On this side we have made it clear that we are opposed to every line of the Bill. We believe it is a discriminatory document, that it has been produced deliberately to gerrymander the constituencies in favour of the Government parties. For that reason we will oppose every section, including section 9.
Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973: Committee Stage (Resumed). - Section 9 (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 50.
Tá
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Henry.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerald.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael P.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Ahern, Liam.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central)
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Leonard, James.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Moore, Seán.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Nil, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
SCHEDULE
I move amendment No. 1:
1. In page 4, in the second column of the entry relating to the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny, to delete all words after "divisions of:" and substitute the following:
"Moyacomb, Newtownbarry, St. Mary's in the former Rural District of Enniscorthy;
and in the administrative county of Wicklow the district electoral divisions of Cronelea, Coolboy, Coolattin, Shillelagh, Aghowle, Killinure, Rath, Money, Carnew, Ballingate in the former Rural District of Shillelagh".
I understood there was some arrangement that there would be a grouping of the amendments. Could we have an explanation from the Chair as to what the grouping will be?
As the Chair explained on the last occasion, the amendments fall into various groups. Group A, amendments Nos. 1, 8, 9, 12, and 20, relate to the constituency of Carlow/Kilkenny, the constituencies of Dublin City and County and the constituencies of Kildare and Wicklow. Does the Deputy wish to have the other groupings?
No, just the first group. I do not think the Chair made any reference to County Meath or County Wexford.
No. They will be in the next group, group B, Nos. 2, 13 and 16, the constituencies of Cavan-Monaghan, Louth and Meath.
In amendment No. 20 there is reference to the constituency of Wicklow.
That was mentioned as being in group A.
I understood that, in regard to amendment No. 1, dealing with Carlow/Kilkenny, and the related amendments, dealing with the Dublin area, which are to be discussed at this stage, a decision on amendment No. 1 would decide all the amendments in the group. I think this was the agreement earlier on. Deputy Molloy was to consult the Ceann Comhairle's office if he felt that there was something that should be done about it.
The Minister has introduced something new in saying that if amendment No. 1 falls, all the amendments would fall. I understand we can discuss these amendments in a group and that a decision on each amendment may be taken separately. Is that correct?
There is to be one debate.
But there will be five decisions.
It is a matter for the Chair, but if amendment No. 1 is withdrawn or defeated, then the others could not stand.
The Minister must understand that even when it comes to discussing his own Schedule to the Bill, the House has already agreed that each of the constituencies in the Schedule, 42 of them or so, will be taken separately. The Minister will appreciate that if the first one falls, the other 41 should also fall.
If there is time——
It is not a question of time; it is a question of a specific ruling from the Chair as to how this debate will be conducted. I understand from the Chair, and we are satisfied, that the amendments will be taken individually when it comes to taking a decision. We have agreed to discuss them in a group.
There will be one discussion. One division should suffice, but if the Deputy wishes further divisions——
We would like a vote on each amendment we have put down. If we went to the bother of putting down the amendments, we should at least be entitled to vote on them.
I understood these matters were originally discussed with the Whips before the Bill came in, and I understood from the Chair on the last day that while all these amendments would be debated together, amendment No. 1 would cover the remainder.
The Minister is not correct in that. I have already discussed this with the Ceann Comhairle.
The Chair will decide anyway.
The Chair wishes the matter to be clear. There will be one discussion; one decision should suffice, but the Chair cannot impose on Deputies if they require others. Amendment No. 1.
On amendment No. 1, I should like to establish at the outset that the counties and constituencies under discussion are the following, which is a broader list than has been indicated to us by the Chair or by the Minister—Carlow/Kilkenny; Dublin City, Dublin County, Dún Laoghaire, Kildare, Wicklow, Wexford and Meath. Each of those counties or constituencies is referred to in amendments Nos. 1, 8, 9, 12 and 20.
There is no point in Deputy Molloy pretending that he does not understand what is down before him. Neither Meath nor Wexford is included in those amendments.
If the Minister will allow me, while he gets a chance of obtaining a better briefing than he has had already—amendment No. 1 refers to Carlow/Kilkenny constituency. It refers also to the county of Wexford, where it refers to the district of Enniscorthy, certain electoral divisions in that rural district, and also to the county of Wicklow. Therefore, I take it the Minister stands corrected.
Sorry, Wexford; there is one portion of it——
And Wicklow. That is amendment No. 1 and I have won my point on that.
Meath is not.
Amendment No. 8 refers to Dublin constituencies and the county and Dún Laoghaire. Amendment No. 9 again refers to Dublin constituencies. Amendment No. 12 refers to the constituency of Kildare and part of Meath. Again, I take it the Minister stands corrected— that Meath must be under discussion here.
No, it is not.
Amendment No. 12 says:
In page 9, in the second column of the entry relating to the constituency of Kildare, to delete all words after "except" and substitute the following:
"the part thereof which is comprised in the constituency of Meath".
There is a reference to the constituency of Meath there. I do not see how we can discuss it without including reference to it. I have indicated to the House already that Wicklow is also involved, in the constituency of Carlow/Kilkenny. To all intents and purposes, any discussion on amendment No. 1, or group A—which is on amendments Nos. 1, 8, 9, 12 and 20—covers the counties or the constituencies of Carlow/Kilkenny, Dublin City, Dublin County, Dún Laoghaire, Kildare, Wicklow, Wexford and Meath. I want to put on record here that the proposals contained——
The Chair wishes to point out to the Deputy that the grouping of the amendments was the best available grouping that could be arranged and was agreed to at that stage. If Meath is going to be discussed now, with a grouping with which it is not suggested it be taken, then it cannot be discussed again.
It is a pity to waste too much time on this point because, in discussing a Constituency Bill, we all know that one constituency affects all of the other 42 or 43. Our reference to Meath may be very slight but it will be very difficult to avoid making any reference to it when part of it is involved in an adjoining constituency which comes under this group. It is referred to in one of the amendments. We shall not labour the point. We will leave it to the discretion of the Chair; if he thinks we are referring to it he can pull us up on it.
If that were the case then the whole Schedule, all the constituencies, could be discussed at this stage. It was for the sake of convenience and at the Deputy's request that the Schedule was broken up.
I am merely suggesting that we should be entitled to refer to constituencies or counties which are referred to in the amendments under discussion, group A.
Meath is the one of which the Deputy is speaking now. If he is discussing Meath with amendments Nos. 8, 9, 12 and 20, when the suggestion was that it be taken with Nos. 2, 13 and 16——
It cannot be avoided. It is a matter for the Chair to use discretion as the debate continues. I do not see how one can make hard and fast rules about this.
The position of the Chair is that there cannot be duplication of debate; we cannot cover this ground twice.
With all due respect, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I know your heart is not behind that statement, whoever is advising you.
The Deputy is well aware that a reference like that should not be made.
May we continue?
Is the Deputy going to discuss a certain part of Meath?
All I want to do is to make it clear at the outset that a reference to Meath would have to be deemed in order; a reference to it. I would agree with the Chair that any detailed discussion on the constituency of Meath would not be fully in order. But it is difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule on this matter because the constituency of Meath is referred to in one of the amendments under discussion. I do not wish to delay the House on this at all.
The Deputy should bear that in mind and ensure that brevity will be the order in regard to the matter when we come to that one. Amendment No. 1.
Our proposals are amendments to the Bill as presented to the House by the Minister. We recognise that there are few limitations on the Minister in drawing up electoral areas or carrying out a revision of constituencies. The few limitations are, of course, constitutional ones which state that the minimum size of a constituency shall be three seats. Of course, the Constitution does not lay down a maximum size. Therefore, in drawing up these amendments or in re-drawing the constituencies, the Minister is obliged to pay heed to that fact, that he cannot have a constituency smaller than three seats. Of course, he can have a constituency larger than that, of any size; there is no limitation. He could have a constituency of 148 seats. That would be constitutionally allowable. Of course, all of us on both sides of the House recognise that such a situation would be ludicrous. That is not being proposed by the Minister nor, indeed, would ever be by anyone on this side of the House. The other limitation—not a constitutional one—is the interpretation of the Supreme Court decision allowing a tolerance of plus 1,000, or minus 1,000 from the national average of the population per Deputy. As we have already established in this debate, the national average to which we shall be referring is a figure of 20,123 persons. Therefore, one can vary above that figure by 1,000 or below it by 1,000 provided that the number of Deputies—148, which has been decided in earlier sections of the Bill—will not exceed the figure I mentioned and that the national average works out at 20,123. It cannot be lower than 20,000 so the Minister has gone as low as possible. The greatest number of Deputies is being allowed under the Minister's proposals.
With these few limitations on the Minister and because of the important effect the actual constituency size and boundary can have on the election of Deputies from different parties, we feel, in the Opposition benches, that the community are entitled to expect that decisions on these matters are made on a fair basis and that all can see that they are being done fairly. Because of the lack of pre-determined criteria to guide a Minister in this task, one has to examine the Bill presented to the House by the Minister and see what criteria he has followed in drawing up his revision. I submit that, from an examination of the Minister's proposals in this Bill, one can see immediately that the Minister has determined that it shall take less persons per Deputy in the densely populated areas, for instance in the Dublin area, than in the sparsely populated ones, for instance the western areas.
If one studies the table in the explanatory memorandum one sees the difference in the deviation from national average population per member in the Dublin constituencies of North County Dublin, Clontarf, Finglas, Cabra, North Central, South East and South Central. In the western area the constituencies of East Galway, West Mayo, Roscommon-Leitrim, Sligo-Leitrim and Clare exceed the national average substantially. One can immediately draw the conclusion that the Minister has acted most unfairly to the sparsely populated western areas. We do not accept that the Minister has demonstrated any fair or logical reasons for doing this and in drawing up the amendments we have not accepted that practice.
In the Bill the Minister has set about establishing three-seat constituencies in the densely populated Dublin area and generally the four-seat and five-seat constituencies are in rural areas. No attempt has been made to justify having the smaller constituencies generally in the densely populated areas and having large four-seat and five-seat constituencies in rural areas. We feel a strong case can be made for the creation of larger four-seat and five-seat constituencies in the larger urban areas. It would be fairer if three-seat constituencies were general in the rural constituencies.
In drawing up amendments to the Minister's Bill we have recognised his intention of creating three-seat constituencies in the large urban areas. Allowing for the type of criteria which the Minister has laid down for himself we feel that the distribution of the seats could have been done in a fairer manner. At the present moment 30 Deputies are elected from the western area, that is Connaught plus County Donegal and County Clare. The Minister proposes to reduce to 28 the number elected to that area. He has already indicated in the discussion on the sections of the Bill that he proposes to increase the number of Deputies elected to this House by four, from 144 to 148. That means he has four new seats which must be distributed, in a new constituency or added to existing constituencies. As well as that, by reducing the number elected to the western area by two he has another two seats to distribute. One can see the way these six seats have been distributed. Five of them have been given to Dublin and one to an area in North Leinster, not far from Dublin—in fact the Minister's own constituency of Meath. This cannot be justified on any reasonable grounds.
There have been pleas from some of the Minister's colleagues during the debate here for a reasonable attitude on the part of the Opposition. We deem it an insult to the Opposition for the Minister to expect us to accept these proposals from him and the Government as being reasonable. They are not reasonable. They are drawn up in such a manner as to bring the maximum possible advantage in an election to the Government parties if this Bill is passed. The Bill pays no heed to the difficulties of rural areas, sparsely populated communities, the size of the constituencies and the easier accessibility of Deputies to people living in large urban areas. It would have been reasonable to have four-seat or five-seat constituencies there. We have had no argument from the Minister or from the few Deputies from the Government side who have spoken to justify the creation of three-seat constituencies in the Dublin area.
Our amendments are designed to show to the Minister, this House and the country that, allowing for the limitations which are placed on any Minister carrying out this revision of the minimum of three-seat constituencies and the deviation from the national average, the fairest thing would have been to have allocated an additional seat over and above what the Minister is proposing to the western area. I showed during the Second Stage debate that it would have been possible to retain the number of seats in the western area at 30 but, allowing for the very slight drop in population in that area against the huge increase in population in Dublin and in Cork, a fair distribution of seats would have been one more than the Minister is giving to the west, that is 29. The Minister could also give an extra seat to the Munster area where the population has increased around the Cork County area. Dublin could be granted the three extra seats. That would have been a fairer way of distributing the seats. That is the point of drawing up these amendments.
During the Second Stage debate Deputies from the Government side tried to create the impression that there was not sufficient population in the west to retain 30 seats or even have 29 seats. It was stated that the Minister had no choice in relation to the western areas. They said his hands were tied but I have shown quite clearly that is not the case. Within the interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling and within the limitation of the Constitution the Minister could easily have allowed the retention of 30 seats in the west or at least could have given them 29 seats. He has reduced representation from that area to as low as he can and has given those seats to the area which we are now discussing.
In the explanatory memorandum the Minister has broken up the country into five areas which he calls Munster, the West, South Leinster, North Leinster and Dublin. The Munster area is being given 40 seats. In the amendments I propose that area would be given 41 seats. The extra seat is justified due to the increase in population in the area. It is extraordinary that the Minister did not concede there was an increase in population there and that an increase in seats was justified. There is justification for an extra seat in the Cork County area. My amendment proposes 29 seats for the western area.
Is the Deputy dealing with the west?
I am not. I am only making a very brief reference to it.
I did not notice it.
Is the Minister getting disturbed over something?
I am not. As the Deputy knows, I am always quite placid.
It is a bit involved but I will get on to the individual constituencies in a moment. The basis of my argument is on the fact that the western area is being given only 28 seats and the amendments which we shall be discussing later on propose 29 seats for that area.
Would the Deputy defer his discussion of that until we reach those amendments?
In the South Leinster area the Minister proposes to have 17 seats and the amendment before the House also proposes 17 seats. The Minister proposes to have 20 seats for the North Leinster area and the same figure is proposed under the amendment. In the Dublin area the Minister proposes to have 43 seats and the amendment proposes 41.
In the amendment an extra seat is given to the west and to Munster and the Dublin area is reduced by two from what the Minister proposes. I do not believe that the community in Dublin want any advantage in this matter. The people of Dublin are very fair-minded and are not seeking any advantage over other parts of the country. They enjoy many advantages as it is, because of their happy economic situation and the general industrial development that has taken place here. A better way of life generally is enjoyed by the community in Dublin already and I do not think they seek any advantage over their country cousins and that is what the rural community are. Dublin is populated in the main by first and second generation Dubliners and many of them will have very little sympathy with what the Minister is attempting to do here and will readily see through it. The Minister may get his answer in the ballot box. No matter what gerrymandering or changing or mucking about with the constituencies the Minister may carry out the people have the final say. At the same time, the game should be played on a fair basis. Nobody would accept that it would be fair to hold an all-Ireland with one team playing against a hill in both halves. That is what the Minister is trying to do in arranging the constituencies as he has done.
I do not think anyone on the Minister's side would attempt to deny that this was the overall influencing factor behind the drawing up of the constituencies. This has been well recognised outside. It is our job as an Opposition to make sure that those facts are fully known and understood by the people and that no underhand methods are used. The guillotine with which we are threatened is something which has been used very seldom in this House. We are threatened with it in order to stifle debate on this Bill in case too much information about what the Government are doing in this Bill would get out to the people. We are threatened that this debate will be cut short and that our opportunity to expose the wrongdoing of the Government——
The Deputy should come to the amendments now.
This is very similar to the tactics used by other Governments and the Minister will find that it brings disaster to Governments eventually rather than benefit. It is a jackboot tactic, something which cannot bring credit on any Government.
The Minister's Bill proposes 26 three-seat constituencies and the amendment proposes 30. One must again come back to the creation of three-seat constituencies in the Dublin area. We have, in drawing up the amendments, accepted that if that is what the Minister wants then we will draw up our amendments within those limitations. We have deliberately drawn up our amendments on three-seat constituencies to show that even by doing what the Minister wants to do, you can still have a fair distribution of the number of additional seats. The number of four-seat constituencies in the Minister's Bill is ten and there are seven proposed in the amendment. The number of five-seaters in the Bill is six and there are six proposed in the amendment. It might be no harm if I got what is in the amendments on to the record in some form. We are discussing amendments 1, 8, 9, 12 and 20. Amendment No. 1 reads:
In page 4, in the second column of the entry relating to the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny, to delete all words after "divisions of:" and substitute the following:
"Moyacomb, Newtownbarry, St. Mary's in the former Rural District of Enniscorthy;
and in the administrative county of Wicklow the district electoral divisions of Cronelea, Coolboy, Coolattin, Shillelagh, Aghowle, Killinure, Rath, Money, Carnew, Ballingate in the former Rural District of Shillelagh."
Amendment No. 8 reads:
In pages 5, 6 and 7 to delete the entries relating to the constituencies of Mid County Dublin, North County Dublin, South County Dublin, West County Dublin and Dún Laoghaire and substitute the following:
I am sure the remainder of the amendment can be put on the record without my having to read it here. It is rather lengthy but I should like that to be taken as read and included in the Official Report.
I do not think there is provision for that although I often wondered why it could not be done.
Is there no provision for that? Then I must read it out?
The Deputy must read it out.
I sincerely hope that this will be the last time that a constituency revision Bill will come before Dáil Éireann.
The Deputy might advert to the fact that the various amendments will be recorded as he moves them.
Shall I move all of them now?
No, they will be moved later.
Am I supposed to discuss all of them together but not to move all of them together? Do I move them when I finish?
At the appropriate time on the Schedule.
I am afraid I do not understand the Chair.
The amendment can only be moved when the entry to which it relates comes up for decision.
Just before we vote on it?
And all the amendments will be recorded in the Official Report at the end of what we have to say here?
Suppose there is a guillotine in the meantime.
They will appear even if there is.
There is nothing to stop my reading them out but that would be a rather tedious job.
The Deputy will appreciate that they are already recorded on this printed sheet.
But that will not be included in the Official Report except at the point you have stated. Can I have an assurance from the Chair anyway that the amendments will be recorded in the Official Report at some stage? I am not too concerned what stage it is.
Provided they are dealt with before any guillotine comes up.
This is the threat hanging over us. We are like an individual condemned to death who does not know whether the executioner will wield his hatchet or his guillotine at five, six or seven o'clock. It is a very unfair position in which to place any Opposition. Though the Minister is smiling now he can never consider himself a great liberal or a very reasonable man having adopted this attitude in the House.
The great open Government.
We were promised open Government, as Deputy Burke says, but we are having anything but that.
I will deal with all the Deputy's comments when I am replying.
Will the Minister get time to reply?
Yes.
Amendment No. 9 deals with Dublin constituencies and No. 12 deals with the constituency of Kildare, with a reference to the constituency of Meath. Amendment No. 20 deals with the constituency of Wicklow, part of which under amendment No. 1 has been placed in the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny.
Our principle objection to the Bill is the manner in which the new seats have been distributed. I should like to make some comparisons between what the Minister has done in some Dublin constituencies and what he has done in western constituencies. I shall quote the population figure for the Dublin (Cabra) constituency where there are 59,314 persons in a three-seat constituency, according to the table published by the Minister. In the Dublin (Clontarf) constituency there are 58,592 persons in a three-seat constituency; in Dublin North Central there are 58,357 in a three-seat constituency and in Dublin South-East there are 57,875 in a three-seater. The total population in the four constituencies is 234,138 per 12 Deputies and the average population per Deputy is 19,511. This is in respect of Dublin constituencies that come under the amendments we are discussing.
Let us compare that with a group of constituencies in the west which elect 12 Deputies: Donegal, 5; Roscommon-Leitrim, 3; East Galway, 4. In Donegal there are 105,509 persons for a five-seater; in Roscommon-Leitrim the Minister proposes 63,358 in a three-seat constituency; in East Galway there are 83,176 persons for a four-seat constituency. The total number of persons required to elect 12 Deputies in the western area is 252,043, giving an average population per Deputy of 21,003.
If one picks more than four areas it is possible to enlarge those figures. It can be clearly demonstrated that it takes 17,905 more persons to elect 12 Deputies in the west than in the Dublin constituencies I have mentioned. The average per Deputy in the Dublin constituencies is 19,511 while the average in the west is 21,003, a difference of 1,492 persons. Where is the reasonableness and the fairness in this? How can the Minister logically argue that what he has done is fair or can be justified on any grounds other than political expediency which we and the community will not accept as justifiable grounds?
If one takes the entire area east of the Shannon one realises that in that area there are 2,403,994 persons electing 120 Deputies and the average per Deputy is 20,033. West of the Shannon the total population is 574,254 electing 28 Deputies but the average per Deputy is higher, being 20,509. Why should it take an additional 500 persons to elect a Deputy in the west than in Dublin? There are no arguments to justify what the Minister has done. The deviation of a tolerance of 1,000 below the national average—which is 20,123—would give 19,123. If that average had been applied in the western areas it would have allowed 30 Deputies to be elected. This is a fact despite what has been said by the Minister's spokesmen who said there was no way in which the Minister could have retained 30 seats in the west. The full constitutional requirements could be complied with while retaining 30 seats in the west.
In the general area of South Leinster my amendment proposes 17 seats: Carlow-Kilkenny five; Laois-Offaly five; Wexford four; Wicklow three. The Minister's amendments generally comply with that. In the general area of North Leinster, including Cavan-Monaghan, the amendments propose 20 seats while in the general area of Dublin we propose 41 seats as against the 43 seats proposed by the Minister. These are Dublin North-Central, three seats; Dublin North-East, three seats; Dublin (Artane), three seats; Dublin (Finglas), three seats; Dublin (Cabra), three seats; Dublin South-Central, three seats; Dublin South-East, three seats; Dublin (Rathmines West), three seats; Dún Laoghaire, five seats; South County Dublin, four seats; South West County Dublin, three seats; North County Dublin, five seats. This makes a total of 41 seats.
The Minister will have seen that we have attempted to apply the same kind of thinking as he applied when drawing up constituencies when he tried to have three-seaters but we have shown that even then 41 seats would have been a fairer number to have allocated. In the three areas I have mentioned there are a total of 78 seats in 22 constituencies.
Even though the Minister tried to ensure that three-seaters would be the norm, this was not done when it came to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown which, the Minister proposes to call Dún Laoghaire. Four seats were allocated to this constituency but no explanation was given. One suspects it is that the Taoiseach was elected in that area and will probably stand there at the next election. It might be the case that he would prefer a safer seat——
The Deputy should not be ridiculous.
We suggested that in those densely-populated areas it would have been more practicable for the Minister to have made Dún Laoghaire a five-seater and to have four five-seaters in the Dublin area. People may argue that, to a certain extent, four-seaters negative the whole purpose of proportional representation and that the only opportunity there is of getting a positive result under PR is to have constituencies comprising uneven numbers, for instance, three, five or seven, This has been ignored to a certain extent in creating four seats in this constituency. We do not know why this exception was made and we would like to hear from the Minister on the matter.
The population figures are set out in the table to the explanatory memorandum——
Can the Deputy divide 43 by 14 and produce an even number? There will be one left over and we put it in the area we considered the correct one.
Was it not a strange coincidence that the Minister chose the Dún Laoghaire constituency where the Taoiseach was returned? Was an exception not made in this case?
There was no exception made but the Deputy will obviously find some reason.
That is a very glib answer, if it can be deemed to be an answer. One can question how sincere the Minister is.
There are not enough people living there.
And there are less now.
I am giving them five seats.
Where the Dublin constituencies are concerned, Mid County Dublin has a population of 61,000; North County Dublin has a population of 59,514; South County Dublin, 62,119; West County Dublin has a population of 63,037; Dún Laoghaire 80,864; Dublin (Artane) 61,037; Dublin (Cabra) 59,314; Dublin (Ballyfermot) 62,997; Dublin (Clontarf) 58,592; Dublin (Finglas) 60,102; Dublin North-Central, 58,357; Dublin (Rathmines West) 60,972; Dublin South-Central, 60,216; Dublin South-East, 57,875. These were all three-seat constituencies except Dún Laoghaire. Doing something similar—that is, creating three-seat constituencies but using a higher number of population per Deputy and not exceeding in any way the interpretation put on the Supreme Court's decision—I have shown what can be done while striving to achieve a population figure in each constituency closer to the maximum allowable, to the plus 1,000; it is possible to reduce the number of seats. It can be done in the following constituencies: Dublin North-Central, three seats, 61,764; Dublin North-East, three seats, 61,944; Dublin (Artane), three seats, 61,206; Dublin (Finglas), three seats, 60,708; Dublin (Cabra), three seats, 61,415; Dublin South-Central, three seats, 62,600; Dublin South-East, three seats, 62,846; Dublin (Rathmines West), three seats, 62,046; Dún Laoghaire, five seats, 105,248; South County Dublin, four seats, 83,954; West County Dublin, three seats, 62,709; and then North County Dublin with five seats. By tending to move towards the maximum population per Deputy allowable one can determine pretty closely the number of seats to be allocated.
Our argument can be stated quite simply. It would have been fairer for the Minister to use the maximum allowable in the Dublin areas and the minimum figure—minus 1,000—in the sparsely populated rural areas, mostly the west and parts of the midlands and south. We are anxious to know why the Minister has not adopted this approach. I was about to say when I was interrupted that I hope this is the last occasion this House will be asked to debate a revision of contituencies carried out by a political party, or political parties, or by the Government in power. It is an unfair task to thrust on the Minister—I have that much sympathy with him—in one respect; it is wrong in principle.
The Deputy is moving away again from the amendment.
I was making the point that I hope this is the last time we will be asked to debate a revision of constituencies and I would appeal to the Minister to establish a commission of some kind——
The Deputy must not come back to that again. He must come to the amendment now.
I will not elaborate on it, but would the Chair allow me to complete the sentence? I made a suggestion. The cynic is entitled to say: "It is easy to see you are in Opposition now." The Minister said they want to have their bite of the cherry. We suggest that it should at least be a fair bite. The size of constituencies can determine the number of Deputies returned by any party. That has been elaborated on considerably by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy FitzGerald.
Now the Deputy must come to the amendment and keep to it.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs referred to this system as a gerrymandering system and he said the North would be very foolish to come in while there is such a system in operation. He is now a member of a Government bringing in a Bill under the very system he condemned.
The Deputy will come to the amendment now.
That must greatly diminish any credibility the Government have. It cannot but be reflected in the opinion people have of them. They express certain views and, when they have the power, they do the exact opposite. There is a saying that power corrupts.
The Deputy will come to the amendment now.
Power has corrupted the present Government.
The Deputy has moved an amendment and he must keep to that amendment.
This whole debate has been stifled by the threat of the guillotine. It makes my position here as Opposition spokesman on local government very difficult because I am inhibited by the threat of the guillotine. Normally one has a reasonable expectation that amendments tabled will be seriously considered and possibly accepted. We had a clear indication before this debate started at all that no amendment would be accepted, that amendments would not even be debated and neither would time be allowed to argue why such and such has been done in any constituency and why no changes will be accepted. The Government intend to drop a guillotine motion and pass the Bill holusbolus.
The Deputy may not continue in this fashion.
This defeats democracy.
Now the Deputy will have to come to the amendment. We cannot have this kind of debate.
I spent many hours drawing up these amendments. I had a fair idea that very few would be accepted by the Government, but I never thought for one moment they would be rejected without being considered. I am told now the whole lot will be chopped. If none is going to be considered what is the point in discussing them? It took me many more hours to draw up the amendments than the debate has taken so far. I think the Chair said 40 hours. The length of the debate is not significant. What is significant is the principle involved. There is an obligation on us to highlight the corruption in the Government.
Now the Deputy will have to cease this kind of debate. The Deputy must come to his amendment.
I would make a special plea to the Minister to reconsider the attitude obviously adopted by the Government to these amendments. I think I have submitted reasonable amendments. Deputies from the various constituencies will be able to speak in greater detail about their own constituencies, if the Minister will allow them. I spent long hours drawing these up for the purpose of showing how the revision could be done with a fair distribution of population. It can be done by granting a preference in the tolerance range, by going above in densely populated areas and below in the sparsely populated areas. That is the whole principle underlining my amendments. I do not think the people in Dublin will thank the Minister for what he is trying to do because he is giving with one hand and taking away with the other. This is something to be regretted. By keeping with the Supreme Court ruling I have shown that you can have these three-seat constituencies going slightly over the 20,123. In North County Dublin my amendment shows a deviation from the national average of plus 950. We have a population of 105,367 electing five Deputies and the average is 21,073.
In the South-West County Dublin three-seat constituency which I propose, the deviation from the national average population per member is plus 708. The total population within that proposed constituency, as amended, is 62,709, and the population per Member is 20,093. In the South County Dublin constituency, as proposed, the population per Member is 20,988; in the five-seat constituency of Dún Laoghaire it would be 21,049; in the Dublin (Artane) constituency it would be 20,402. In the Dublin (Cabra) constituency the population per Member would be 20,471; in Dublin South-Central constituency it would be 20,866 per Deputy; in Dublin South-East it is 20,948; in Dublin South-Central it would be 20,588; in Dublin North-East it would be 26,048. In the Dublin (Finglas) constituency, as proposed in my amendment, the average population per Deputy would be 20,246. In the Dublin (Rathmines West) constituency, as proposed in my amendment, there would be an average population per Deputy of 20,682. The average population per Member according to these figures varies from 20,236 to 21,049. They are still a long way from the figure of 21,123 which is the maximum allowable as one interprets the Supreme Court decision.
The Supreme Court never said that one could not deviate by more than 1,000. The Bill presented to them following their first decision did not deviate more than 1,000 above or below. That Bill was accepted as being constitutional and has been accepted as the norm since by us when in Government and by the Coalition Government now in office. Let us not create any illusion that the figure of 20,000 is a constitutional figure or that it is a direction from the courts as a specific interpretation of the Constitution. It is not. They could not do that. They could only decide what was reasonable. They have not stated a figure as being specifically the allowable figure. By taking the figure of 20,000 per Member and going above or below it, one can bring about a fair distribution and that is what we have done in these amendments.
What has the Minister done to the Dublin constituencies? Why has he chosen three-seaters? Why has he chosen in so many of them to go below the national average of 20,123? Why has he not given an extra seat to the Cork County area which, on the results of the population census taken in 1971, was justifiable? Why has he dealt so harshly and severely with the western areas by reducing the number of seats from 30 to 28? These factors are inter-related because if the numbers in the western area had not been reduced, as the Minister did, five extra seats could not have been added to the Dublin area.
I am glad to see that Deputy Molloy has recovered from his illness and is in good voice. That is the last compliment I will pay him today.
I find it very difficult to understand what exactly Deputy Molloy and the Opposition think they are doing. Having complained loudly that they are not being given adequate time, the Deputy proceeded to make a Second Reading speech, lasting over an hour, on an amendment. With respect to you, Sir, if he had remained——
Was I in order?
The Deputy should let me talk. He was using and I am using the time of the House now. I do not want this discussion to go on indefinitely and block up, as Fianna Fáil would like, all the legislative work. If Fianna Fáil want to waste the time of the House on their heads be it.
Hitler used to justify his actions and history has judged him.
Having listened to Deputy Molloy for an hour I am not sure if he understood what his amendments were about. If it took him as long as he says to draw them up, I can understand that. If he was as confused when drawing them up as he was when he put them before the House, it was no wonder——
That is not fair. The Minister should be honest. A lot of work has gone into the drawing up of these amendments.
If Deputy MacSharry understood what Deputy Molloy was trying to get at, that is his business.
My amendment gives 41 seats to Dublin; the Minister gives 43 seats to Dublin.
All the interruptions in the world will not stop me from saying what I intend. As the comedian on the BBC says "settle down now".
(Interruptions.)
Like Deputy Burke, I have four stations.
I have five.
The BBC told the Minister he was being facile.
I hope what Deputy Molloy said is repeated on the BBC. We will then find out what Fianna Fáil say here and what they say when they get out into the country. A Leas-Cheann Chomhairle, I am sorry to have chased the hare which Deputy Molloy introduced.
The Constitution provides that the population/Deputy ratio shall be, as far as possible, the same throughout the country. Deputy Molloy should know this. It does not say that representations shall be biased in favour of rural areas or against urban areas. It simply requires equality of representation throughout the country.
Deputy Molloy while he was correct, left out one point. I should like to have this quotation in the official record:
Dealing with this question in 1961 the High Court was quite explicit. The Court declared that there is "no direction whatsoever contained in the Constitution that these matters of difficulties of communications, differing economic interests, differing modes of life or the convenience of constituents or the difficulties of deputies or any of the other matters relied on by the defendant, should be taken into consideration when the legislation is performing its functions in enacting the electoral laws". The Court concluded that in determining constituencies the legislature was required to aim at the achievement of as near an equality of the parliamentary representation of the population as can be attained.
They did not make it part of the ruling but they considered that 1,000 up or down would be reasonable. That is why it was put in the last Bill and in this one too.
Deputy Molloy has told us of all the trouble he went to and all the time he took in preparing his amendments. Those amendments bear no resemblance to what he was doing while Minister for Local Government. I have copies of his files and have offered to show them to him. In them he made a number of proposals which, with the exception of possibly Carlow-Kilkenny, do not go anywhere near the proposals which he has in his amendments. He is continually changing his mind. I am sure if he sat down again to draw up other amendments that the spirit would move him in a different direction. Because Deputy Molloy puts something on paper that does not make it very important or something which we should accept. I should like Deputy Molloy to understand that.
I should like to point out a couple of things to him. I found that the Ballymun area was divided among three constituencies. In this Bill I put the three of them together in one constituency. Deputy Molloy again proposes to divide them into three constituencies. If you can find justification for doing something like that, you can find justification for doing nearly anything. In the Bill, Ballyfermot is a constituency in its own right. According to Deputy Molloy it should be divided between two County Dublin constituencies, North County and South-West County and the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny would be made up of areas drawn from four different counties, all of counties Carlow and Kilkenny, together with parts of Wexford and Wicklow.
I described some of his efforts before he left office as trying to have a dog's breakfast. Nothing else could describe what he was trying to do with the Bill. I never saw anything so bad in my life as his efforts. He did not seem to have the foggiest notion of what would be acceptable. He threw a bundle of areas together and asked somebody to draw up a map showing what they would look like. Having done that—according to himself he had nothing prepared before he left office—he now comes in here with amendments which he tries to justify by using very selected statistics. Deputy Molloy knows as well as everybody else that, provided you select the right figures, you can prove almost opposite things by just moving them around. Deputy Molloy selected his figures and his areas. He was discussing the Dublin areas and Carlow-Kilkenny, but he proceeded to talk about the effect on the areas west of the Shannon and east of the Shannon, and he went round and around.
Why should it take more in the west?
To me it would appear that Deputy Molloy was doing this because whoever drew up the constituencies, whether it was himself or somebody else—the backroom boys— he was not aware of what they meant to do. He had his amendments here and he was not able to explain them. Instead of trying to explain them, he roamed all over the country and pointed out what was wrong with various constituencies, and he made an occasional fleeting visit back to Dublin.
The question was posed: why three-seaters in Dublin? There is one very good reason for having three-seaters in Dublin. Deputy Molloy said something which is quite true. He said that odd numbers, three or five, represent proportional representation much better than even numbers. That is one very good reason.
A new constituency in Meath?
There is a particular reason why it would not work there. I could have taken portion of Deputy Burke's area around Balbriggan, added that on and made a constituency there.
The Minister did enough to me without doing that.
I did the Deputy a good turn and he said so himself.
I did not say that.
Do not deny the goodness of God.
The Minister has no say in it. It is the people who decide.
An tAire.
There is another reason why I decided on three-seaters in Dublin. This is very remarkable. Shortly after the change of Government when the constituency changes were being talked about, Deputy Lemass was the Fianna Fáil representative on a radio programme. He advocated three-seaters for Dublin. I will not say he made up my mind for me but he agreed that the fairest representation in Dublin would be achieved by having three-seaters. On that programme he was speaking for Fianna Fáil. I know they can change their mind and say one thing here and another in Galway and another on RTE or the BBC.
We must come down to facts. I got the job of drawing up the constituencies. For 40 years Fianna Fáil divided the constituencies to suit themselves. I challenge them to deny that. Now they are yowling like old women when, for the first time, somebody else is changing the constituencies. In my opinion the Dublin constituencies are very fair. On one occasion an effort was made by one of my predecessors to amend the Constitution and to have regard to the extent and accessibility of constituencies and the need for securing convenient areas of representation and the desirability of avoiding the overlapping by constituencies of county boundaries. He felt at the time that about one-sixth would be a better way of doing it rather than the 1,000 or thereabouts about which we have been talking. This constitutional amendment was beaten. There were 656,803 against and 424,185 for the proposal. That would not worry Fianna Fáil now. They would say it did not mean a darned thing.
Deputy Molloy should remember that, according to his proposal, he would have a population of 20,776 per Deputy in Dublin but in Cork he would have a population of 19,414 per Deputy and every Dublin Deputy would represent 1,300 more people than a Cork Deputy would represent. Then he talks about equal representation and about doing things fairly.
There is no doubt that if every Deputy, including yourself, Sir, had the opportunity of drawing up a Constituencies Bill there would be 144 different Bills before the House because each person has his own idea of how it should be done. I have got the job of doing it and I have a Bill here which I consider fair. When we come to County Meath on the other amendments I will explain fully why it is proposed to have four Deputies in that county. As the Bill stands the areas which are covered by these amendments are fairly drawn and will be fairly represented. It is only somebody like Deputy Molloy who wants to find something to complain about who will find a reason for objecting to them; changing them around and introducing what Deputy Molloy suggests would make them different. It would certainly make them no better and, in my opinion, it would make them a whole lot worse. I am satisfied that the Bill before the House will be accepted by the general public as being a fair Bill. As one who suffered severely from the activities of people in Fianna Fáil who wanted to gerrymander and put people out of this House I believe this is a fair effort to give fair play to everybody.
It is rather interesting that in the suggested amendments Carnew was to be removed from Wicklow. Would the fact that the former Deputy Paudge Brennan lives in Carnew and would, therefore, have extreme difficulty in getting back here if it were removed from Wicklow have anything to do with the idea of moving it out and, if not, what was at the back of it?
I do not know where Paudge Brennan lives.
Of course the Deputy does not. He would prefer if he did not see him or did not hear of him at all and so would his party. He is there. He is a fact and an effort was being made——
He is a great personal friend of mine.
The Deputy treated him as such. In this proposal the Deputy is trying to put a nail in his coffin but that is not going to work.
The Minister made an attack on Deputy Molloy's motives and his ability and then he proceeded to talk about PR and how fairly it works in three and five-seat constituencies, conveniently forgetting his own constituency of Meath which was a three-seater and which he is now making a four-seater to suit himself. The Minister did not attempt to speak about Deputy Molloy's amendments. I will speak about the Dublin area, the one I know best. With the exception of one area, Deputy Molloy's suggestions are all uneven numbers. The North County would be a five-seater whereas, as proposed by the Minister, it would be a three-seater.
The Minister made great play of the fact that in his proposal the whole satellite town of Ballymum will be put into one constituency compared with the division of it into three previously. What the Minister forgets is that in putting Ballymun into one constituency he has divided another part of Ballymun into three, this being at Collins Avenue. Part of Collins Avenue will be in the new Finglas constituency, another part of it will be in the Dublin (Artane) constituency and the other part will be in the North County constituency.
Thousands of people have similar problems.
Of course they have similar problems but the Minister conveniently forgets he is doing this. We are speaking about amendments proposed by Deputy Molloy but we know from the threat of the guillotine which we are living under, and surviving under, that none of these amendments will be accepted irrespective of what is proposed or said. In my view it is an indication of the fact that the Minister is ashamed of this legislation. I do not blame the Minister completely for this legislation because in a coalition system both parties have to have their bite of the cherry and take a bit of what is going.
This can be seen in the Dún Laoghaire area where the Minister has proposed a four-seater constituency. The Minister has told us that proportional representation works much fairer in constituencies with an uneven number of seats, but how does he stand over the Taoiseach's constituency of Dún Laoghaire which has been left a four-seater? Deputy Molloy, using the Minister's yardstick of uneven membership in a constituency, suggested that Dún Laoghaire should be a five-seater. The Minister, when he was speaking, did not try to answer this question. He spoke of the fact that one can take selective statistics and prove practically anything. There is no better man in this House than the Minister to be selective in his use of statistics and figures.
Nobody in Dublin wants to take anything away from their country cousins, and most of us are only first or second generation out of the country, but the Minister is proposing a complete annihilation of the representation in the country and moving it all within the boundaries of the greater Dublin area, an area which he knocks in his own White Paper. We can see his efforts at building up this area by the membership he proposes and by the geographical positioning of the Cabinet. They are mostly from the Pale and the Minister is trying to ensure that the next Cabinet will be from the Pale.
The Deputy should confine his remarks to the amendments.
The Deputy does not know what the amendments are about.
The amendments are about fair distribution.
I am talking about fair play, the rights of citizens and the electorate, in general, on a countrywide basis. The Minister would not recognise fair play if it came up and hit him.
The Deputy still has not spoken on the amendments and he does not know what they are about.
It was the Minister's job to reply to the amendments but in his usual manner he refused to reply to them or to the proposals put forward by Deputy Molloy. He became abusive, as he is now. I cannot say that I blame him because I would be ashamed of this Bill if it was left to me to introduce it. This is why he is trying to guillotine this debate.
The constituency of North County Dublin was for many years a five-seater. In his proposal the Minister is suggesting a three-seat constituency for the Fingal area together with selected parts of the city. Deputy Molloy's proposal is for a five-seater in North County Dublin. That is far more desirable because it would involve a constituency of approximately two county council electoral areas which work very closely together and would give the people of the county the numerical representation they are entitled to. A five-seat constituency for North County Dublin would benefit the people of the area.
The Minister has butchered the constituency of North County Dublin to such an extent that he has to go chasing into parts of County Kildare for a west county constituency and has to go to parts of the city and parts of Wicklow to get himself a mid county constituency. The Minister referred earlier, when replying to Deputy Molloy's proposal in relation to Carlow-Kilkenny, to the fact that it was breaking various county boundaries but the Minister's own proposals in mid-County Dublin would take in part of the city, part of the county and part of Wicklow. Is that justice? In the part of Wicklow he goes to he has to go through West County Dublin. The Minister is trying to bring in Saggart and Rathcoole into West County Dublin in order to copperfasten the position of my true friend the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Clinton.
Saggart and Rathcoole are natural places for mid-County Dublin if we were to go by the Minister's rules. To get from part of Mid County Dublin one has to drive through Tallaght, through west county Dublin and practically into Wicklow in order to get to what the Minister politely calls, "another part of Mid County Dublin". Who does the Minister think he is kidding? It is no wonder that the Minister, when he got up to reply to Deputy Molloy's reasoned and well-thought out amendments, was abusive. I am surprised that the Minister is treating the proposals of Deputy Molloy in such an off-hand manner.
We now have the pleasure of the company of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who represents the Ballymun area as I do. The situation is that the Minister for Local Government claims that it is the great benefit of his Bill to bring all of Ballymun into one constituency. However, that is not the case. It is one section of Ballymun, and he is forgetting the section of old Ballymun, around the church, which is being divided in three. Deputy Molloy's proposal in relation to this area would be of greater benefit to the people. The overall picture of the Dublin region, as suggested by Deputy Molloy, is much fairer on a national basis.
The Minister when he sat on this side of the House spoke about gerrymandering Bills, et cetera. When the Constituency Commission Bill, 1968, was before this House, he said, at column 1136 of the Official Report for 26th November:
I will be brief. I do not want to embarrass the Chair and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to speak. The action of the Minister for Local Government is typical of a man who not alone wants to stamp on the whole country but to walk on this House as well as on the Chair.
So he did.
The Minister has his guillotine out. We know he is doing it.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.