Last night before reporting progress I attempted to make the case of the justice and the desirability of Deputy Molloy's amendments. We discussed these amendments in relation to part of the eastern seaboard and in particular we discussed that section of the amendment which related to the greater Dublin area. The Minister in his proposals attempts to give preference to this area by vastly increasing the number of Deputies to represent the people of Dublin. Deputy Molloy's proposals, using the same criteria as the Minister, attempted to show that the people of the greater Dublin area —Dublin County, Dún Laoghaire and the city area—can get fair representation without interfering with the rights of the electorate in the country areas, particularly on the western seaboard where the Minister is reducing the number of representatives. The Minister's proposals are specifically designed so that the number of Members for each constituency will be uneven, so that there will be three seats in the various consituencies. The Minister contends that that is a fair use of the proportional representaion system, that in having an uneven number of seats in an area, PR is working to its fullest. Deputy Molloy worked on the same theory when he set before the House his list of amendments, but the Minister has given no consideration to Deputy Molloy's amendments. He has said: "You can talk away until your time runs out, and then I am going to march my Deputies through the lobby, and every one of these amendments will be defeated. My Bill will be passed no matter what Members on that side of the House say." The Minister is sitting there smugly waiting for the time to run out until he will use the guillotine be it today or tomorrow or Tuesday.
Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973: Committee Stage (Resumed).
The Deputy should address himself to the amendments. We are not discussing the guillotine.
The Minister knows he is going to refuse to accept one comma or one line of the amendments put down by Deputy Molloy, amendments which are designed——
Only one group of amendments is before the House.
The Minister has no intention of giving the slightest consideration to the group of amendments now under discussion. As I said last night in a brief reference to the design of the constituencies, Deputy Molloy has kept as far as possible within the boundaries of the county of Dublin. The Minister, in his proposals, has gone chasing into parts of Kildare and also parts of Wicklow. There is West County Dublin constituency which is merely a portion of County Dublin together with a large slice of County Kildare. The Minister referred to Mid County Dublin which is a large slice of the city together with portion of the county and a large slice of Wicklow. He describes it as Mid County Dublin despite the fact that there are three different areas involved, the city, the county, and county Wicklow.
I am sure the Deputy realises he is being repetitive.
It is not my desire to be repetitive. All I would ask is that the Minister would give some reasons why he is not prepared to accept the principles as set down by Deputy Molloy in his amendments.
When we were discussing these amendments last night the Minister became annoyed with us. I can cast my mind back to not too very long ago when the Minister was on this side of the House, and I know that certainly if he found himself in the same predicament as we now find ourselves in, faced with a Bill whose only intention is to copperfasten the Government in power—in their eyes anyway—ad infinitum, he would react in exactly the same way as we are reacting. Therefore, I do not think he is being quite fair to us when he condemns us for doing what we consider is our parliamentary duty. The Taoiseach let the cat out of the bag yesterday when he said: It is our first opportunity in 50 years——
Would the Deputy come to the amendments?
This is directly related to the amendments. He said:
"It is our first opportunity in 50 years of redrawing the constituencies, and by God, we are going to do it." The Taoiseach having let the cat out of the bag, I do not think the pretence can be any longer carried on by the Minister for Local Government that he set out to have fair and democratic representation for the country as a whole. As regards my own constituency, I am quite satisfied with the way the Minister has drawn it.
We are not dealing with the Deputy's constituency at the moment.
Yesterday, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you decided we could refer en passant——
The Chair did not so decide.
Deputy Crowley only wants to pass a vote of thanks to me.
Nevertheless, there is a theme running right through this Bill whereby the west is being discriminated against.
The Chair pointed out yesterday that such comments would be matters for a Second Reading speech. We are dealing with a group of amendments related to a specific part of the country.
I know that very well, but as Deputy MacSharry pointed out last night, if we take Dublin South-East, which is specifically mentioned in one of the amendments—No. 9—it requires nearly 1,800 people less to elect a TD than it does in Sligo-Leitrim—this coming from a Government who have shed many crocodile tears about the plight of the west.
The Chair pointed out yesterday evening that would be a valid point on Second Reading but certainly not on Committee Stage when we are dealing with a particular group of amendments.
How else can we point out the reasons for amendment No. 9 unless we do it on a comparative basis? If we did not do it on a comparative basis, the amendment, in the words of the Minister, would be nonsensical.
It is nonsensical. There is no argument for it. The Deputy cannot find anything to say about it.
It is not nonsensical. That is what we are trying to prove. Anyway, I just refer to it in passing, but if I go into the situation in any depth, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you have a way of ensuring that I do not proceed on those lines.
The Chair was trying to guide Deputies yesterday to keep to the debate on the amendments before the House.
We must make the strongest possible protest here in relation to the way this gerrymander has come about, and we must expose it for what it is. We know that, when a Minister for Local Government sets out to draw up constituencies, even if he were Solomon he could not please everybody, when he does it. Nevertheless, I think a certain spirit has got to be observed in the drawing up of constituencies.
I am sure the Deputy will agree that he is talking in general terms.
I am getting around specifically to amendment No. 9.
The Deputy is getting around the Chair's ruling too.
I am not, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. As you are aware, I have the highest respect for the Chair. I would be very reluctant to do it. However, we do find ourselves in a dilemma of not being able to discuss constituencies relevant to the amendment by drawing comparisons. When we are attempting to draw these comparisons, if we cannot lead up to them by way of reference in general terms, the points we will be making at a later stage will have no meaning.
I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that if he refers to constituencies other than those dealt with in the amendment at the present time and if other Deputies did the same, then he and the other Deputies would be precluding themselves from dealing with them at a later stage because we cannot have repetition of debate.
I do not know whether that would be entirely right. Last night the Minister for Local Government referred to Donegal and the Chair did not intervene.
Maybe we could decide to discuss the whole lot together.
I am very disappointed——
The Chair would prefer that the Deputy would adhere to the constituencies mentioned in the amendment.
I think I am. Otherwise, I do not think we can mention any constituency in isolation. That would have a sort of melodeon effect; as one went on, one would be affecting every one of them. However, the point I was trying to make was this: that in amendment No. 9, in Dublin South-East, how is it that so many fewer people are required to elect a Deputy than are required to elect a Deputy in the west where a Deputy has to cover such an enormous area? I am sure the Minister will not accept any one of our amendments but nevertheless one always lives in hope. I do not think he can say honestly that the 148 seats, as allocated, represent a fair allocation. Taking into account the fact that any Minister for Local Government can never do a perfect job, nevertheless he has a certain ideal to which he should operate, especially when he and other members of the Government have so often expressed their concern for and their desire to better the lot of the people of the west. But the first opportunity that they have, they practically attempt to take away their representation.
Having said that, the amendments that we have down, Nos. 1, 8, 9, 12 and 20, are reasonable and the Minister, being a reasonable man, should consider their acceptance. And, if he does not, let him give us cogent reasons—without flying off the handle —for not accepting them.
The only job we can do here is to offer fair criticism of the Minister's proposals and to illustrate a manner in which this job could have been carried out justly and, indeed, even logically. The amendments under discussion, Nos. 1, 8, 9, 12 and 20, deal with the constituencies of Carlow-Kilkenny, Wicklow, Kildare and with all the Dublin constituencies, that is, in the county, in the borough and in Dún Laoghaire. Generally speaking, there is not any great difference between the Minister's proposals and our amendments in the Carlow-Kilkenny, Wicklow and Kildare constituencies, especially in relation to the number of seats. The Minister proposes a five-seat constituency in Carlow-Kilkenny: the amendment proposed by us also is for a five-seat constituency. The Minister proposes a three-seat in Wicklow and our amendment also is for a three-seat constituency. The Minister proposes a three-seat in Kildare; our amendment is for three seats also. We have already shown the difference in our proposals in relation to Carlow-Kilkenny, Wicklow and Kildare. We have shown where our amendments differ from the Minister's proposals but the overall number of seats to be allocated in each of those areas is not different.
Where we do differ substantially from the Minister's proposals is in relation to the number of seats he is allocating to the whole of the Dublin county area, including the borough and Dún Laoghaire. At the moment there are 38 seats there. Because of the increased population, the Minister has four new seats to distribute. He is increasing the overall number of Deputies from 144 to 148. In his Bill he has reduced the representation of the western area from 30 to 28. That gives him another two seats to be distributed. Therefore, he has six to distributed tribute. We strongly criticise the Minister and the Government for deciding to allocate five out of those six seats to the Dublin area. The sixth seat is allocated to the constituency of Meath. We disagree with that also. We feel that the arguments we have made here are based on very reasonable grounds. During the course of this debate we have shown that there has not been equal treatment of all the citizens of this country in the manner in which this allocation has been done. We have shown that the Minister has allowed a lesser number of persons per Deputy in the Dublin area than he chose when allocating seats to the western area. We find it impossible to understand why any Minister—knowing the special difficulties and problems of the western area—should, in fact, decide to allocate representation in the House of Parliament on a basis where the urban area of Dublin requires fewer numbers of the population per Deputy than does the western area. There is no logic in it and the Minister has made no effort to justify his action. It is bald discrimination; discrimination of the very worst kind. As an Opposition party we have a strong obligation to highlight this discrimination. Therefore, our amendment proposes that the increases in population in the Dublin area would warrant the allocation of an additional three seats—not five as the Minister has done. Our amendment proposes that there should be 41 seats in the Dublin area; an increase from 38 to 41. The Minister's proposal is to increase it by five to 43.
It is spurious on the part of the Minister or any member of his party to argue that the population changes oblige him to do what he has done. This is not so. In the course of the debate we have shown that there is no basis on which he could substantiate that statement. The Minister has, in fact, acted in a discriminatory fashion.
To give some comparisons in an effort to illustrate what the Minister has done, I should like to take some of the constituencies under discussion and show the devious method the Minister has used to give over-representation to the Dublin population.
I do not want to delay the House by going through all the constituencies but I shall take some of them. If we start with the constituency of Dublin (Cabra), the Minister's Bill proposes that that be a three-seat constituency. Our amendment also proposes a three-seat constituency there. Our amendments are designed specifically to show the country and the Minister —were he to take heed—that it was possible, on a fair basis, to allocate three seats there and still end up with 43 seats in the whole of the Dublin area. He has allocated three seats in the Dublin (Cabra) constituency, including a total population, based on the 1971 census of 59,314 persons. The amendment proposed by the Fianna Fáil Party proposes a three-seat constituency in about the same area but it would include a total population of 61,450. The Minister's proposal would show an average of 19,771 people per Member, that is 352 below the national average. Our amendment shows a population of 20,471 per Member, which is 348 above the national average. The Minister has been going below the national average in the Dublin area and our amendments have gone slightly over it. In that way we have shown that the Minister has used that devious method to grant additional seats to the Dublin area and has thus discriminated against the west.
The next one here is Dublin (Clontarf), which is a three-seat constituency. This would cover a population of 58,592 people. There is no constituency of the same name in our proposal. The nearest one to it is North-Central. Perhaps it would be easier to make comparisons if I chose constituencies with exactly the same titles and which cover the same areas.
The constituency of Dublin South-East is a three-seat constituency. We have a proposal for a three-seat constituency for that area. In the Minister's proposal this constituency covers a population of 57,875 which gives an average of 19,292 per Member, which is 831 below the national average. Our proposal for this constituency is that it be a three-seat constituency to cover a population per the 1971 census, of 62,846, an average of 20,948, which is 825 above the national average.
There are several other constituencies in the Dublin area I could quote but I do not wish to take up the time of the House. We wish to ensure all of these areas are debated in the House and we deplore the threat of guillotine. We will not be inhibited by it. We feel we have made our point cogently. We appeal to the Minister to reconsider the disastrous decision he has made in the Bill. We appeal to him at least to be honest with the House. We ask him to give some explanation as to how he can justify the fact that it requires more people in the western area to elect a Deputy than it does in the Dublin area. Dublin did not seek that advantage.
In the explanatory memorandum the constituency of Kildare is included in a group which the Minister calls North Leinster, including Cavan and Monaghan which are in Ulster. There are five constituencies in that group, as mentioned in the explanatory memorandum, electing 20 Deputies.
We are not moving into that group yet.
Kildare is under discussion. The Minister's explanatory memorandum refers to North Leinster as an area and within that is the constituency of Kildare, which is under discussion. Kildare, with the other four constituencies the Minister has grouped under the title of North Leinster, elects 20 Deputies. They are in the constituencies of Cavan, Louth, Meath, Kildare, Longford and Westmeath. Those 20 Deputies require an average per Deputy of 19,596, which is far below the national average.
The Chair can deal only with the Bill, not with the explanatory memorandum. The Chair can only deal with the Bill and the amendments.
I want to make the point that in that North Leinster area the average per Deputy is 19,596. The Minister finally agrees with the figure which I gave on Second Stage, which he claimed was wrong. He half-heartedly corrected his statement later. He has now declared that my figure on that occasion was completely correct. The Dublin area, which is grouped here, and which comes under all the amendments being discussed, elects 43 Deputies under the Minister's proposal. The average per Deputy there is 20,142. When we move to the western area, where there are 28 seats, the average is 20,509. This is the highest average of the five groups the Minister chose to put together in the explanatory memorandum.
We are dealing with the Bill, not the explanatory memorandum.
This must be deplored. The Minister cannot under any circumstances justify it. Yesterday, during the course of the debate, he got up and talked, finished whatever he had to say and sat down but at no time did he give any explanation for his reasons for doing this. He spoke about everything under the sun except the points we raised. These proposals in relation to the constituencies of Carlow-Kilkenny, Wicklow, Kildare and in particular all of the Dublin areas, are totally discriminatory and cannot be justified. We feel we have registered as far as we can our protest in this House against what the Minister has done.
Unfortunately, without being repetitive, there is nothing to be added to what I said yesterday, last week and before that. Deputy Molloy, Deputy Crowley and Deputy Burke have been repeating over and over again what was said previously. It is not possible to continue replying to these matters because it means I would be out of order in repeating statements which I made before.
Deputy Molloy has been building "Aunt Sallies" and has had great fun knocking them down. If he likes that sort of thing I would not try to prevent him as long as the Chair allows him to do it. There are two points I should like to repeat and leave it at that. The average for the Dublin area is 20,142 and the average for the rest of the country is 20,115. No amount of switching round of statistics will get away from that fact. One other fact is that when Fianna Fáil were drawing up the 1969 Bill they took three seats from the west and they could see nothing wrong with it. The situation is that we have divided the constituencies fairly throughout the country and no amount of talking or criticism will change that fact.
The Minister will not get away with the figure he has just given. The average per Deputy for the Dublin area is 20,142 for the 43 seats being allocated. The average for the western area is 20,509. The only way the Minister can change the average for the whole country outside Dublin is by including the area where his own constituency of Meath is, where the average is below the average in Dublin. It is 19,596 in that constituency.
We are not dealing with Meath now.
It takes 1,000 fewer people to elect a Deputy in the Minister's constituency and in the group of constituencies alongside it than it does in the whole western area. Let the Minister not try to put it across here that this is a fair and reasonable Bill. It is far from it. Let the Minister hang his head in shame.
Let Deputy Molloy remember if anybody has to put his head down in shame he is on the far side of the House. We can hold up our heads in regard to anything we have done and certainly in regard to this Bill.
This legislation is no different from any other legislation which comes before the House. I understood it was the aim of the representatives present to ensure that the legislation was perfected in whatever way possible to ensure it was better legislation when it became law. It would appear now that no reasonable amendment will be considered by the dictatorship we have in power. The Minister is a very confused man at present and I can understand his out-bursts during this discussion. His confusion has resulted from a number of exercises he has carried out in relation to the Dublin area. We heard the Minister indicate that the Bill has been debated for 40 hours.
We are on the amendments.
The time factor is very important because the guillotine is being brought into operation. The matter of the hours spent on this Bill was raised by the Taoiseach yesterday and by the Minister on a number of occasions.
The Deputy will keep to the amendments.
The Taoiseach was allowed to make a statement yesterday to the effect that time was being wasted and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach has spoken about the time factor.
The Chair is dealing with the group of amendments.
I want to show how ridiculous the Taoiseach's statement was and the Parliamentary Secretary's. No matter what system the Minister uses, if he thinks he will perpetuate his party in power or increase their support, he is mistaken. The people will decide and the people are the best judges. They are much better judges than the Minister. We know that the Minister appointed public representatives to do an important job and last Monday night out of 13 Labour members——
The Deputy will not deal with that matter. If the Deputy will not conform to the Chair's ruling the Chair will have to call on the Deputy to resume his seat.
——only two turned up.
If the Deputy goes back to that again the Chair will have to call on the Deputy to resume his seat.
No matter what system the Minister tries to use here the end result will be that the public will decide. The Minister's judgement in recent times has been shown up in no uncertain terms.
Public representatives have an important part to play. I want to make a few comments on the Dublin situation. Would the Minister give us some indication why he chose three-seat constituencies? On a previous occasion the Minister asked public representatives to give their views in relation to the revision of areas. They gave their views as regards, three, four and five seaters. Then the Minister changed, again by dictatorship, and said there would be five-seaters in Dublin.
Is the Deputy referring to the Bill before the House?
I am referring to amendment No. 9, to Dublin. Why did the Minister in one instance choose three seats and in another five seats for almost identical areas, one relating to the Dublin City Council and the other to the Dáil constituencies? Why did he choose three seats for the Dublin constituencies? It does not make much difference to me whether it is three, four or five but the Minister is confused. One day he sees a five-seater as advantageous, the next day it is a three-seater. On the east coast there is Louth minus 974, Meath minus 895——
We are not dealing with those.
——Dublin, a variety of minuses as low as 51. Waterford minus 794 and Wicklow minus 192. The entire east coast was taken as an entity by the Minister.
As a what?
The Minister will read it in the Official Report. The Minister probably feels that the east coast is a suitable breeding ground for his own party politicians but the people will have the opportunity, we hope at a very early stage, to answer the Minister. I am sure that things will not work out in the way this confused Minister intends. Who drew up the constituency revision? What say did the Minister have in it? Was it drawn up by his officials or by people outside this House? We are led to believe, from the political gossip that we hear in the corridors of this House and elsewhere, that certain people outside this House did it.
Will the Deputy deal with the amendments before the House?
I am referring to the Dublin constituencies and I would like to know who advised the Minister and how did he arrive at this situation. I understand that there was conniving behind the scenes and pressure on the Minister. If the pressure on the Minister brought about the three-seaters, and if the Minister says so, we can take a sympathetic view of a very confused man. On the other hand, if the Minister wants to accept full responsibility we will ask him to compare his action here with the five-seaters that he drew up for local authority representation.
The Chair is not prepared to allow the Deputy to speak any longer unless he wishes to keep to the Bill before the House.
The area which the local representative has to cover is an important factor. Dublin would be more suitable for five-seat constituencies than for three-seat constituencies.
We are dealing with amendments put down by Deputy Molloy.
I am dealing with the Dublin situation on the basis that there are three-seat constituencies there.
On the basis of Deputy Molloy's amendments, I take it.
We asked the Minister to explain the reason for the three-seat constituencies in Dublin but he did not do this. No effort was made by the Chair to force the Minister to answer the simple questions put by the Opposition in relation to the Dublin area. The Minister has insulated himself in a four-seat constituency although he tells us that this is not the best kind of constituency, He agrees that the three-seaters or the five-seater are the best. Perhaps the Minister would tell us why he selected that type of constituency in his own area if he considers that it is not the best.
That is not relevant to the amendment.
He should tell us if there were pressures put on him, if the revision of the constituencies was carried out by himself or if it was a case of giving it to the parliamentary draftsman who set out figures that were freely accepted by the Minister. I do not think that is so. We had people here who boasted that the Dublin constituencies were drawn up by individuals outside this House and outside the Civil Service and then presented to the Minister. If this is the case, we deplore the fact that pressure groups can dictate to a Minister who will not listen to the reasonable amendments put forward by Deputy Molloy. The amendments were explained fully to the Minister but apparently he does not understand them despite the fact that Deputies Crowley, MacSharry and Burke explained in great detail the problems they see in relation to this lopsided revision, the discrimination, the jack-boot activities or whatever tag one might like to put on this revision.
It is the duty of public representatives to make known their points of view with the object of ensuring that the legislation is improved by the acceptance of amendments. It is disturbing to see that the Minister has no support on his side of the House, from the backbenchers of Fine Gael or Labour.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I would ask the Minister to explain the points that were put to him by Deputies Molloy, Crowley, MacSharry and Burke in relation to the Dublin constituencies. If the Minister can satisfy us on that score we can decide if the amendments need further discussion.
It is a bit much for Deputy Dowling to come rambling into the House on a Wednesday afternoon after the Bill has been under discussion for several days. He paid one brief visit, as far as I can recollect. Regarding the points on which he wants replies——
On a point of order, is the Minister allowed to make an untruthful statement, to tell deliberate lies——
Deputies
Withdraw. Chair.
The Minister.
The Chair is well aware that I was in this House for a considerable period.
The Minister should withdraw his statement. The Deputy was here last night.
He rambled in for a few minutes last night when he had nothing to do.
On a point of order——
It is not a point of order. The Deputy has made his statement.
The Minister has said I was not in the House. I would point out that on numerous occasions, both today and yesterday, the bell had to be rung in order that the Minister could get a few of his satellites in behind him.
Deputy Dowling must resume his seat.
This Bill has been before the House for a number of weeks. Deputy Dowling paid an occasional visit here and, on one occasion, he made a comment. He was also here for a short while last night. He came in today——
I spend more time in this House than the Minister does and more time than the members of the Minister's party spend here. How many members of the Labour Party were in the House today?
In the short time we have been here we have done more than the Deputy's party ever did, or ever will. Deputy Dowling came in here today and proceeded to make all sorts of comments, only one of which had any relevance to the debate.
Order.
Deputies opposite just cannot take it, but they will get it now.
The Minister has been sitting here for hours with nobody behind him, nothing but empty benches. The only time his people come in is when we ask for a quorum.
The important thing is I am here and I will handle any group of Deputies on the opposite side of the House. Have no doubt about that.
No argument, just the jackboot.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
Deputy Dowling made just one comment in any way relevant to the matter under discussion and that was in regard to the number of seats allocated to a Dublin constituency. He asked how it had come about that in Dublin Corporation there were five seats given and only three in the Dáil for almost identical constituencies. A five-year old child could answer that one. It has been done because I wanted to give the same areas as far as possible and everyone, including Deputy Dowling's own backbenchers, said they were glad it had been done because it made things more convenient for them. They will henceforth be representing the same area in the corporation as they are in the Dáil. If Deputy Dowling would just count he would realise what the position is. He does not understand and he talks about people being confused.
There is a difference between five and three.
Deputy Dowling is the most confused man in Leinster House and I certainly would not like to meet him because he probably would not be able to find his way down the corridor. I will not repeat the arguments I have already made. These queries have been answered again and again. If Opposition Deputies want to go on repeating themselves—testing your patience, Sir, as well as mine—they are entitled to do that, but it is their own time they are wasting. I have said this before and I repeat it now and, please, do not blame us afterwards if time is running out for the Deputies opposite.
This is the first time in this House on which future guillotines were announced so far in advance.
We are not talking about guillotines.
I am not quarrelling about it, but I think it is pre-presuming——
The Deputy will come to the amendments now.
It is pre-judging debates on amendments which are still to come.
We are dealing now with a particular group of amendments.
I am dealing with a group of amendments before the House and, in respect of this group of amendments and in respect of further groups of amendments which have still to come——
Let us deal with this group at this stage.
With your permission, Sir——
Remember, these groupings were made to suit Members.
I would like to discuss the guillotine threats.
The Chair will not allow any discussion of that nature.
Very well. On the group of amendments, before this group of amendments came to be discussed, as they were yesterday evening and today, the Minister, not waiting for the logic of the amendments or to hear the case made for the amendments, threatened the guillotine.
The Deputy is not arguing to the amendments now.
I am talking about the amendments.
No guillotine has been threatened.
Deputy Cunningham must come to the amendments now.
Prior to the grouping of these amendments the Minister said he would introduce the guillotine.
Now the Deputy may not continue in that fashion. It is not relevant to these amendments.
Am I not in order in respect of these amendments about which there is a threat of a guillotine?
No. The Chair wants the amendments in the name of Deputy Molloy discussed and those are the only things that may be discussed.
I am pointing out to the Chair——
The Deputy will not point out to the Chair. No Deputy will tell the Chair how to conduct the business of the House. The Deputy will have to speak to the amendments.
May I ask the Chair if he is aware, in respect of the amendments we are discussing, that the Minister issued a threat prior to their introduction here——
The Deputy is making a general statement and the Deputy knows very well that asking the Chair from the floor of the House to answer such questions is not in order.
The case I am making is that I am trying to discuss amendments which are already pre-judged and over which there is a guillotine threat.
The Deputy has made a long statement in that respect.
I am making a factual statement. I am repeating a statement made by the Minister.
I am afraid Deputy Cunningham just does not understand.
According to the Minister, nobody over here understands anything. The Minister is the sole repository of wisdom, understanding, knowledge and all the rest. We will not ask him to produce any certificates. We will accept his word, but he must also accept that he is putting us in an awkward position.
No wonder Deputy Molloy looks so disgusted.
I should like to discuss the amendments on the understanding that, if we made a convincing case, the Minister would say: "Yes, there is logic and reason in that." But he pre-judged the issue. He says it does not matter a goddam what we say—he will use the guillotine.
The Deputy has not referred to the amendments. The Chair wants to indicate quite clearly that there is a group of amendments being discussed and that there cannot be a general discussion while these are before the House.
Then I cannot mention the word "guillotine"?
There is no such thing before the House, as far as the Chair is concerned. There is a group of amendments before us.
We are not accusing the Minister of acting contrary to the Constitution. He seemed to indicate last night that there was such a hint in our suggestion and he went to great lengths to show that he was keeping within constitutional provisions as defined by the courts. If Deputy Coughlan, for instance, were Minister for Local Government——
I know what I would have done with you lot a long time ago.
Or take a Galwayman. Suppose Deputy Coogan were Minister for Local Government, or if Deputy Spring were Minister for Local Government, I do not think either would introduce a Bill like this.
That is the Deputy's idea.
These amendments would not then be necessary or at least they would not be the same amendments. We are trying to remedy an imbalance in the Bill and I cannot imagine Deputy Spring, as Minister, being faced with such a situation——
I would get my own back.
But the Deputy would not have to get it back at the expense of the people of parts of Kerry, Cork, Galway, Donegal or Leitrim, and he would not, therefore, be faced with these amendments.
Would the Deputy come to them?
They seek to remedy an imbalance which would not have arisen if there was another Minister——
The Deputy must come to the specific amendment.
Deputy Molloy had the opportunity to bring in a Bill and he did not do so.
They would not let him.
They are a disgusting Opposition.
If Deputy Coughlan were Minister——
I know where I would have had all you fellows long, long ago. I know where I would have put you.
——he would not have crucified the people of the west. This imbalance means there can be a variation of 1,000 up or down. The Minister, dealing with his own constituency which is covered by these amendments——
It is not.
It is referred to in amendment No. 12.
It does not refer to the number of seats in Meath. The Deputies are only codding themselves.
It refers to the constituency of Meath.
Portion of it.
In order to fire-proof himself the Minister brought in parts of two other counties.
I did not. I had 1,000 votes and I did not need fireproofing.
These amendments seek to improve the Bill in such a way that the seats which have been taken from Munster, Connacht and Ulster——
The Deputy is going off into a Second Reading speech.
I am trying to show that a Minister with a rural out-look would not force us to put down these amendments. I am surprised at the Minister for Local Government who was for a time looking after the interest of rural workers.
He still is.
Would Deputies please assist the Chair to try to keep some order in the debate? It is becoming impossible for the Chair to deal with the matter at all.
The whole purpose of our amendments——
Is to filibuster.
If the Minister accepted our amendments a whole new set of circumstances would operate. I feel hamstrung in having to refer to half of the problem——
This is the basis for a Second Reading speech.
It is the reasoning behind the amendments.
We are seeking to improve the Bill. If the Minister accepts the amendments he will have a population number surplus to the requirements in the areas covered by the amendments, and with that surplus he could create what we urged on Second Reading and which we will continue to urge——
The Deputy is still wide of the amendments. This is a Committee Stage.
The Minister circulated an explanatory memorandum with the Bill. On page 3 he sets out a table with five different headings: Proposed Constituency, Populations (1971), number of Members. Population per Member and Deviation from national average population per Member (20,123). The Chair is obliged to try to confine the debate to the relevant amendments before the House. I wish to avail of this opportunity to place on record a similar table in relation to the amendments which I have put down. I hope they will be reproduced in the Official Report in similar fashion to that used in the explanatory memorandum published by the Minister.
They will be in the official record only if Deputy Molloy reads them aloud.
That will not be any trouble. I should like to give the following information in relation to my amendments under those five headings:
|
Proposed Constituency |
Population (1971) |
Number of Members |
Population per Member |
Deviation from national average population per Member (20,123) |
|
Carlow-Kilkenny |
101,731 |
5 |
20,346 |
+223 |
|
North County Dublin |
105,367 |
5 |
21,073 |
+950 |
|
South West County Dublin |
62,709 |
3 |
20,903 |
+780 |
|
South County Dublin |
83,954 |
4 |
20,988 |
+865 |
|
Dún Laoghaire |
105,248 |
5 |
21,049 |
+926 |
|
Dublin (Artane) |
61,206 |
3 |
20,402 |
+279 |
|
Dublin (Cabra) |
61,415 |
3 |
20,471 |
+348 |
|
Dublin South-Central |
62,600 |
3 |
20,866 |
+743 |
|
Dublin South-East |
62,846 |
3 |
20,948 |
+825 |
|
Dublin North-Central |
61,764 |
3 |
20,588 |
+465 |
|
Dublin North-East |
61,944 |
3 |
20,648 |
+525 |
|
Dublin (Finglas) |
60,708 |
3 |
20,236 |
+113 |
|
Dublin (Rathmines West) |
62,046 |
3 |
20,682 |
+559 |
|
Kildare |
62,253 |
3 |
20,751 |
+628 |
|
Wexford |
84,087 |
4 |
21,021 |
+898 |
|
Wicklow |
62,538 |
3 |
20,846 |
+723 |
The House has already read the Minister's explanatory memorandum. I asked him if he would facilitate the Opposition by circulating maps to illustrate the amendments which we proposed. This was not granted. Therefore, we are at a disadvantage in conveying to Members and to the public exactly what is behind our amendments.
I am grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity of recording those figures and I intend to do the same with the other constituencies so that all our constituencies can be compared with the Minister's table. Any fair-minded person examining these figures at a later date will see that the Fianna Fáil amendments are based on a fairer basis than the Minister's. We have clearly illustrated the degree of discrimination against the west with which I am sure Deputy Donnellan in his heart does not agree. The people in the west find it very difficult to accept any person close to the Pale telling them they are not entitled to the same level of representation as the people living in any other part of the country.
The people of the west have the same representation as the people living in any other part of the country.
This is the trouble with the claque. They did not examine the Bill. Like a lot of——
I made a full examination of it.
Deputy Donnellan's interest in this Bill does not extend beyond the realms of his own constituency or whatever constituency the Minister proposes for him.
When Deputy Molloy was Minister for Local Government his interest in his Department did not extend beyond the bounds of West Galway.
Order, please. Deputy Molloy without interruption.
We have clearly illustrated the savage degree of discrimination which is evident in the Bill by showing that it requires almost 500 more people per Deputy in the area west of the Shannon than it does in the eastern area. The level of discrimination is much greater when one examines this in relation to other areas. In his explanatory memorandum the Minister has divided the country into five different groups of constituencies. I have already shown to the House that the group which requires the greatest number of population per Member is the western group, and the group which requires the least number is the group in which the Minister's own constituency is located. The deviation between those two groups is as much as 1,000. In actual fact it takes 1,000 more in the west to elect a Deputy——
That is not what deviation means.
——than it does to elect——
Not elect but to qualify for.
——than it does in the group in which the Minister's own constituency is located. Deputy Donnellan stated that the facts which I gave to the House were not true.
All the Deputy did while he was in office was to grant planning permission——
Deputy Donnellan will have an opportunity of contributing later.
I was in the House before the Deputy and I will be here after him.
The difference, in fact is from 19,596 in the group in which the Minister's constituency is located as against 20,509 in the western group.