that would be a great thing.
(Interruptions.)
If Deputy Molloy and Deputy Murphy cannot contain themselves and listen to what the Minister has to say, they have a remedy. They may not continue to ignore the Chair's ruling by persistently interrupting. My patience is wearing out.
I have said that the Donegal constituency of five seats could produce remarkable results. Deputy Neil Blaney will get elected. It is a grand thing to have all shades of opinion represented. Maybe we will have a Unionist elected there. We might have a Sinn Féin man elected there. There will be a Fine Gael man elected there and there might even be a Fianna Fáil man elected there.
Predictions.
I am not going to warn Deputy Murphy again.
On a point of information.
If the Deputy persists, I will ask him to leave the House, reluctantly.
On a point of information.
All right. Let us hear the point of information.
Is this really in reply to the Second Stage debate on this Bill, in your opinion?
The Deputy was never in the House when the Second Stage was being debated. How could the Deputy know?
I am asking now.
The Chair has no control over Ministers' replies or, indeed, Deputies' statements from time to time.
No control?
(Cavan): He wants to get put out.
He will not get put out because Deputy Molloy and his party have made such a ridiculous attempt to disprove what was in the Bill, such a ridiculous attack on it, that there is no further reply needed. The Bill which I introduced here did what I said I would do. I said there would be the least number of breaches of county boundaries. That I have done. I have not consciously interfered with any sitting Deputy. First, I did not set out to get Deputies. I set out to have people represented and where there are people there will be Deputies, not the countryside, not sticks and stones — people, here.
We are all very näive. We all believe that. Ask Deputy Loughnane.
Deputy Loughnane, I am sure, will get elected. He will even get elected in the constituency which Deputy Molloy now represents if he stands there. I would not like to say who would lose but Deputy Loughnane, I am sure, will get elected there if he wants to stand there.
We will take the three seats.
The Deputy was not in for the portion about Laois-Offaly, was he? I will tell him about it. He can read it in the Official Report.
As time is so limited ought we to have this repetition by the Minister?
Please, Deputy.
(Cavan): There is a whole hour.
The Deputy is wasting time by rising on what are clearly not points of order at all.
I was only pointing out to the Chair that time is limited.
The Deputy is wasting some of my time.
The Minister mentioned earlier this morning that time was limited and I withdrew. Now we are having reiteration.
It is not reiteration. I am just telling the Deputy where to find the portion about Laois-Offaly. I am sure he would be interested to know what Deputy Molloy was going to do.
I did not mind. I was quite happy.
I thought that. Deputy Molloy and a number of other people challenged me as to why I did not go for a commission as there was a Bill introduced some years ago by Deputy Fitzpatrick which I supported. They seem to forget that they would not even allow it a First Reading. They would not even allow it to be printed. That is what they thought about a commission.
You are in Government now.
Please, Deputy Molloy.
May I inquire from the Chair whether the Chair is serious or not in issuing warnings to Deputy Molloy and his colleagues or is the debate going to be continued in this strain so that the Minister will be prevented from making his case and Deputies who are interested in hearing what the Minister has to say are prevented from doing so by unruly interruptions? Surely the Chair has the responsibility for maintaining order in the House. If the Chair is to be taken lightly——
We have suffered from Ministers' interruptions.
Deputy Molloy, please. The Chair is trying earnestly to maintain order and decorum in the House. He has already admonished the Deputies concerned and he is hoping that they will respond to his ruling in the matter. If they persist they must know the consequences.
I am going to make one final comment in order to take them out of their agony. While a number of their Deputies wanted to know why we did not bring in a commission, a number of Deputies who might not be here to hear it but who will read it in the Official Report, were very strongly opposed to a commission and said that it was the job of this House. I have read up the matter since I spoke on Deputy Fitzpatrick's Bill and while I still feel that there is merit in having a commission dealing with this matter, apparently the Constitution as at present laid out does not so allow. It has to be decided by this House eventually. That is No. 1.
No. 2, if Fianna Fáil are still as much in favour of a commission as they appear to be, as their Leader, the former Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch was the night he lost the election— for the first time he thought a commission would be a good thing— would Deputy Lynch approach the Taoiseach, Deputy Cosgrave, in the new year and talk about it after I have straightened out the constituencies and made them so that they can be worked on in future in a fair way, not the way Fianna Fáil cut them up the last time?
Is that all we are going to hear from the Minister on the Bill?
(Cavan): You have heard enough.
You have no arguments to defend the Bill.
The question is: "That the Bill be read a Second Time?" Agreed?
There was no reply to the Second Stage.
A disgraceful reply. None of the points was replied to.
Order.
Trying to imply a falsehood. That is the only thing he was trying to do.
Order, Deputies. Could we have an intimation as to when the next Stage will be taken?
The Wednesday after the Dáil resumes.
(Cavan): There is not a word. They did not even challenge.
It could not be. It is too late now.
It is not too late. He has not put the question yet.
He has not put it yet.
The Chair put the question that the Second Reading be agreed.
No, we do not agree. We want a vote. Vótáil.
(Cavan): Of course, you agreed.
No, we did not.
I will put the question again: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 58.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Ahern, Liam.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Colley, George.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
- Sheridan, Joseph.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies B. Desmond and Kelly; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Next Stage?
The first Wednesday after the recess.