On section 1, I should like to mention that the Minister, in circulating this Bill, followed it with maps which illustrated to the Deputies and to people interested exactly what his proposals meant in so far as they were delineated on a map. The circulation of the maps was a great convenience to persons dealing with this Bill. In the amendments which I have suggested should come before the House, which amendments have been circulated, it has not been seen fit to circulate a similar map illustrating the changes. A facility similar to that which followed the circulation of the Minister's Bill was not provided. Deputies, in trying to interpret the amendments which Deputies on this side of the House have put down, will be in some difficulty trying to determine where exactly the boundaries of a particular constituency are. I would ask the Minister whether it would be possible even at this late stage to circulate maps showing the proposed amendments.
Private Members' Business. - Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973: Committee Stage.
I have no objection at all to Deputy Molloy or to the Fianna Fáil Party submitting the maps to which he refers to his party or to all the Deputies, if Deputy Molloy wishes to do so. I can understand that they might have great difficulty in finding out what the Deputy wants. As a matter of fact, it is a good job that Deputy Molloy did not think of this earlier. I came across proposals in the Department, made when Deputy Molloy was Minister for Local Government, and the map-makers would have had a difficult job for the next couple of years drawing up maps showing Deputy Molloy's proposals.
I do not object to Deputy Molloy preparing maps or having his backroom boys do so if he feels it might help. But I am sure the Deputy does not expect the Government to prepare the documentation for the Opposition. Is this a new precedent which Deputy Molloy would like to establish? I would remind the Deputy that it was difficult to get items to which we were entitled when he was on this side of the House. I think the Deputy is now suggesting that we should supply the documentation showing what he wants. We are doing well by supplying maps showing what we propose to do, but to suggest that we should also supply maps showing what Deputy Molloy wants—and I assume that every time a change was suggested by any person in the House the Deputy would feel that we should prepare further maps—is a little bit ridiculous. I have no objection to the Fianna Fáil Party preparing maps.
I should like to clarify the position.
The Chair permitted a question but this is not relevant to the section at all. I am sure the Deputy appreciates that.
The House will appreciate that Deputies are at a disadvantage in interpreting the amendments vis-à-vis the Bill. Following the circulation of the Bill a map was circulated to illustrate the Minister's proposals. The amendments were circulated on a green sheet but no maps were circulated to Deputies illustrating the effects of the proposed amendments.
We cannot relate this to the section. This is completely outside the discussion on the Bill. The Deputy knows that we are dealing with section 1 at the moment.
I take it from the Minister's reply that he does not intend to extend the facility for which I have asked.
The Minister cannot go outside the scope of the section.
I think Deputy Molloy is being naïve and childish in suggesting that we should prepare maps for him. Apparently the Deputy's backroom boys are not doing too much and perhaps he could give them that job.
Section 1 of the Bill, please.
I am sure that all reasonable people will appreciate that we do not have map-making machinery in our offices. If this facility is not extended we will carry on, but it is a pity that this type of attitude prevails.
Does section 1 stand part of the Bill?
Section 1 is only a definition section. It is stated in this Bill that "the Minister" means the Minister for Local Government. Following section 1 we are to read "the Minister" in the rest of the Bill as meaning "the Minister for Local Government" and he is authorised to carry out such revisions of the constituencies as are arranged. I expressed the view on Second Stage that this party were prepared to recommend to the Minister that an independent commission should be established to carry out these revisions. The arguments in favour of that proposal were discussed. It was clearly shown that when the Minister's party were on this side of the House these were the sentiments they then expressed. On their transfer to the Government benches they have dropped completely that proposal and reneged on the strong arguments which they made previously for such a commission. In the Minister's reply on Second Stage he stated that if Fianna Fáil were still in favour of a commission, as they appeared to be, that Deputy J. Lynch should approach the Taoiseach, Deputy Cosgrave, in the New Year to discuss it.
The Deputy will appreciate that we cannot go back now to the Second Stage. We are in Committee.
I was referring to the Minister's remarks at the end of the Second Reading. I am not going to press for a vote on this section, but I wish to indicate that we object to the Minister carrying out this function. In this section we are defining that the Minister for Local Government is the person with the authority to carry out the revisions. In the Fianna Fáil Party we are in favour of establishing a commission and we would issue an invitation to the Minister's party and to the Government to arrange, through an all-party committee or through some other suitable method, to discuss the establishment of a commission which in future——
The Deputy will appreciate that he cannot elaborate on the proposal for a commission at this stage.
I am extending an invitation to the Minister. We expect that reaction to it will come from the Government side.
May I comment on what Deputy Molloy has just said. It is remarkable to notice the change which a transfer across the House can make in the thinking of certain people. The first we heard from the Fianna Fáil side about accepting an outside commission was after Deputy J. Lynch had conceded, on the night of the count, that he might not win the election and he said then that he thought it might be a good idea to have a commission to revise the constituencies. I do not wish to detain the House on this. For all the years since this State was formed, Fianna Fáil on every occasion did not bother with a commission but drew up the constituencies themselves. Having corrected what Fianna Fáil did wrongly, we might consider a commission the next time. I notice that Deputy Molloy did not even put down an amendment suggesting something like that might be done because, in fact, he knows well that even members of his own party at present would not accept that it should be done by a commission because they feel that sometime in the dim, distant future they might get back in again and they would like to do what they have been doing for years.
I do not agree with this section.
We cannot go into a discussion now.
If we cannot have this thing out here we can press it to a vote and delay the House further.
The Deputy is asking the Chair to go outside the section.
I am entitled to make a statement in reply to what the Minister said.
The Chair has allowed it already.
I take it from what the Minister has said that, following the passing of this Bill, the Government are then prepared to consider the establishment of a commission.
What I said, if Deputy Molloy was listening, was that when we have straightened out the constituencies after all the times Fianna Fáil twisted them to suit themselves we might consider it for the next revision. That is a little crumb of comfort for the Deputy and he should hold on to it.
If the Government side of the House feel that they must have their little bite of this cherry, we will wait and see how this Bill passes. Assuming, because the Government have the voting strength, that they will succeed in having this Bill passed as it is or amended we are still prepared even at that stage to discuss the establishment of a commission.
The Deputy is moving away from the section.
We are prepared to give a guarantee to the Deputy that after the constituencies have been straightened out we might consider the establishment of a commission.
The Minister's reputation is dropping day by day.
My expectation is to wipe the Deputy off the map.
This section is quite important even though we will agree to it, because it allows the number of Deputies to be elected to this House to be increased from 144 to 148. I am sure the Minister would like to give the House good and valid reasons why the representation in this House should be increased by a further four Deputies. Even though the census changes allow for an increase of four Deputies, the constitutional position would allow for a retention of the existing 144 Deputies.
I will give a good reason for this. It is that we believe that the representation should be as good as it can be and for that reason we are entitled to have the extra four and we give it. That is a good reason. I give a bad reason by saying that Fianna Fáil, under Deputy Molloy's leadership in Local Government, decided that they would increase the number by four.
The Minister could adhere to the 1,000 either way. In the rural areas of western Ireland he could go to the upper limit. Take, for instance, Donegal, where the tolerance is over 1,000. It takes more people in that very big county to elect a Deputy than it takes in Dublin, and if the Minister carried that tolerance right through the 26 counties we would have a situation such as Deputy Molloy has been talking about. In the densely populated constituencies a Deputy will represent fewer people——
The Deputy knows that this section only deals with the number of Deputies. Each constituency will fall to be dealt with later.
The Deputy is talking about tolerance and whether we should have 144 or 148 Deputies. That is what this section deals with.
It does not deal with tolerance.
It is the tolerance factor which eventually decides the number. In the legislation we can have 20,000 people per Deputy and the High Court decided that could be varied by 1,000 up or down, that it could be 19,000 or 21,000. The number of Deputies elected to this House depends on the tolerance factor and the population. The Minister is making provision in section 2 of this Bill for representation in this House Deputywise and numberwise. I would like to ask him if he considers, in the case of a constituency, which Donegal will be now after having jettisoned Bundoran——
The Deputy is going on to discuss constituencies and the Chair has said they will arise later.
Presumably the Minister may have started off with Malin Head——
The Deputy is going back again to constituencies.
I am trying to logically make a case where you could have fewer Deputies, if the Minister considered it fair or equitable and I think if it is fair to have a Deputy representing 21,000 people in the Donegal constituency——
The Deputy will be able to deal with the Donegal constituency when we reach it on the Schedule and can advance any argument he likes at that stage.
I would like to get it across to the House that the Minister has a choice of number under section 2, which we are dealing with. He is not limited here.
The Deputy is asking the Chair to permit a discussion on individual constituencies and every other Deputy could do the same.
Absolutely not. I would like to develop this theme and to mention other constituencies.
The Deputy will have an opportunity to do that later.
Then we will have irretrievably decided on the number provided for in this section. I want to get at the reason why the Minister decided on 148. It is his duty to give to the House all the factors he brought into consideration when he decided the number would be 148. Of that number the country will have a Deputy from Donegal representing 21,000 people and will have a Deputy from Dublin a much smaller area, representing 19,000 people. This discrepancy accounts for the 148. What had the Minister in mind? Is there something sacrosanct about 148? could it not be 147? We could have a different representation from one of the Dublin constituencies or one of the other very densely populated constituencies where a Deputy, if he is any good, could walk from one end to the other before his breakfast and do himself and his constituents a lot of good. Could he not have spread it a little and saved the country the expense of an extra Deputy? He could have done that and he would then be putting the constituencies on a more equal footing, perhaps not territorially but certainly numerically. There is a lot to be said for this. By putting the figure 148 there he has discriminated against a county like Donegal which I have the honour to represent—and I hope I will represent it again as one of the 148. The Minister should tell us why that figure should not be 147.
I will, when the Deputy sits down, and a bit more which may not be as pleasing to him.
I will sit down then.
As far as Donegal is concerned, neither Deputy Cunningham nor Deputy Molloy put in an amendment to suggest it for Donegal, so they are perfectly happy with the proposal which is there. So much for Deputy Cunningham's weaving around. He feels he will get his seat and to heck with everybody else. That is how hollow that argument is.
Twisted.
I was asked why I should have 148. I could not have 149. The High Court decided that 20,000—a tolerance of 1,000 up or down from 20,000—would be the figure, and so the figure which was produced when the number of people was divided by 20,000 was 148. It did exactly the same for Deputy Molloy when he was on this side of the House, because he suggested 148. It just shows that he could count or that his officials counted as well for him as they did for me.
He was not taking them from the west of Ireland.
You did not say anything standing up and we do not expect you to say anything sitting down.
On a point of order, I think I heard the Minister say that the High Court decided on a figure of 20,000.
That is not a point of order.
It is a point of order.
The Chair has ruled that it is not a point of order. The Deputy is not raising a point of order.
The Constitution decided it and the High Court said a tolerance of up or down from that.
The Minister will agree that the High Court did not decide on a figure of 20,000?
I did not say they decided on 20,000.
I think you did.
He could not make a mistake.
I said they decided on a tolerance and I will come back to that.
The records of the House will show——
Deputy Murphy will allow the Minister to speak.
On a point of order, is it in order for a Deputy to suggest that the Minister would interfere with the office downstairs? I think that should be withdrawn.
If the Deputy has taken that interpretation from what I said, I will withdraw it.
May I just ask the Minister a question?
I am sorry, Sir, we are on Committee Stage, as Deputy Faulkner knows, and he is entitled to get up as often as he likes but while I am on my feet would he allow me——
Will Deputies allow the Minister in possession to speak?
I think the Minister is getting a bit ratty.
I do not get ratty. That is one of the things that annoy some people across the way.
The Minister is becoming unpleasant.
If I go back a couple of years I can remember Deputy J. Gibbons being very unpleasant. Of course, he had good reason to be unpleasant.
When you people were taking orders from Fine Gael.
Will Deputies cease interrupting and we might get on with section 2.
I have not to hang my head for anything I ever did, inside or outside this House. When Deputy J. Gibbons can say the same then, perhaps, he will be able to do an awful lot of things.
The Minister has made a most extraordinary suggestion reflecting on me. I am entitled to an explanation here and now from the Minister as to exactly what he means or else he will withdraw it. He is not man enough to withdraw it. I want a ruling on this as a matter of procedure. The Minister has made an allegation about me.
As the Deputy knows, interruptions are not in order.
The Minister, whether by interruption or not, has no right to make an allegation about me or any other Deputy.
He should be asked to withdraw it.
Was the Minister in order in making that allegation? I want the Minister to explain what he meant or to withdraw his remark, if he is man enough but I doubt if he is.
An tAire.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I am not satisfied. I want a ruling from you as to whether the Minister was in order in making the dirty accusation he did make.
Will Deputy Gibbons explain why he should consider that a dirty accusation?
It is a dirty accusation.
I said, and I repeat it here, that if Deputy Gibbons or anybody on his benches—as long as they can stand up here and hold their heads up——
You are backing out.
I am not backing out.
You are, you are backing out as any dirty little coward would back out.
If I am looking for people who backed out I will talk to Captain Jim Kelly. He might tell me who backed out.
You can talk to anybody you like but any dirty coward will make an accusation like that.
Will Deputy Gibbons resume his seat?
It was not I who made accusations.
Yes, it was.
It was not I who made accusations publicly against Deputy Gibbons and he is not going to transfer any of his slur across here on me because I will stand up here in front of anybody——
You are destroying yourself with every word you speak, you slanderous little blighter.
I will stand up here in front of any of you. I have not to be ashamed of anything I ever did publicly or privately.
The Labour Party are learning slander form their Fine Gael bosses. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
The Minister on section 2.
If you have done something that you are ashamed of, that is your business. It has nothing to do with me at all.
Deputies
Withdraw that.
I will withdraw nothing. I said nothing.
Deputies have been interrupting the Minister since he got up and the Chair is not asking the Minister to do anything but go on with the section.
He invited interruption.
I want to make a point of order. The Minister, not once but several times, has made dirty, filthy imputations against me. I want to know whether he is in order or not.
The Chair has already said that the Minister has been interrupted and the Chair believes that the Minister should go on with the section. Would Deputies allow the Minister to continue without interruption?
That is not an answer to my question, with the greatest respect.
I would make an appeal to the Minister. If he made some allegation, will he withdraw the allegation and let us get on with the debate?
Will the Deputy allow the Minister to continue?
Will somebody tell me what the allegation is?
The Minister knows what he said.
Tell me what the allegation is? I said I was prepared to stand up here with my head up anytime. If Deputy Gibbons feels that he can do the same or anybody else——
That is not what you said.
That is what I said. Furthermore, I said—when the Deputy accused me of casting slurs on him—I did not cast any slur on the Deputy. I wanted to ask who cast slurs publicly. I mentioned the name of the man who did and the Deputy did not get annoyed about it as he did with me.
The Chair has told the Deputy that he is not ruling on this matter because the Minister has been interrupted.
I suggest, with the greatest respect, that you are backing away from your duty.
The Chair is not backing away from his duty and the Deputy should not make such an allegation.
I made no allegation; the allegations were made against me.
The Deputy is alleging that the Chair is backing away from his duty.
Yes, I am, sir, because I am asking——
If he thinks the Chair is, the Deputy has a remedy for it. The Deputy can put down a motion.
Will the Minister withdraw his statement and we will get on with the Bill?
Will Deputy Molloy cease interrupting?
What allegation is the Deputy talking about? If the Deputy feels insulted, will he tell me why he feels insulted. If anybody says I was not able to stand up here, with my head up, I would want to know why and, as far as I am concerned——
Would the Minister deal with section 2? Section 2.
I used the words "Official Report". I said he will read it in the Official Report.
Deputies should cease interrupting.
If Deputy J. Gibbons is under the impression that I made an allegation against his character, I will withdraw that allegation. Will that satisfy him?
It is about time. I want to give the Minister a bit of advice at this stage——
The Deputy may not have it both ways. Section 2; the Deputy is not in possession.
Fine Gael people are able to talk for themselves.
I have been dealing with people in this House for a long time and I found bowsies on every side——
Is the Minister making any more suggestions like that? I want to tell the Minister I will not take any bowsyism from anyone in this House.
The Chair would wish that Deputies on either side of the House would not introduce language like that.
Would the Minister name his bowsies?
The Deputy would not have to name them on his side; the whole country knows them.
The Deputy is continuing now in this type of language. Section 2.
Dublin city and county population, according to the census in 1971, was 852,219.
Could we have that figure again, please?
852,219. According to what was laid down in the Constitution, this could give 41, 42, 43 or 44 seats—41, 42, 43 or 44 seats.
Why did the Minister repeat that?
Because Deputy Cunningham wanted to write it down. I was afraid he might get it wrong.
The Minister is very considerate. I am touched.
The Bill proposes that the Dublin area, with the addition of 7,400 from Kildare and 6,500 from Wicklow, will get 43 seats and this is——
A Deputy
Why from Wicklow?
While no firm figures are available of the present population in the Dublin area, according to the Planning Authority in 1973 the population was somewhere between 878,000 and 889,000. They say that, by 1975, the figure will be somewhere between 903,000 and 927,000. Therefore, if we wanted to give extra seats to Dublin unfairly, we could have given them on the figures. I have given you up to 44 seats; we have given you 43 but that was with an addition from outside it, from Wicklow and Kildare. But, in fact, they could qualify—only the census is not there to prove it and, therefore, they cannot be changed—for up to 46 seats. I do not know what all the wailing is about. I particularly cannot understand what all the wailing is about from Deputy Cunningham in view of the fact that even though he says Donegal is not getting a fair deal, he did not put in an amendment nor did he ask Deputy Molloy to put in an amendment to change Donegal to anything else. I think he felt he would be fairly safe in a five-seater in Donegal.
Why did the Minister leave four seats in Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown?
I will tell the Deputy some time.
The first thing I should like to convey to the Minister is that we are dealing with the Committee Stage of this Bill only and that it is possible for the Opposition Parties, or any other Member of the House, to put down amendments to this Constituency Bill for Report Stage. The Minister has stated on at least two occasions in answer to a point made from this side of the House, that if one felt that way about it why did one not put down an amendment and, because there was not a particular amendment put down, therefore, the argument did not stand. I should like to assure the Minister that this may be only our first set of amendments. We wish to see how we progress with the Bill. We still have the right, on Report Stage, to put down any amendment we feel necessary or worthwhile. I would like the Minister to retain that bit of information and to find some other arguments to answer the points that have been made from this side of the House.
The Minister made another point which I would like to answer. He referred to an estimate given to him by the Planning Authority in the Dublin area as to the possible population of the Dublin area today or next year. The Minister is fully aware that that is a spurious argument. In dealing with this Bill, we are confined to the limits of the Constitution and the legal interpretation of that Constitution as given by the courts. We have no right to enter into the realm of speculation as to how many persons there were in Dublin yesterday, how many today, tomorrow or next year.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
We can deal only with the number of persons as recorded in the census of population, 1971, which the Minister has in his possession. The Constituency Bill we are discussing can be based only on the figure of the Irish population contained in this booklet—The Census of Population of Ireland, 1971. No other estimate or speculation as to how many persons there are or there may be has any relevance to any part of the debate in this House. Because, if the Minister wants to extend that argument, it can be extended in support of increasing representation in areas which he has deprived of representation under this Bill. It is also a well-known fact that in several of the western counties the population has increased substantially since that date in 1971. We cannot take that into consideration in discussing this Bill; we cannot take it into consideration in deciding the number of Deputies for the Dublin area.
The section we are debating deals with a request to the Minister, through this Bill, to authorise an increase in the number of Deputies elected to this House from 144 to 148. There are valid considerations we should like to put before the Minister and valid criticisms we should like to bring before the House of the Minister's actions in dealing with this Bill. Deputy Cunningham was making one of those valid points; that, in dealing with the drawing up of a constituency called Donegal, the Minister chose to provide a five-seater constituency and he exceeded the national average in that constituency. We have already understood here that the deviation from the national average allowed—following the court decision —is roughly 1,000 above or 1,000 below.
In the constituency which the Minister has suggested in Donegal there is a population of 105,509 persons, creating five seats. The population per Member is 21,102,979 above the national average per Deputy which is 20,123. Deputy Cunningham was not arguing that the Minister was right or wrong in creating a constituency called Donegal, making it a five-seater and including 105,509 persons in that area. His point was that if the Minister were to follow the same population per Deputy, 979 above the national average, and apply the same principle to all the other constituencies in the country, it would not have been possible to create 148 seats. The Minister gave figures for the population of Dublin. I do not know how that is relevant to section 2.
It is not relevant.
What is relevant is the population of the whole country. As given in the 1971 census, the population was 2,978,248 persons. At that time, and until a Bill is introduced and passed by this House to change it, the number of Deputies under the law is 144. With a population of 2,978,248 with 144 seats, the average per Deputy would be 20,682. In Donegal the Minister created a constituency where the average per Deputy is over 21,000. If we could not have section 2 which will increase the number of Deputies from 144 to 148, the tolerance range would be from a minimum per Deputy of 19,682 to a maximum of 21,682, the average being 20,682 as stated.
The Minister said it was necessary to increase the number of Deputies, but he has not yet given the House any detailed valid argument. There were vague references in his introductory speech on the Second Stage to EEC legislation. He also made vague references to the fact that the Opposition, when in Government and dealing with the revision of constituencies, had decided to create the additional four seats. It is very strange if that is the only argument the Minister can advance. Are we to continue in this House on that basis? The parties now in Government were elected because they claimed they would provide some improvements in the system of Government. They made certain specific promises but the community will judge them when they get the opportunity. It is very weak arguing on the Minister's part when he says that he is doing this because he thinks Fianna Fáil when they were in office intended doing something similar. It is time the Minister stood on his own feet and gave his own reasons for doing his own thing. He should have the courtesy of attempting to convince the House that he is doing these things because he and his Government feel that they are right. They should not continually use the argument that they think Fianna Fáil were going to do it and therefore, it is all right. We are flattered of course, but the community are entitled to a better explanation from the Government of their intentions when bringing legislation before the House.
Members might be interested to know that it is possible for the Minister to carry on with the existing number of Deputies and not increase them by four as provided under this section. On the basis of a Dáil membership of 144, a number of constituencies could retain their existing representation. Some of them would be affected but a number would not. Among those which could retain their representation would be the existing constituencies of Carlow-Kilkenny, Clare, Cork City North-West, Cork City South-East, Mid Cork, NorthEast Cork, South-West Cork, NorthEast Donegal, Dublin North-West, Dublin South Central, West Galway, East Limerick, Monaghan, Sligo-Leitrim and Wexford—15 constituencies.
Eighteen constituencies would be too small and could be topped up. Nine constituencies which were too large could have ceded population to the constituencies which needed topping up. In that way no increase would have been necessary. However, the Minister has decided to increase the number of Deputies by four. Would he give good and valid reasons why there should be four extra Deputies?
Deputy Molloy must have forgotten the section of the Bill which we are discussing or lost his notes on what has been happening in this House for many years. In my Second Reading speech I made it plain that we were providing for 148 seats. Had we divided the population by 20,000 this is the number we would have arrived at. We could not have had 149. We could have had 147 or 146. The second reason I gave was that Fianna Fáil had already decided to have 148. In the interests of the country we thought there should be 148 Deputies. The Government were entitled to take that decision. It is only fair to point out that this will leave an average per Deputy of 20,123. The average in 1961 was 20,127; in 1959 it was 20,127 and in 1947 it was 20,103. Since 1947 Fianna Fáil have always gone for the highest number. Is Deputy Molloy worrying because he knows the result is almost certain to be four more against Fianna Fáil? Is that what is wrong with him? It looks like it. When he was in this Office it was all right to propose 148 but, having moved across the floor, he thinks it should not be 148 and he waxes eloquent about the small number we should have. We could have a smaller number but the reason 148 was decided on was that the Government considered that number was best for the country. The Government were entitled to do that and they have done that in section 2. All the running around the country which Deputy Molloy has done does not alter the fact that the section proposes 148. The Deputy has his alternative. If he does not like the figure, he should challenge a vote on this section but if he likes it he is wasting the time of this House.
My view is that we are debating sections 1 and 2 of this Bill because the troops have disappeared and the Deputy is afraid to go too far with it tonight.
I will not dwell on the figures 144 and 148. I want to dwell on the increase of four seats and their allocation.
The Deputy is not entitled to talk on that on this section.
Members will be afforded an opportunity of deliberating at length if they wish on these matters later.
I do not wish to go into detail on the question of allocation. What was discussed already on this section was why it was decided to allocate 43 seats to Dublin. Surely I am entitled to make a point on the same basis.
The Chair is ruling that the subject matter under discussion is section 2, that the number of Members to be elected to this House be either 144 or 148.
The Chair has mentioned the figures 144 and 148 and that gives a difference of four to which the Deputy is referring.
The Deputy will determine these matters.
Subtracting 144 from 148 one is left with four.
I should like to approach this in another manner.
The Deputy may not seek to circumvent the ruling of the Chair.
I am accepting the figure of 148 but I am interested in ascertaining how the Minister arrived at that figure. We have had a detailed explanation of how the Minister allocated the extra seats to Dublin.
The 1971 census divided by 20,000 produces roughly 148 seats and that is how I arrived at that figure.
The Minister said he could have given 41, 42, 43 or 44 seats to Dublin and that the population, according to the 1971 census, was 852.219. The Minister also stated that he had projected populations from the planning authorities for Dublin for 1972 and 1973. I was very interested, looking at Munster, and the fact that the Minister was manipulating tolerances——
Not manipulating.
I was disappointed to see those tolerances manipulated against Munster. I am speaking not only for the Munster Deputies on this side of the House but also for those behind the Minister because I am aware they are inhibited from making those points to the Minister. I hope the Minister has the projected figures from the different planning authorities for Munster for 1972, 1973.
The population in Munster is approximately 800,000, according to the 1971 census. It is interesting to see that the representation for Munster remains at 40 as it was under the measure introduced here five or six years ago but Dublin will grow from 38 to 43 seats. The population difference is in the region of the value of two seats. The Minister should explain why it is proposed to give Dublin five extra seats and leave Munster static.
In my opinion the majority of the province of Munster is a growth area and is looked upon as such. It is a disappointment that the Minister should decide that the capital city, Dublin, the growth of which we are all so concerned about, should be recognised to this extent.
I wish to advise the Deputy that he will be afforded every opportunity of discussing representation on a constituency basis, provincial basis and on a regional basis in other sections. He should confine his remarks to the overall number to be elected to the House in accordance with the section we are dealing with.
I should be obliged if the Minister would give the projected figures for Munster for 1972 and 1973.
The Deputy should address his remarks to former Minister Kevin Boland.
The Minister indicated that he had an average of 20,000 per Deputy but he used figures of 21,000 in Donegal and close to the 19,000 in some of the highly populated areas. This is what we are querying. Fianna Fáil were proposing to have 148 seats but I hope the change is not as simple as the Minister has indicated. I hope it is not simply that the Government have decided there will be 148 seats and we can challenge a division and vote against it if we wish. That is the bull in the china shop answer, but we will take it.
Fianna Fáil would have given one extra seat to Munster and we would have given one extra, or possibly two——
I have the files in my office and I know what the Deputy's party would have done. The Deputy should not start telling fibs now.
Cut out the bluff.
The Deputy should be heard without interruption.
The Minister has stated that he had a look at projected population figures having sought the advice of the Planning Authority in Dublin city, but having examined those figures why have we had the waste of Parliamentary and ministerial time and the finance of the State in carrying out——
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy——
If the Minister is allowed——
The Deputy may not barrack the Chair. I was about to point out to him that he will be afforded every opportunity of deliberating on the Dublin situation when we come to the relevant section but it is not appropriate at this stage for him to do so.
Will Deputies please allow the Chair to rule the House?
Each Deputy in this House has equal rights and so far as rights in this House are concerned, the Minister is a Deputy. He gave a lengthy explanation of his activity in respect of the projected population in Dublin when he was referring——
I cannot allow a debate on Dublin at this stage.
The Chair allowed the Minister to discuss the Dublin situation.
The Chair is in charge of deliberations in this House.
Were you in charge of the Minister's deliberations?
I will not allow a discussion on individual constituencies at this stage.
I appeal to you for equal rights.
I am sorry, Deputy, but I have given my ruling. You will be afforded every opportunity of deliberating on Dublin and every other constituency at the appropriate time.
I shall not ask for any opportunity on the future Stages of this Bill that is not available to every other Deputy.
Deputies
Chair.
There is only one man keeping order in this House.
On section 2, I am dealing with a statement which the Minister made to this House.
The Chair has ruled on this matter and is satisfied that his ruling is correct. The Deputy may not refer in detail to matters appertaining to any given constituency until we come to that Stage. This section deals with the number of Deputies to be elected to this House.
On section 2, may I refer to the figures, 41, 42, 43 and 44 as referred to by the Minister?
The Chair is unconcerned with what Members have said already.
Presumably, therefore, what has been said has been in order.
It was part of the debate.
Therefore, if it was in order for one Deputy to say what has been said——
The Deputy understands clearly my ruling on this matter. I wish to assist him. I have always found the Deputy to be reasonable; let him not change my good opinion of him in that regard.
The Deputy is not in the least concerned what the opinion is provided he is within the rules of order. I am trying to establish whether I am within the rules of order and, if not, why?
Clearly, the Deputy is not in order in discussing at length matters appertaining to constituencies at this juncture.
It is not clear to me.
It is not clear at all.
Amendments have been tabled in connection with Dublin. When we reach that stage the question of that constituency can be dealt with.
You have put me off my track, a Cheann Comhairle.
The Deputy was never on his track.
It is a long and twisty road.
If the Minister had adopted the same criteria for the rest of the country as he did for Donegal there would be fewer Deputies in the country—approximately 144 —and consequently there would be a saving of finances. But, applying to Donegal what the Minister has stated in connection with Dublin, if there were a constituency revision in Donegal as of now, the population figures have increased to such an extent that the projected figure would be sufficient for two constituencies. The Minister is giving Donegal less than any other constituency and is applying the same rule more or less along the western seaboard by allowing a high tolerance. That is what these figures are all about. They are about the proportion of population per Deputy.
Will the Deputy allow the Chair to decide that? This section concerns the number of Members to be elected to this House.
That is what I was saying.
The Deputy may not discuss constituency representation at this stage. May I advise the House that the House itself has decided to consider separately the entry in the Schedule relating to each constituency and that the Chair may put the question in that regard. Each constituency will be discussed separately.
All that was agreed at the commencement of the debate. I submit that Deputy Cunningham is in order. Although this section of the Bill may appear to some to be a simple one, and one that should be slipped over quickly, it is the basis on which the rest of the constituency revision is being carried out, because it allows for an increase in the number of seats from 144——
May I interrupt the Deputy? If I were to allow Deputy Cunningham to deliberate on his constituency I would be expected to allow all the other Deputies to discuss their constituencies also. That is not justified on this section. There will be ample opportunity for this detail later, as Deputy Molloy knows very well.
There will be plenty of time. Regarding the question of ratio in relation to Donegal——
A fleeting reference to a constituency would be quite in order but the Chair cannot permit discussion in depth on any individual constituency. Members must get the message and obey the Chair.
May I submit that there has not been any discussion in detail on the constituency of Donegal, but had there been such discussion surely the Deputy would have been referring to electoral divisions and rural districts and would have been going into the question of the Donegal constituency.
That is something we shall be doing later.
All the Deputy has done has been to refer to the number of persons who according to the 1971 census will be included in the constituency of Donegal as proposed by the Minister. The figure is more than 105,000 persons.
When the Deputy put down amendments he ignored Donegal completely.
The point Deputy Cunningham is making is that the excess above the national average in respect of that constituency is in the region of——
There is no need for the Deputy to lecture the Chair. I have given the Deputy a lot of latitude and have indicated to him his scope in the matter. He must abide by that.
It is very difficult for one to make a point if one is not allowed complete it.
The Deputy is making a very large point.
Like the Central Bank job, there is no point in what he is saying.
The point is that the excess above the national average in so far as Donegal is concerned is approximately 900 persons. The national average is 20,123. Deputy Cunningham's point is that had the Minister applied the same principle to each of the other constituencies that he proposes in this Bill it would not be possible for him to create a total of 148 seats.
It is sufficient that that point has been made without elaboration.
Deputy Cunningham had to be saved from Deputy Blaney and there was no other way that the Minister could have succeeded in doing that.
On a point of information, and this is separate from section 2, can the Chair tell me whether all of the sections that follow, Nos. 3 to 9, will be taken before we reach the Schedule or will some of them be postponed until the Schedule has been dealt with?
I would advise the Deputy that I will be recommending to the House that sections 3, 4 and 5 be postponed. Sections which anticipate decisions on matters in the Schedule are usually postponed until after the Schedule has been dealt with. I trust the House will agree to these three sections being postponed.
We would agree to that.
Does this meet with the Deputy's approval?
Yes, we agree to that. I do not know if the Minister wishes to reply to some points made on section 2?
No, except to say we were prepared to agree to sections 3, 4 and 5 being postponed. It seems to be the only way in which the matter can be dealt with.
Yes.
The Minister asked me why I did not put down amendments. Putting down amendments is a complicated matter dealing with the Schedule for the whole Bill. We can do this. There are several variations which could give better representation and they can be put down on Report Stage. The Minister should not be surprised if Donegal appears as a two constituency area in a future amendment. The figures here worry us in this respect——
The only figure that worries Fianna Fáil is whether they have sufficient troops in the House.
The Opposition spokesman for Local Government said he was not challenging a division on this. I would ask the Minister not to get excited.
The Minister is the person who has to make sure his troops are in the House.
I am sure of what I am doing. My Bill is here and it is going through. The Opposition can talk as much as they like but the results will be the same.
That is a jackboot tactic.
What about the 13,000 missing people in Donegal?
The only thing they did not shove into Leitrim was Lough Derg, and they almost did that.
There are 13,714 missing——
Order. The discussion should be on the section.
It is the Government who should be worried. The Minister is responsible for having a look at the 144 existing seats and the Government have decided on four more. If the Minister was a member of a Government that cherished all the people of the nation equally, if they remembered the sparsely populated areas from Malin Head to Mizen Head, with four seats he could do a good job for the country and for the people in the west by putting them there as far as he could. However, he did the opposite. He said Donegal was only entitled to one Deputy for every 21,000 people while other populated areas are entitled to a Deputy for every 19,000. We are trying to let the people see how this open Government work, how this Government of the just society operate. This was the Government who promised the people if they were elected all the problems would disappear. They then use the jackboot and tell us they will steamroll the Bill through in spite of anyone. That is what the Minister is saying. He is quite entitled to say it, but will the people of the west of Ireland, of Donegal and of Munster, like to be the victims of that jackboot?
There could be a situation where the Minister would have to put the four seats into Dublin; for instance, if there was a 21,000 limitation, where the High Court decreed it could not be exceeded. That would be a different matter. We are trying to explain the situation as logically as we can. The Minister may not see the logic of our arguments but I can see clearly the situation where in Munster, Connacht, and part of Ulster he could have used perhaps not the four seats but at least three seats. However, he did not do it. We leave the Minister to the country, to the people in the western, southern and northern areas to judge. We said we would give 148 and we are leaving it to the people to judge whether our method or the Minister's method is the one that does justice to the people.
It should be made clear that the arguments put forward by Deputy Cunningham do not stand up. He talked about cherishing all the people of the country equally and then he spoke about the valleys and the hills and the long stretches between one area and another. That is true in Donegal. We do not give any representation to valleys, hills or the long stretches of road. We give representation to people——
The Government do not give representation to the people.
Some are more privileged than others.
The Deputy spoke for the last hour and a half. I shall not detain him very long and he can get up and blather for another while. Deputy Cunningham said he could understand if there was a limit of 21,000 people. There is a limit in that we can go down to 19,123 and up to 21,123. To talk about putting four extra Deputies in Donegal——
I did not say that.
The Deputy said I could not put the four there but that obviously meant he would like me to put three.
The Minister should not be stupid.
He did not say that.
As Deputy Murphy said earlier, the record will show. The situation is that the division of seats was fairly carried out. Deputy Molloy spoke a lot about taking seats from the west. He should look at what happened the last time. While they may not like him now, the Minister for Local Government at the time was a member of Fianna Fáil. Look at what he did in the west. The west is getting a fair deal.
It is not.
Deputy Cunningham said that the country will decide. The country will decide whether we are right. While Deputy Molloy kept arguing that there should be less than 148, Deputy Cunningham admitted the decision had been taken by Fianna Fáil to have 148 seats.
Let me go back to the argument I started with. We decided on 148 Deputies because that is the maximum allowed, that was the practice and the Government decided that was best for the country. Those are the simple facts. I would suggest that the argument here tonight is not, in effect, an argument on the Bill at all. It is a delaying tactic. I am surprised at the people who have been making this argument. Maybe they were a bit quiet over the past week-end. They might not have got an opportunity to say what they wanted to say. Maybe what they did say was not well received. Maybe some of them said things which, when they had a look at them afterwards, they discovered were entirely untrue and they now find themselves in a spot of bother. They come into this House now and they try to put across this sort of thing and give the impression to the people who were or were not at the Ard-Fheis that they were not as bad as they appeared to be.
What has the Ard-Fheis to do with section 2?
They could not be any worse.
I am a little surprised, a Cheann Comhairle, at your ruling that my colleague, Deputy Fitzgerald, is not permitted to discuss the number of seats allocated to a particular province, in his case Munster. I would have thought that as the total figure of 148 was arrived at by putting together the sum of the seats in the different provinces——
The Deputy will agree that the Chair gave a lot of latitude but was anxious that Deputies should not go into detail.
I am interested in Parliamentary procedure and I like to study it very carefully. I am interested in probing your reasoning. It seems to me that if we can discuss the totality of the seats we must equally be permitted to discuss the manner in which that totality is put together. In other words, the total consists of the sum of the parts. If one is entitled to discuss the total one surely is entitled to discuss how the parts are put together to arrive at that total. However, that is not the main point I want to make on section 2.
I am in favour of 148 seats. In fact, I would like to see this House consisting of many more Deputies. I am interested in this, not from the point of view of any one constituency, but from the point of view of the House itself. I think we should direct our minds towards considering what would be the ideal number of Deputies in the House from the point of view of the House itself. I think that around 200 Deputies would be the ideal number from the point of view of the working of the institution.
I have some considerations in mind in that regard. First of all, within limits, the greater the number of Deputies we have the better, from the point of view of the contribution the House can make to the affairs of the nation. You must get a better cross-section of ideas and opinions from a larger number. The more Deputies you have here the better the chances are of getting more ability and better contributions. Of course, there must be an upper limit. There are too many people in some Parliaments in Europe. In the Westminster Parliament there are over 600 members. To my mind that is far too many. A Parliament of that size loses something of great value. It becomes large and impersonal and mechanical in its workings.
We should aim at a House big enough to comprise all the best brains and the best political talent the country has to offer while, at the same time, retaining a certain intimacy. It would be ideal if membership of the House were such that everybody would know everybody else. That would lead to a better type debate. For instance, if I happen to know the Minister who is putting through a piece of legislation, if I happen to know something of his thinking and his outlook, I would probably be in a better position to discuss the legislation he is putting forward. A House should not be so big as to lose that intimacy.
We must also look at the practicalities involved. First of all, there is the question of providing the members of the Government. Our Governments require 13, 14 or 15 people and, when you add the Parliamentary Secretaries, the total number of Deputies involved in the Administration is something in the region of 20 to 25. In the normal course of events with a House comprising about 140 to 150 Deputies, there will be somewhere in the region of 70 to 75 Deputies on the Government side. Out of those 75 or so Deputies it is necessary to get 15, 20 or 25 people who are of Ministerial and Parliamentary Secretary calibre. That in itself may be difficult and when you take the members of the Government and the Parliamentary Secretaries out of the Government side of the House, you are at present left with only 40 or 50 back bench Members. That is getting a bit thin.
I would like to see a House with 80 to 100 back bench Deputies on the Government side, who would be in a position to have an indirect, perhaps, but nevertheless an important influence on Government policy. One would like to see on the Opposition side of the House also somewhere in the region of 100 Deputies. In that way one would get a better representation of the Opposition point of view from the country at large. All in all, everything points to our needing many more Deputies than we have at present. I would certainly think that in so far as the Constitution permits we should have the maximum possible number of Deputies from the point of view of the capacity of the House to provide good calibre Government, good calibre Opposition, and good calibre back bench influence on the Government.
And proper pairing.
In his own person Deputy Paddy Belton probably negates every argument I am making. There is another aspect of our work here which will become increasingly important, that is, the demands that our membership of the European Community will make on us. At the moment we send ten members to the European Parliament. That is only, as it were, the tip of the iceberg. More and more here in the House we will have to provide members for committees. As Deputies know, we have already in existence the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities.
That committee comprises 26 members altogether, 18 of whom are Deputies. Other committees are contemplated.
There is, I understand, a wish now on all sides of the House to have a committee which will deal with the affairs of State and semi-State companies. Members will have to be provided for that committee. I foresee far greater demands on the time of Members of the House, in this House, apart from the requirements of their constituencies. We shall have to send Deputies to the European Parliament and apart from Members of the European Parliament itself, there will be greater demand for Deputies to attend different European committees, bodies and organisations of one kind or another. Apart from the European dimension, we shall have to call a great deal more on Deputies to provide the membership of committees. That will deplete the number of Deputies readily available in the House on sitting days to contribute to the debate and keep the mechanics of Parliamentary business operating effectively.
Therefore, I am very much in favour of at least the 148 Deputies provided for in section 2. I hope that, as the opportunity presents itself, and as our population increases—we all welcome the fact that it is steadily rising—and it becomes constitutionally possible to do so, we will continue to increase the number of Deputies. There is, however, an upper limit to the ideal size of a debating chamber of this sort. I recall when Deputy Burke was having an argument with the Minister for Local Government as to what should be the appropriate number of members on Dublin County Council discussing the situation with him and suggesting that while it is important to get adequate and comprehensive representation of the people one must also always keep an eye on what is the right size of the Legislature or the local body from the point of view of the working of that body. In discussing this legislation I hope we shall always keep that aspect in mind. That is what is involved in section 2: what is the best number of Members to have in this House from the point of view of the working of the House. I would put that figure at about 200 but constitutionally we are a long way from that as yet. I hope we shall avail of any opportunity that presents itself to increase the number of Deputies from the point of view of the effectiveness of the Chamber as a Legislature.
I began by instancing the figures in Donegal and pointing out that on that basis we could still have 144 Deputies. I should now like to deal with it from the other end, that is to take one of the densely populated constituencies which got away with a tolerance of 19,000. This would mean that Deputy Haughey's proposals could, in part, be met. For instance, if the Minister and Cabinet decided there was need for a greater number of Deputies they could have kept to 19,000 all the way instead of saying 21,000 in Donegal, 20,800 in Mayo and something similar in Cork where a larger tolerance gives fewer Deputies in Munster and Connacht. The Minister and the Government could have decided to take the maximum of the lesser tolerance and apply it all the way from, say, one of the Dublin constituencies throughout the country.
I did not make any calculations and I do not know how many extra Deputies would be involved but it would certainly be a few more than 148 because that figure is based on a division of the total population of the Republic by 20,000. That is what I understood the Minister to say. Instead of that, and while he says 20,000 is the average, in a fair number of cases he used a figure of 19,000 thus leaving the smaller representation to the west and south and north of the country. If he had stuck to 19,000 and had gone from the city to the ends of the country at that rate of tolerance we could have—not all Deputy Haughey suggested—but more Deputies elected.
There is a case for this, as Deputy Haughey said, in view of the fact that Deputies from both sides must in the interests of the country and in the interests of the EEC attend meetings in Europe. Not only have we a selfish interest in having Deputies from this House to represent us and look after us in the EEC, some well and some not so well, as the House has seen from reports coming back, but it is also in the interests of other EEC countries.
At any rate, it is necessary in view of this to have greater representation. I do not know if this would be a problem for the Minister—if it would be possible to have another category included in this legislation. Perhaps it would not be possible without a change in the Constitution to have allowance made for the absence of Deputies in Brussels and Strasbourg. Has the Minister inquired about this? Before Report Stage I hope he will inquire whether we can provide for this without an amendment of the Constitution. Deputies at the moment are supposed to look after the interests of their constituents in this Parliament and to look after the interests of this country and of our fellow EEC members in the European Parliament. Such a situation, with the present representation, creates problems for us at home and aggravates our problems abroad. Of course when sitting down to draft this Bill the Minister had only one thought—to straighten out the constituencies to do Fianna Fáil down.
Deputy Cunningham does not like this to be said of him but I would expect that a person who held Parliamentary Secretary rank would at least know what he is talking about. He does not, and he should get Deputy Molloy to tell him that it would not be possible to provide for 19,000 and therefore to increase the number of Deputies. The Constitution allows a maximum number of 148. Deputy Haughey spoke about increasing the number to 200. It would require a change in the Constitution to do that. Many people may think this is not the right time and many people say there are already too many Deputies. Deputy Haughey had a point and he made it but he did not say we could do this under the Constitution.
I am surprised at Deputy Cunningham suggesting that it is possible to do it under this Bill. We could not increase the number, and Deputy Molloy admitted that 148 is the maximum number that could be included in this Bill. Therefore, there is no point in talking about something that cannot be done at all. Whether several Deputies go to Europe and whether they are doing a good job there is not relevant. The situation is whether we want 148, which the Government do, or we do not. Deputy Cunningham spoke at length as to why we should have fewer than 148 and he tried to make an argument in favour of having more——
I did not. I thought we could have more.
We could not have more.
I accept that now.
The situation is that we want 148, and apparently the Opposition agree that 148 should be the number, but they will not allow the section to go through. They have been talking at length and both the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle made the point that all the matters being dealt with could be dealt with subsequently once we accept the number as 148. Nobody suggested amending the Constitution immediately, that we should change the Constitution in order to make the number greater or smaller.
It was mentioned on the Second Stage.
It was mentioned in passing.
I made the point very fully.
It did not find its way here by way of amendment and please do not tell me it will find its way here in the form of an amendment on Report Stage. That could happen, or it could happen in the other House.
It could not be done under this Bill.
Nobody suggested it could. Deputy Molloy did not do it in all his years. It is amazing what a change across from one side of the House to the other can bring about. It brightens up their ideas and they suddenly think of new schemes.
It is a pity it has had the opposite effect on the Minister and his colleagues.
We are doing pretty well.
Have a word with some of the housewives.
Would they speak to him?
I have had talks with them. I talked to the ordinary people. Deputies on the other side try to give the impression that they are supermen. We are all human beings here. We are doing pretty well and that is what is annoying the Opposition. Still Fianna Fáil continue to argue about something on which they agree with us.
I shall deal briefly with a couple of points. The Minister said that a change from one side of the House to the other seems to bring a change in attitudes. That could be said about the Minister more than anybody. We have heard him in Opposition make a strong fight to have a commission set up to deal with constituency revisions. Nobody made a stronger fight. It might be said that his outlook has changed considerably with the change to the other side of the House. I would hope that the half promise that he made that he would consider a commission after this Bill goes through, if it does go through, will be honoured in the not too distant future.
I shall make a couple of comments on some of the statements made by the Minister. When he was defending the proposal in the Bill to have 148 Deputies, he said he was tied by a decision of the High Court, but he realised shortly afterwards that the High Court decision referred to tolerance. Later the Minister said he is tied by the Constitution. That is not so.
The Deputy knows this more than anybody.
The Constitution permits the Dáil to decide on the number in relation to the population to be represented—between 20,000 and 30,000. Therefore, the Minister is not tied to the figure of 20,000. I am not suggesting he should not use the figure of 20,000. Like the rest of the Deputies on this side I am in favour of 148.
However, I think the general tenor of the argument from this side of the House relates to the distribution of Deputies; and the argument, generally speaking, has been that rural areas should have a better tolerance than city areas. The Minister, when replying to the argument put forward on this side of the House in relation to that, stated that we do not give representation to mountains and valleys. I am sure the Minister will agree that while the most important work of a Deputy in this House must be to deal with legislation nevertheless it is only fair that people in any constituency should have a reasonable opportunity of being able to meet their Deputy. When the case to which the Minister referred came before the High Court I was a witness. I pointed out that in the smaller constituencies like the city constituencies it was relatively easy for constituents to meet their Deputies, while in some of the rural constituencies constituents had considerable difficulty in contacting their Deputies because of the great physical size of the constituencies. I think it can be noted in the revision of constituencies that the rural areas have the higher tolerance. I think the Minister himself, as a Deputy representing a rural area, will recognise that it would be much fairer if in rural areas the Deputy represented a lesser population, because it would give a better opportunity to the constituents to see their Deputy or to be able to contact the Deputy. I know it is possible to ring or to write, but I am sure the Minister knows as well as I do that many people much prefer to speak to the Deputy than to phone. For that reason I find it difficult to understand why the Minister, coming as he does from a rural constituency, would have a situation where the areas of denser population have a lower population per Deputy than some of the rural areas.
It appears that everybody seems to be missing the point. Deputy Faulkner is usually very fair and I am sure he has forgotten or he would not have made the argument, because in my reply to the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out that this question of representation for areas has been settled by the Constitution, by the courts, and by the people. The Constitution requires equality of representation throughout the country and makes no distinction whatever between rural and urban areas. The High Court in 1961 was quite explicit on this point. It declared that there was no directive whatsoever contained in the Constitution that these matters of difficulties of communication, differing economic interests, differing modes of life or the convenience of constituents or difficulties of Deputies or any of the other matters relied on by the defendant should be taken into consideration when the Legislature was performing its function in enacting the electoral law. That is what the High Court said.
Five years ago, as Deputies know, an attempt was made to change the Constitution, and it was suggested that matters other than population should be taken into account when distributing Dáil seats. Again the people rejected the proposal in a referendum in 1968; that is nearly six years ago now. The question of special rural representation or rural bias in representation has been settled by the Constitution, by the courts and by the people. I cannot understand why Deputies on the Opposition benches should continue to make representation as if this House had authority to set aside all these decisions and to create other types of representation. I know, as Deputy Faulkner says, that the rural Deputy who has to travel many miles to meet constituents has a complaint. He usually says he would be better off in the city where the city Deputy has his area within three or four streets, until he talks to the city Deputy who tells him there are so many people to deal with that he would far rather to be out in the country.
No.
Deputy Tunney does not agree with the Deputy. There are Deputies and Deputies. There are some who do not have to hold clinics and there are some of us who do.
Where the competition is keen.
The competition is very keen. There is no question of anybody trying to do a disservice. My job here as Minister is simply to see that the Constitution and the ruling of the court are carried out. I am doing that to the best of my ability, and I believe that we have set out the proper way to do it. I am amazed that the case being made across the floor is being made, because the opposite is what was being said when the Government who were defeated last year were over here. Deputy Faulkner is quite correct; I was one person who believed that there should be some type of body set up for the purpose of deciding how Dáil seats should be allocated, how the constituencies should be drawn up, but Fianna Fáil did not agree with me, and they outvoted us on motions in this House to that effect. Surely it is too much to accept that when immediately they go over there——
The Minister changed his mind.
Immediately Fianna Fáil went across the floor of the House they saw merit in this proposal. Five minutes after Deputy Jack Lynch conceded that he lost the election, he said that he thought it was a good idea and it has been echoed more or less by Fianna Fáil Deputies, with exceptions. As far as we are concerned, we believe that 148 seats, on the basis which we laid down, is what is needed, and that is in section 2 of this Bill.
I would like to clear up the Minister's amazement at our argument on this section. What is involved here is whether the number of seats should be increased by four. It is all very well for the Minister to inform the House that he has to comply with the Constitution. We know that a court case which ruled on a constitutional issue in relation to electoral laws and the interpretation of the Constitution gave no direction as to how the tolerance range should be applied, and the Minister who is charged up to now with the task of revising constituencies can operate that tolerance in whatever way he wants. It is the view of the Fianna Fáil Party—and this is an argument we are putting before the House and we know it to be the view of many of the Deputies behind the Minister— that that tolerance range should be operated in favour of those areas where the population is scattered, which is, generally speaking, in the rural areas in Ireland and, generally speaking again, in the western areas.
Broadly speaking we see no objection to increasing the number of Deputies from 144 to 148. What we seriously object to is the manner in which the Minister has distributed those four extra seats through this country. Not alone has he allocated these four seats to one part of the country, the Dublin area, but he has also——
The Deputy can deal with that matter when we got to the Schedule.
This is why we are objecting to section 2. If we agree to section 2 we are allowing the Minister to allocate an additional four seats. We have no objection to increasing the number of seats but we have serious objection to the manner in which the Minister has allocated them.
The only point involved in this section is the increase in the number of seats.
That is correct, but if we are asked to agree to this section then we will only do so on the basis that we are satisfied that the Minister intends distributing those four seats in a fair and just manner. It is quite clear to anybody who has studied the Bill that the Minister has not allocated those four seats on a fair and just basis or on any logical basis whatever.
The Deputy is well aware that this matter refers to the Schedule. The distribution of seats arises on the Schedule.
The Minister was amazed at our discussing the question of four seats.
I am afraid Deputy Molloy was either not listening or does not understand my accent. I thought I had made it clear. I hope Deputy Molloy will listen now to what was set out in the High Court judgment. A few minutes ago I said that the High Court in 1961 was quite explicit on this point. It declared that there is no directive whatever contained in the Constitution that these matters of difficulties of communications, differing economic interests, differing roles of life, the convenience of constituents, the difficulties of Deputies or any of the other matters relied on by the defendant at the time should be taken into consideration when the Legislature are performing their function of enacting electoral laws. Does Deputy Molloy deny that that is a clear statement by the High Court that we cannot give representation to valleys or to wide areas or to long roads which Deputies have to travel? Is that not a direction to this House that they cannot do that, or does it mean something different to Deputy Molloy from what it means to me? Surely that is quite clear for anybody to understand. The Deputy may as well get two doses together now, because he also said that the Constitution does not so lay it down. The Constitution provides that the population-Deputy ratio shall so far as practicable be the same throughout the country.
We know that that is what is in the Constitution. But we also know the discretion left to the Minister in drawing up this Bill.
You would like to have it different so that it would suit Fianna Fáil. All the talking in the world from the far side of the House will not alter the High Court decision or what is in the Constitution.
We do not wish to alter either of those.
You would love to do something which they both prevent you from doing.
We are arguing within the High Court interpretation. It is extraordinary that the Minister does not understand the simple argument we are putting up. I stated that the Minister charged with the revision of the constituencies has within his discretion the power to vary 1,000 above or below the national average. He can operate that variance or tolerance range in whatever way he desires.
The Deputy can deal with distribution later on.
Does the Minister accept that?
The Chair has pointed out repeatedly that we are discussing the section. The Deputy has heard on a number of occasions that the question is in regard to the number of Deputies and the distribution of the Deputies will come up for discussion on the Schedule. The Deputy can make any argument he wishes at that stage on the Schedule.
The Minister has discretion in this matter as to how much he will deviate and use this tolerance range from 19,123 to 21,123 in whatever way he likes. We maintain on this side of the House that that tolerance range should be operated in favour of those areas where representation is more difficult.
The High Court says it cannot be so.
The Minister has total discretion within the 1,000 range above and below the national average and the High Court does not advise him one way or the other as to how he shall allocate the seats provided he stays within the 1,000 tolerance range above or below the national average.
Deputy Molloy continues to say that he wants this arrangement because of the wide areas that must be covered. The High Court explicitly says that cannot be so.
The Minister in his concluding remarks stated that we were not satisfied with the allocation or that we are making the arguments basically because we wanted to help Fianna Fáil. I should like to point out to the Minister that when this High Court case was heard I made the very same arguments as I am making now in an endeavour to secure what I felt would be the proper procedure, and that is that in rural areas Deputies should represent a lesser population than in city areas. It can hardly be said at this stage that I am making the case for purely political reasons. I made these statements because I felt that that would be the proper thing to do and it would also help to retain intact the county boundaries.
The county boundaries?
If the decision had been made on that basis——
That argument was not accepted by the High Court.
I accept that it was not. It is a pity it was not accepted. Nevertheless, I agree with Deputy Molloy in what he says because the judgment referred to by the Minister referred to a much wider situation than the one we are dealing with here. In so far as the tolerance is concerned, that is within the discretion of the Minister. The Minister could, if he so wished, decide to have a Deputy in a rural area representing a smaller population within the confines of the tolerance which is allowed. I should also like to ask the Minister what he had in mind when deciding on the number or the size of the population to be represented by each individual Deputy, because he must have taken something into consideration. I am sure it would be reasonable to expect that the Minister would have taken into consideration the difficulties in relation to the very large areas in many of the rural constituencies. He certainly had the discretion to do this if he so wished.
This is a most important section. It refers to the number of Deputies in Dáil Éireann. It says that the membership of Dáil Éireann after the passing of this Act should consist of 148 members. The Minister in his opening remarks said that the Government decided to increase the number to 148 Members. It was probably the only section of the Bill on which the Government were unanimous. The House is entitled to know why the Government so decided. I am worried about this section because no other Member of the Coalition Government, not one backbencher, has spoken in favour of the Bill. It appears to me that the backbenchers behind the Minister are not in favour of this section of the Bill. We have not heard a single word from them other than the Minister trying to jackboot his way through the Bill.
Would you like a vote on it?
I second that grunt.
The Deputy should not use the kind of language that leads to rejoinders.
That is the most intelligent utterance he made this evening.
Is the Deputy on the floor of the House? He is on the steps.
We have come off the floor before now.
If Deputy Haughey's 200 come in they will all be on the floor.
We have not heard a word from the backbenchers on the Government side. It would be interesting to hear if they have the courage to make a contribution now. I would challenge them to stand up and make a contribution in support of the Minister. I know it is difficult to see a lonely man sitting there in that seat with no back-up whatever.
The Deputy will deal with the subject matter of the section.
I know they will have an opportunity of supporting the Minister in relation to the increase in the number of Deputies. During the years since I became a Member of this House I have been a member of various committees. I should like to know from the Minister if the decision of the Government to increase the number of Deputies was because suggestions were made at meetings of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that specialised committees would be set up in the future. If that is one of the reasons for increasing the number of Deputies it is a very good one.
It will be necessary in the future to have specialised committees to deal with problems just as there were specialised committees in the past. If that is one of the reasons for increasing the number of Deputies then it is a very good one. We have heard also that the Estimates should be taken in committee. This would be a substantial strain on the existing Members when you take into consideration the various Deputies who are members of such committees and those with other duties in relation to Dáil affairs. We require to know if this is one of the factors which has brought about the Government decision to bring in this section.
There is also the question of the EEC Committee which meets in this House. It is likely this will be expanded to meet the ever increasing problems of the EEC and this will cause a substantial drain on the number of Members available. We should be told if this was one of the factors which brought about the Government decision. I believe this committee will expand in the future and that we will also have an Estimates Committee. We will thus deal with many of these problems outside the House.
The Dáil must proceed with legislation and with the business of the nation. Therefore it is necessary to have increased membership of this House. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges do valuable work. This committee is likely to have much more work to do in the future than it has done in the past. With all those committees meeting there is a good reason for expanding the number of Deputies. If more than one committee meets at the same time this is an extra burden on Members of the House so it is necessary to have increased membership of this House.
We have the all-Party committee on the Constitution which meets from time to time. This is likely to be a prolonged affair which may drag on over a considerable period and they may want the views of additional Members of the House. This committee may expand like the other committees I have spoken of and this will also be a drain on the resources of the House. This is a good reason for increasing the number of Deputies. I should like to know if these factors were taken into consideration when the Government decided to insert this section into this Bill. We have the Committee on Public Accounts, a very important committee, doing a substantial amount of work. This committee may need to be strengthened in the future.
A Deputy
What about the £100,000?
In the future, with the volume of money now being spent, the money which we have been promised and the money which the Government have indicated they will spend in the future we will need an expanded Public Accounts Committee to deal with this extra money which the Government are to find somewhere. This will also be an increased burden on the Deputies. We will, therefore, need additional Members of the House if we are to keep the affairs of the House going. The Committee on Public Accounts are a year behind with their work and if this committee are to expand their work we can see it will be necessary to have increased representation in this House.
It was necessary recently to set up a committee to deal with procedure. This committee did very good work and it may happen that the present Government will set up another committee like this. Such committees are very desirable, and we can see the necessity for increasing the number of Dáil Deputies. However, we should be told if that is the reason behind the Government decision on this. The Committee on Dáil Procedure met for a considerable period.
The Deputy seems to be repeating himself now.
I am only on the Dáil Committee on Procedure.
The Deputy has mentioned several committees.
I want to show the necessity for having additional Deputies and to show the great strain there is on the existing Members. Many Deputies are working on the various committees, but the public who come into the gallery of this House are not aware of this and when they see very few people in the House they complain. I want them to realise the substantial work which is done in these committees. With the expansion of Dáil committees it is desirable to have an increase in numbers. The Dáil Committee on Procedure is one instance of the type of committee which is likely to be set up in the future and which is likely to draw from this House a considerable number of Deputies to specialise in the examination of procedure here.
We are not dealing with committees of the House.
When the public come in here and do not see many Deputies in the House they think the Deputies are absenting themselves. They do not realise that many of them are engaged on the work of these various committees meeting in Leinster House. We also have Members working in the European Parliament who are doing very valuable work.
When they are let.
There is a necessity to ensure that we have additional Members in the House to carry on the work of this House and to ensure that the legislation which is necessary and desirable can be brought before the House. I am indicating to the House the necessity for an increase in numbers.
The Chair must point out to the Deputy that he has repeated himself on a number of occasions.
This is the first time I have mentioned this committee.
The Deputy has to the knowledge of the Chair referred to this before.
I want a few items clarified. As I said, we have Deputies working in the European Parliament and we saw recently how necessary it is to have additional Members in the House. Therefore, a substantial case can be made for increasing the representation from 144. It is necessary that we have additional numbers. If we take the committees I have already mentioned—the Committee on Dáil Procedure, the Public Accounts Committee, the Committee on Procedure and Priviliges, the all-Party Committee on the Constitution, the EEC Committee and include also members of the European Parliament—one can see how Deputies are occupied with various committees. It is important that the public should know the amount of work being done in the various rooms of this House.
The Deputy is making me feel tired.
I hear a corncrake over there. I am not dealing with corncrakes at present. I am dealing with section 2. I shall remain on my feet until I say all I have to say. It is desirable that the people should know that there is a substantial amount of work done in committees.
If the Deputy continues to be repetitious the Chair will ask him to resume his seat.
The number of Deputies is not adequate to deal with the situation at present and there is a strong case for an increase in the representation here so that the necessary committees can function effectively.
Will Deputies allow the Deputy in possession to speak?
Deputy Harte will have an opportunity of speaking when I sit down. I hope he will avail of it. There is a need for increased representation. It is important that the public should know the amount of work done behind the scenes here. I am rather surprised that the Minister did not indicate clearly why there was a need for an increase in representation. In the past we had a special committee set up——
If the Deputy continues to be repetitious the Chair will ask the Deputy to resume his seat.
I just want to deal with the highly technical committees that have been set up.
The Chair is not concerned with committees.
It is necessary that we should at least tell the public the reason why we want an increase in representation. I will be asked to vote for or against this and I want to tell my constituents the reasons why I will vote for it or against it, as the case may be. A strong case can be made for increased representation but we want the Minister to tell us whether these are factors or whether other factors have been taken into consideration. There was the highly technical committee which sat on the Companies Consolidation Bill. A number of experts were drawn from various sides of the House for this committee. It would be obvious to people who visited the House when this or other committees were sitting that certain people were missing from the House. However, they were engaged on other work within the confines of Leinster House. We should show clearly why we need additional personnel here. There was also the Income Tax Consolidation Bill and again a committee met. It is necessary to have an increase in the number of Deputies but an explanation should be given as to why they are required. I do not want to make a case on behalf of the Government. I am sure the Minister will be making a case. So far he has not given any reason as to why one should support section 2. He should clear the air and tell us the thinking behind this section. I will have to be convinced that there is this necessity. The number of committees that sit would be one of the reasons why I would support this section. If that is not the factor I would have to rethink the situation and possibly speak again and again. There is no doubt that committees will be set up in the future——
The Chair has been very lenient with the Deputy and has allowed him to be repetitious over a long period. The Chair is not prepared to allow the Deputy to be repetitious any further.
At least I gave an indication why I might support section 2 if a reasonable explanation is given or possibly vote against it. I want to tell my constituents why I am going to vote one way or another on this Bill. I do not want to have to stand up every few minutes, but if that is simpler than giving a complete explanation while I am on my feet I can do it that way. I will take the same amount of time anyway.
What the Chair is concerned with is that Deputies be in order.
The Minister should give a clear explanation of the Government's reasons for including this section. If that is satisfactory we can view this section in a different light. I would not like this section to go through without adequate discussion. As the Minister said, some people think there are too many Deputies in Dáil Éireann. That may well be and to people who think there are too many it is necessary that we should indicate the necessity for additional personnel. I hope the Minister will give us a clear indication of the Government's reasons. I should also like to hear statements from the backbenchers of the Government parties that they are behind this Bill because I believe there was quite a lot of confusion and contention and indeed political gut fights in relation to the compiling of it.
The Chair is no longer prepared to allow the Deputy to continue to be repetitious. The Deputy has had quite a long opportunity from the Chair and has persisted in being repetitious over a long contribution. The Chair has already pointed out to the Deputy on many occasions that he has been repetitious and he refuses to take the advice of the Chair on this matter. If he will not take the advice of the Chair——
I would be the last to disobey the Chair, as you know. Nevertheless, I think I have indicated clearly that it is desirable that I explain to the people I represent the reason why I would support an increase in numbers. I have endeavoured to do that. I do not think there was any repetition at all.
The Deputy is again disobeying the Chair.
Surely one is entitled to mention the various committees of this House in advancing an argument.
The Deputy mentioned them on several occasions.
There are those who would say: Sit down, or stand up or shut up.
I want to say that an argument can be advanced now as to why there should be a reduction in numbers in the House.
You have been making that argument for the last——
I want to explain to my constituents, if I vote against this, the argument I would advance as to why there should be a reduction in the number of Deputies rather than an increase.
The Deputy will not have a hard job convincing his constituents; he should just be natural with them.
Is the Deputy finished?
Just be natural with them.
If Deputy Harte wants to make a contribution, he will have an opportunity at a later stage.
Deputy Dowling on section 2.
I believe an argument can be advanced as to why there should be a reduction in the numbers here. Again, this is one aspect that must be considered; whether or not the reduction, or increase, in the number of Deputies would be a proper procedure under this Bill. I have argued why there should be an increase in numbers and the reason that might motivate me to support the higher number of Deputies by mentioning the works of the various committees. On the other side of the coin, I would say that there could be a reduction in the number of Deputies. Again, perhaps the number of the committees already functioning could be reduced; perhaps two committees could do the work of one. It occurs to me that we could get outside experts to deal with problems such as Dáil reforms instead of draining the resources of the House here needed to ensure the continuity of legislation. If, again, we decided to draw on experts from outside——
We are not dealing with Dáil reform problems; we are dealing with an increase in numbers.
Deputy Dowling came into the House for the first time today at 9.40 p.m.
I have already spoken here on other matters today, for Deputy Harte's information, and this clearly indicates that Deputy Harte was not in the House earlier today. I spoke at a much earlier stage today so the Deputy should not be trying to bluff his way through the House.
Back to the section.
I just want to indicate that arguments can also be advanced why there should be, or there could be, a reduction in the number of Deputies. I had just indicated one way that that could be done; there are a variety of other ways in which it could be done.
In conclusion, I should like to call on the Minister to indicate clearly the reason for the Government's decision in relation to this section. We want to know why and, if he does not tell us why, we will ask him again because this is a most important section; it is possibly one of the most important in the Bill. For that reason it will be possibly the subject of a volume of discussion unless we get a clear indication from the Minister.
In reply to Deputy Dowling, I want to say that this debate started at 7.30. At 8 o'clock I repeated my views for Deputy Colley's benefit; at 8.30 p.m. I repeated them for Deputy Cunningham's benefit and at 9.15 p.m. I repeated them again. If Deputy Dowling happened to have been around at that time he would have known what I said. I know he could not be here——
I was in the House when the Minister spoke.
What argument did the Minister make?
Does the Deputy want me to repeat them again?
Yes, repeat the argument in favour of this section.
On a point of order; there is a point of order.
What is the point of order?
The Minister has indicated that I was not in the House. I want to put on record that I was in the House.
That is not a point of order.
Deputy Haughey made a case here tonight and he repeated almost word for word—because he was not making notes—the arguments of the Committee on the Constitution in December, 1967. Deputy Dowling came along a few minutes later and he repeated it word for word. Again, I compliment Deputy Dowling on his memory. The fact that he repeated it again and again showed that he was not quite sure that he had such a good memory, and he made the same arguments Deputy Haughey had made earlier. This was the committee on which I had the honour to sit in 1967. The report was brought out and the then Government did not do anything about it. Let me repeat what I have said twice tonight already; the move across the floor has made great converts of a lot of Deputies; having gone across they suddenly decide——
The Minister changed his mind when he went over there.
With regard to Deputy Dowling's comments about a reduced Dáil, just like Deputy Haughey, since he stood up he has been making a very good argument for at least one fewer in Dáil Éireann. Maybe that is right; but I should like to hear Deputy Dowling make a good strong argument why there should be fewer seats in Dublin.
Would Deputy Dowling let us hear why he considered the people of Dublin should have fewer Deputies in this House? I should love to hear that because that is the sort of thing which shows whether or not a man is really talking through his hat or if there is any reason in what he is talking about.
We will not stop unless the Minister agrees to some reasonable amendment to this Bill, an even distribution of seats, a fair and just distribution; that is what we want. This is gerrymandering; this is manipulation.
The Deputies have enough there to vote us out.
This is lack of argument; Hitler's tactics.
It is more than the Deputy does at the Ard Fheis!