Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 2 Apr 1974

Vol. 271 No. 9

Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973: Report and Final Stages.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 1, to delete "Minister may by direction provide for the entry of" and to substitute therefor "registration authority or registration authorities concerned shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, enter."

We have stated fully our reasons for putting down this amendment on Committee Stage. As we were precluded from having it discussed on Committee Stage, the arguments made then are in support of this amendment now before the House on Report Stage and we would urge the Minister to accept it.

I am not prepared to accept this amendment, because it would do the opposite to what Deputy Molloy wants. What, in effect, Deputy Molloy is asking is that something that will have to be done only after the next election is declared should be done immediately. I believe it would cause a lot of extra trouble and expense, and I am sure that if Deputy Molloy looks at it in that way he will accept that this would worsen the position. I explained this to him when he suggested it to the Chair on Committee Stage. If it would improve the matter, I would be only too glad to accept it, but I believe it would worsen the position and I am afraid I cannot accept it.

When this matter was being discussed on Committee Stage, the Minister stated that what we are discussing here would be done anyway immediately. Now he implies that if he accepted our amendment there would be an obligation to do it immediately. Either the Minister was correct in his first statement that this thing would be done anyway or else he was not correct. I do not know whether he remembers having said this. It was mentioned by us on numerous occasions during the course of the debate. If the Minister would say he was wrong in saying that this matter would be done immediately following the passing of the Bill, then we would be prepared to listen to his arguments against our amendment. Did the Minister make a mistake in informing the House that this work would be done immediately after the passing of the Bill?

I am sorry. Unless the Chair allows me——

Is the Deputy giving way to the Minister?

What I said was that the returning officer will have arrangements made so that in the event of a general election taking place he can use the registers which are prepared, but he will not prepare a new set of registers entirely for this matter, which is suggested in Deputy Molloy's proposal. Therefore, there is no contradiction in what I said. If a by-election takes place, the by-election is fought in the old constituency and there is no question of any mix-up occurring. If a general election takes place, the new constituencies come into operation and the registrar is then in a position from the existing registers to prepare a register which can be used for the new areas. What Deputy Molloy is suggesting, if I take his amendment correctly, is that immediately the Bill becomes law the county registrar should prepare a new set of registers for the new constituencies which will not come into operation until the next general election. Whether we like it or not the registrar will have to continue to draw up the existing register for by-elections which might take place and for local elections. Deputy Molloy had a point, but there is no reason to do this and it would cause more trouble than it would remedy.

We do not want to delay the House on this, but we are satisfied that we have directed the Minister's attention to it. We are not completely happy that the statement he is making now can be reconciled with the statement made in the course of the discussion on this section during Committee Stage. However in view of the effort by the Government to stultify debate on this whole Bill and to restrict it by the introduction of the guillotine motion, we do not wish to use whatever few minutes we have left on this issue. Therefore we shall withdraw the amendment, but we hope the Minister is fully satisfied now that what we suggested should not take place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, line 25, to delete "the sanction of the Minister" and to substitute "confirmation by the Minister who may confirm the arrangement with or without modification".

During Committee Stage debate Opposition speakers pointed out that, while the temporary arrangements proposed under section 7 were subject to the sanction of the Minister, the Minister was given no specific power to amend or modify the arrangements proposed. They suggested that the position should be brought into line with the position in relation to polling schemes generally as set out in section 22(3) of the Electoral Act, 1963.

That section enables the Minister to confirm a polling scheme with or without modification or to refuse to confirm it. The purpose of this amendment is to meet the point made by the Opposition. In substituting the words "confirmation by the Minister who may confirm the arrangement with or without modification", we are meeting the point made, in particular by Deputy Lalor who said that, while it has operated for many years successfully and there has been no mix-up about it, it could happen—and I accepted his point—that if somebody wanted to be awkward, he might submit a scheme which would cause trouble, and therefore the Minister should have the right to decide whether or not this scheme, as proposed, should be sanctioned and if it was not suitable to alter it or sanction one which would be suitable.

On our side of the House we would like to indicate to the Minister our pleasure that he has accepted our suggested improvement to this section of the Bill and we thank him for bringing forward a suitable amendment to meet the point of view expressed by speakers here.

I am always a reasonable man, as Deputy Molloy knows.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, lines 54 and 55, to delete "that collective citation shall include this Act" and to substitute "may be cited together as the Electoral Acts, 1923 to 1974."

This is a purely formal amendment and arises from the fact that the Bill which was introduced in 1973 was not enacted during that year. In accordance with Standing Order 105 the Clerk of the Dáil, under the direction of the Ceann Comhairle, may make corrections of a verbal or formal nature in a Bill as it goes through the House. Under this power, it will be possible, for example to change "1973" to "1974" in the title of the Bill and to drop "(No.2)" from the title.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, in the second column of the entry relating to Dún Laoghaire, to delete "southwesterly" where it secondly occurs and to substitute "south-easterly".

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."

I take it we are still on the Report Stage and that we can continue until 9.30. I can assure the Government that the few minutes grace granted to us by the Government will be availed of. Under the threat of instant death at 9.30, we wish to record our dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Government have treated the Opposition while the Bill was before the House. There are a large number of Fianna Fáil Deputies keenly interested in this Bill who were anxious to contribute to the debate in a quiet, calm and reasonable way. This has been denied to them.

We consider it a basic right of any Deputy elected to this House to be allowed to contribute to debates on all legislation. One can readily see how Deputies would be particularly interested in a Bill such as this. We have been treated most unfairly and in a most arbitrary fashion by the Government who have set a precedent in relation to this measure in this Parliament. We want to protest that by no stretch of the imagination could anybody claim there has been adequate debate on the Schedule to this Bill and the amendments put forward by Fianna Fáil. We deplore the attitude displayed by the Minister and we regret that the standards of this House have been brought to this low level by the Coalition Government.

The debate on this Bill could have continued on a sensible basis. This hasty legislation is now being rushed through the House without any debate. We have shown in the amendments that the Minister grudgingly conceded, following suggestions from speakers from this side, that these Bills can be improved, that there can be anomalies found in them and that it is the duty of the Opposition of the day to examine them with critical eyes. We have been doing that with the parts of the Bill that have come before the House but we will not be allowed to do that with the part of the Bill still to come.

It angers the people of the west to have been treated in the way that this Bill treats them. It angers anybody sincerely concerned about the development of the west which has been treated as a second-class area. To illustrate the danger of the use of this type of method, the danger of rushing legislation through the House, I should like to point out that the Minister some time ago pushed through by the use of the guillotine an amendment to change both of the Mayo constituencies—East Mayo and West Mayo. What he has done without any debate is to change the constituency of East Mayo which had a population of 58,816 under the original proposal in the Bill and to delete an area including a population of 1,986 and to add to East Mayo an area including a population of 3,348, which leaves East Mayo now with a total population of 59,178.

This meant changes to the West Mayo constituency. The part transferred from the west to the east reduces the west from 60,310 by 3,348 and the part to be deducted from the east and added to the west includes 1,986, leaving West Mayo with 58,948. At least an effort has been made to restore the balance in the population ratios between East and West Mayo. It was impossible to justify the situation that obtained before when West Mayo included a population of 60,000 and East Mayo had only 57,000. That kind of thing has been corrected somewhat. However, to illustrate the dangers in rushing legislation through the House, I should like to point out that what the Minister has done is to transfer an area from West Mayo to East Mayo, Lackan North, which in the 1971 census had a population of 508 persons. I am reliably informed that there is no way in which a person can travel from the East Mayo constituency to Lackan North, which the Minister now is including in East Mayo, unless one does a roundabout into another constituency altogether.

Is it adjoining it? Is the Deputy saying that?

To the Minister who may not be familiar with this area——

No, but I am familiar with North Meath and Cavan.

Would the Minister take it easy now? He has limited us to 15 minutes and would he please let us have our say? They are greedy enough on that side of the House—they have taken all the constituencies to suit themselves. Lackan North, which the Minister now wants to transfer from West Mayo to East Mayo, cannot be reached directly from any part of the East Mayo constituency. Of course an east coast man like the Minister reading this map of the west would imagine that it is possible because the line on the map seems to indicate that one can travel direct from Lackan South into Lackan North. What the Minister is not aware of is that the tide flows in this area and that a river intervenes. The sea divides Lackan North and Lackan South. The Minister has now made the great blunder of creating a new island in this country which is attached to the mainland.

An island is never attached to a mainland.

To use a word which the Minister likes to use very often, this shows how stupid the Minister has got, how stupidly he has acted in this case.

Am I moving a polling station?

I will not tolerate being interrupted.

The Deputy is entitled to speak for only a short time.

I am entitled to speak for as long as I like. We had a member of the Minister's party speaking for eight hours——

The Deputy's party had one who spoke for nine hours, Deputy Boland, and they soon threw him out.

Deputy Calleary, who is familiar with both Lackan North and South, would elaborate on this new island which the Minister has created which is attached to the mainland. It is a most unusual island, what we will term an electoral island, one of the Tully stupid——

The Deputy should be careful.

I am only using a word which is rebounding. However I am just illustrating how foolish and dangerous it was to introduce the guillotine in the case of a Bill of this kind and how correct we have been in opposing it as strongly as we have done. I hope mistakes like this will not appear in other parts of the Bill which have not been debated in the House—I hope no more electoral islands will appear. I will give way to Deputy Calleary who would like to elaborate on this electoral island that has now been created in Mayo——

The Deputy will not.

If the Minister will not give way to Deputy Calleary I will not give way to the Minister. I will elaborate. We have been long enough at the game not to fall for that one. I would invite the Minister to arrange that the Government Information Service issue a special statement tomorrow morning explaining why he created this electoral island. In other words, he can try to explain it away as he has so often tried to do here. The truth will not go away. It will come home to roost when the people get a chance to pass a verdict on this Government.

Four years is all you will have to wait.

The Minister has denied us a seat in the west. I have gone over that. The statistics I quoted on this and previous Stages prove that conclusively. I challenged anybody to contest my figures and nobody has taken up the challenge.

One of the greatest anomalies of the whole Bill, one that cannot be justified on any grounds, is the Minister's decision to change the West Galway constituency from a three-seat to a four-seat constituency and to include a substantial part of South County Galway which traditionally was in another constituency and also to include a vast area of County Clare. This matter has been examined in my home town and by the newspapers in the west of Ireland. Some of these people may be in a position to have taken a more independent view of the matter than I was seeing that the West Galway constituency would be of some interest to me.

They have all expressed puzzlement as to how any Minister could have decided to put in such a large proportion of County Clare reaching down past Kilfenora and Liscannor to Hag's Head. To journey around that constituency, which now assumes the shape of a huge "U" around Galway Bay, one has to travel from Inisboffin on the west Galway coast to Galway city, around Galway Bay at Renmore and Oranmore, and then out to Clare, up the corkscrew or around by Black Head and on out to Liscannor and Hag's Head. It is a journey of over 120 or 130 miles. The only way in which a Deputy could hope to service his constituents would be to beg leave of the Government for the use of their helicopters to pay an odd visit to this area.

This constituency has its own particular and peculiar problems. The Minister waxes eloquent on Meath. He claimed that Cavan and Monaghan had many things in common and should be put together and that it would be disastrous to put any little bit of Meath in with Cavan as the people had nothing in common. Would the Minister tell us what the people in Liscannor have in common with the people in Inisboffin or Omey Island or in Turbot Island or in Inisturk or Innisheer, or Innishmaan or Innishmore or any other parts of the Gaeltacht in that constituency or as far over as Maam or Leenane or into Cornamona or on down to Cong? This is a very widely scattered constituency varying between a Galltacht and a Gaeltacht, the second largest in the country and probably with the greatest number of islands of any constituency. This creates problems for Deputies keeping in touch with constituents.

The Minister chose to change this West Galway constituency, which was compact enough, stretching from the east side of the city back, including all of Connemara and was being reasonably well served by the Deputies elected over the years in those areas. Now he proposes to include this area of Clare, part of the rural district of Ballyvaughan, with 2,533 persons, part of the former rural district of Corofin, 2,799, part of the rural district of Ennis—Ennis and Inisboffin, if you do not mind—with 763 persons and the rural district of Ennistymon, 6,182, making a total, if you include part of rural district of Gort with 4,043 persons, of 16,320. Of that, 12,277 persons resided in 1971 in the Clare portion which the Minister proposes to put into the West Galway constituency. Would it come as a surprise to any Member of the House or the community? Certainly, the people of Galway can understand the Minister's thinking in making this decision. It is known in Galway that in the last election, and indeed in all the elections held since the foundation of the State, the Labour Party never managed to elect a Deputy from the Galway area of Connemara and the city I am speaking of. The Minister's candidate at the last election, who has now come in on the back of the Fine Gael capitalist Taoiseach into the Seanad as a socialist, Senator Michael D. Higgins, was running on his own in the Galway area and made only about a half-quota. Because this gentleman comes from County Clare the Minister feels it might help him to increase that half-quota by probably another half-quota or, in some degree, help him into Dáil Éireann. This was the only thing the Minister could have done for him and he did it. It does not make sense to anybody because the areas contains no Labour votes——

What are you worrying about so?

——except that it gives Mr. Higgins an opportunity to work it up. I think the Minister's scheming in this as in many of his other proposals will probably backfire and rebound against him in the long run. At the same time we have an obligation to expose the deviousness of the Minister's mind in making such proposals as this. In the case of Dublin and the Wicklow, Wexford, Carlow and Kilkenny areas and in the case of Monaghan, Cavan, Kildare, Louth and Meath areas the Minister has argued that these areas have something in common and that he strove to maintain county boundaries. In West Galway, not alone has he crossed the county boundary between Galway and Clare but has crossed from one province to another, from Connacht into Munster. Need one ask how sincere the Minister was in much of what he said in trying to defend his actions here publicly? He had to do it publicly; there was no way he could avoid coming in with this rotten, dirty-trick Bill into the House. Only by bringing it to the House could he make it law but in doing so he did not even allow normal democratic procedures to operate. He introduced a motion which cuts short the debate on it, which prevents many Deputies from the west from speaking on it.

This is a matter of great concern to the Fianna Fáil Party. We must accept the inevitable. We must accept the bullheadedness of the tactics employed by the Coalition. If there was half as much alacrity and enthusiasm for other Bills which the Coalition have put on the Order Paper as there is for this Bill we could perhaps be discussing matters of greater national importance. There is no urgency in regard to this Bill; our motion allows the discussion to conclude by May 29th. We deem that a reasonable period. We claim that all Deputies on this side of the House who wish to contribute to the debate should have been allowed to do so. Each one wanted to put his own personal point of view and his own personal position on the record. Their comments would be made with expert local knowledge. I cannot discuss all these constituencies with expert local knowledge. I can only show that in the general principles I have applied in the amendments a bad day's work has been done for Ireland and the community, that blatant discrimination has been allowed to operate. The Government brought in an anti-discrimination Bill and on the following day we came in and discussed a discrimination Bill. There is obvious contradiction in the Government's thinking. The discrimination Bill has to do with jobs for the Coalition boys, with preparing the ground for the next general election, with allowing the Coalition to select what they think is the most advantageous size and area of constituency, number of Deputies to be elected. They have done this in the present Bill.

We ask the Coalition if they are an honest, open and truthful Government to come forward with the Bill that all of the country is waiting to discuss in this House, to come forward with the Contraceptive Bill, which has a certain urgency about it. We were told today that this Bill was coming before Dáil Éireann but this has not happened. This too can be added to the long list of broken promises of the Coalition Government.

Over 40 constituencies remain to be discussed. Major changes have been made to many of them. There were no opportunities given to the representatives from Tipperary, Kerry, Limerick and the Cork city and county to discuss their constituencies. This is a disgrace and we protest. We accept that the Government have only the jackboot with which to beat us.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 65.

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Dick.
  • Burke, Joan T.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick M.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • 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.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Patrick.
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Justin.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McDonald, Charles B
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Pattison, Seamus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Staunton, Myles.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Thornley, David.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Toal, Brendan.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.

Níl

  • Ahern, Liam.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Brugha, Ruairí.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Leonard, James.
  • Loughnane, William.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Murphy, Ciarán.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers : Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

We have now come to the end of this debate. We have had some fiery speeches from Deputy Molloy towards the end. He was making the welkin ring, complaining particularly that he and his colleagues in the Opposition were not given the opportunity which they required to make their case on what they claimed to be the unfair way in which the west in particular was dealt with.

Again and again during the period in which Deputy Molloy and his colleagues were filibustering about whether the Bill should be called the Electoral Bill, 1973, or the Electoral Bill, 1974, I warned Fianna Fáil that they were wasting their own time and that towards the end they would be making exactly the complaints which Deputy Molloy has made here. I told them that no matter what happened, if Fianna Fáil continued to complain, to repeat themselves and to make ridiculous statements they would eventually find themselves in the position in which they found themselves this evening. No effort whatever was made by Fianna Fáil to marshal their Deputies or to ensure that there would be a constructive debate on the Bill.

What about your own Deputies?

Nobody spoke from that side of the House—a silent majority.

Let me repeat what I said.

We are discussing the final Stages of the Bill only.

The greatest gerrymander of all time.

Let me repeat what I said earlier. So far as I am concerned I was able to deal myself with anything you were able to hand out. I did not have to call on my backbenchers.

You must be joking. You did not answer one argument.

It was all so foolish. There were petty little points put up again and again by Deputy Molloy and in the early stages by some of the other Deputies who talked about how unfair it was that we should have decided that there would be 148 Deputies, although they agreed that there should be 148 Deputies. Deputy Haughey, the big-hearted man, said he felt there should be 200 Deputies. Perhaps there will be 200 Deputies if the population keeps going up at its present rate.

(Interruptions.)

Having agreed that there should be 148 Deputies—perhaps with Deputy Haughey's 200 thrown in— they then decided they would challenge a vote on it. They wasted their own time voting against a proposal to have 148 Deputies. This was a childish thing.

We opposed every section in the Bill.

This is the sort of childish conduct which Fianna Fáil indulged in. For over 40 hours Fianna Fáil talked about trivial things—matters which could have been dealt with in a few hours. They talked about them and they found at the end that they had no time to discuss what Deputy Molloy now comes up with as being the important part of the Bill. If the Deputy looks at the Official Report he will find that in the early stages at least four times I pointed out to him that the Schedule to the Bill was the really important part of it and that if he wanted to have it sufficiently discussed it was his job to ensure that he got down to it. Deputy Molloy was so naïve as to imagine that he was going to be allowed to discuss it at length. In this House three times I did what I did not want to do, but as the matters had been discussed over and over again I introduced the guillotine.

You made up your mind to introduce it a month ago.

(Interruptions.)

Jackboot Tully. You made your reputation. It is on the record.

We must have the Minister without interruption.

On a point of order, is it in order to call the Minister "Jackboot Tully"?

Do you want a few more?

This is essentially a political charge.

Gerrymander Tully.

May I advise the House that there are only 25 minutes of debate left. Can we have some order? Let us have due regard for decorum.

I do not care whether they call me "Jackboot" or "Gerrymander" or whatever they like. For 40 years Fianna Fáil gerrymandered and jackbooted Constituency Bills through this House. They cannot take it when the wheel has turned and they now find themselves on the other side. They can now take what they are going to get. I listened to Deputy Molloy talking about the terrible thing it was to put Lackan North away from a certain area. He had a peculiar thing I never heard of before, an island attached to the mainland.

An electoral island.

(Interruptions.)

Seán Calleary did not want to talk because he is quite happy with what he got.

Let him in now.

He talked to me outside. That is quite sufficient. He dutifully thanked me outside. About Lackan North, I thought Deputy Molloy might at least know something about that part of the country.

Nobody knows about anything except yourself.

Mr. Know-All.

Order. Is the Minister to be shouted down?

If the Minister spoke through the Chair there might be more order.

Let us not have a situation in which a Member of the House is shouted down. The Minister without interruption.

I thought Deputy Molloy might know something about the part of the country from which he comes. When he talked about Lackan North I thought he might have got some information and that if he did not know it himself Deputy Calleary might have said something to him and told him exactly what the position was. I thought that even though he made a fool of himself when he was trying to deal with amendments relating to North Meath and Cavan and Monaghan——

He did not make a fool of himself.

One fool at a time.

The interruptions must cease.

Deputy Dowling who rambled in here twice during the debate would now like to take part when it is over. He did not complain about what I did to him in Dublin. He did all right. He will be elected next time.

The Minister knows everything.

Could I tell Deputy Molloy that Lackan North is attached fully to the mainland and, as it has been arranged now, you can go down by Patrick Head to Ballycastle where the booth is without any difficulty.

What about west Mayo?

I am afraid that when Deputy Molloy was talking about North Meath he made such terrible mistakes that I was sorry for him but, realising that he did not know the area he was dealing with, I was inclined to give him a fool's pardon.

Is that not very nice of him?

Deputy Wilson backed him up in an effort to prove that the ancient Kingdom of Breffni, as he called it, stretched above Kells to a place called Athboy which is 20 miles from the Cavan border and should be included in the constituency of Cavan and, having failed to do that——

(Interruptions.)

Talk about the west.

Which section is the Minister dealing with?

The contents of the Bill in its entirety are now under discussion.

Having failed to prove to the House—in any case the House did not agree—that the ancient Kingdom of Breffni extended up to Athboy, and having failed to get enough support to put Shercock and Kingscourt and three other smaller areas from Cavan into Monaghan and having the constituency of Monaghan stretching up to Navan, having jumped across the Gibbstown Gaeltacht in some peculiar way and leaving it as an island—we are talking about islands, an island in the middle of the country——

What about Nobber?

At least we succeeded in having a five-seat constituency in Cavan-Monaghan which is a reasonable way of dealing with it. We have a four-seater in Louth which is reasonable and we have a four-seater in Meath-Kildare which is reasonable. Then we go to the west.

What about Lackan North?

Deputy Molloy did not know——

The Minister is lacking something.

Please Deputy Cunningham.

Why not a four-seater in Clare? Answer that one.

The Minister should come up and gerrymander Derry for us.

Deputy Cunningham is continually interrupting. This leads to disorder.

All we heard from Deputy Cunningham when he was Parliamentary Secretary was a few interruptions.

Why is Clare not a four-seater?

As I have explained Lackan North is not an island.

An electoral island.

Deputy Calleary can be quite happy with what he has got. He has now got a safe seat which he had not got.

Deputy Calleary's seat was safe.

(Interruptions.)

What about my question?

We could have had a four-seater in Clare but when Deputy Molloy was drawing up his amendments he did not think it could have been done. He might not be on very good terms with Deputy Loughnane——

Why not a four-seater in Clare? The population justifies it.

I would hate to become involved between the hawks and the doves in Fianna Fáil.

I am proud of anything I was called. I have not got bog oak culture.

Bags of guns again.

I am an Irish nationalist unlike the Minister's Front Bench colleague with his shoneen culture.

Back to the contents of the Bill.

Why not a four-seater in Clare?

The Deputy has asked that question many times. He should please desist.

It would have been possible to have a four-seater in Clare but it would have meant changing quite a lot of what had already been prepared. If Deputy Molloy had proposed something like that maybe we would have considered doing it, but he did not. Deputy Molloy did not think of Deputy Loughnane when he was drawing up his amendments because he would be quite happy to see Deputy Loughnane outside the House. That is the difference between Deputy Molloy and me. I would like to see Deputy Loughnane in the House.

I am well able to look after myself. Do not worry about me.

On a point of order, could the Minister give me the floor please?

The Chair is the person who makes the decision.

The Deputy on a point of order.

Could I have the floor from the Minister?

The Minister has the floor and he is entitled to it until he resumes his seat.

(Interruptions.)

Talk to Deputy Molloy who did not think that a half an hour ago.

We have been denied the Report Stage on which we could have put down amendments.

(Interruptions.)

Is it the intention of the Minister to use up all the time on the Final Stage of this Bill?

I do not know.

(Interruptions.)

Order, please.

It is my intention, Sir, to give an adequate report on this Final Stage. If it takes me another ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, I will do that. If it takes me a minute longer I will do that but do not forget——

(Interruptions.)

We will leave it to him now and his blackguarding.

(Interruptions.)

The Minister can talk to the trees now because that is what he will be doing.

(Interruptions.)

You are on the run now.

(Interruptions.)

Order please. The Minister on the Final Stage of the Bill.

Deputy Molloy speaks as if an adjustment between Clare and Galway is something new. It is not. There was an adjustment between those counties in the 1969 revision. It becomes a major cause for dissent only now because the areas being joined are slightly different from the 1969 revision.

I have been terribly patient during a very long discussion on this Bill. Deputies opposite, with one exception, persisted in saying that there was one amendment which might change and improve the Bill. That exception was in reference to the right of the Minister to decide whether or not additional powers should be given to provide— under temporary arrangements of electoral divisions—that the Minister might be able to say he was not satisfied with the proposals made. In that case I agree there might be something to it, even though the evidence has been that right down the years it has operated properly and there has been no trouble about it. With that exception we have had in this House an exhibition of bad manners by Fianna Fáil, something about which I am not a bit surprised. When they rose, one after the other they accused us of being bad mannered. Not alone did they repeat petty arguments on petty points but you, Sir, and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle were wrongly abused because they were not allowed continue it indefinitely. Having done that they try to give the impression now that they are the upholders of liberty in this House, that they are the people who stand for liberty in this country. That is a new thing Fianna Fáil represents —liberty or equality in this country.

We have had 64 hours of debate, over 60 of which have been taken up by Fianna Fáil speakers. Do they expect that they be allowed do any damn thing they want in this House? You, Sir, saw what happened on the last two Stages. You saw where the Fianna Fáil spokesman, having got up, insisted on holding the floor until the time came for putting the motion and then objected when I got up and did not allow the same thing to happen on the Final Stage. They must think we are terribly foolish if they imagine that we would agree to have that sort of thing continue.

Throughout the discussion on this Bill we have had allegations made that there was discrimination against the country areas in favour of the city. I want to make it clear again, on this stage, that in the Dublin area the average population per Deputy— mind you some people here seem to imagine that the population per Deputy and number of votes to elect a Deputy are one and the same thing; they are not; the number of votes represent those who cast a vote at an election for a Deputy; population includes the baby in the cradle—is 20,142. The average for the rest of the country is 20,115. There is no way in which anybody can get around that situation. That is slanted, even if only slightly so, towards the rural districts. I represent a rural constituency. It makes me laugh to hear Fianna Fáil Deputies over the last few weeks talk about how unfair I was to rural Deputies, particularly Deputy Molloy, when he went to the length of telling us tonight how unfair it was to break Leitrim in two. His predecessor, the last Minister for Local Government to draw up constituencies here, broke it in three. And, in the Custom House, there is evidence that Deputy Molloy intended breaking it into four uneven quarters in this Bill. Having suggested doing that, had he not a hard neck to come in here tonight and say to me that I was being unfair to Leitrim by talking about dividing it in two? As far as the rest of the country is concerned I have, as far as I possibly could, endeavoured to divide it in such a way that there would be the least breaking-up of county boundaries. Yet there has been a complaint because I put Cavan and Monaghan together. I said on an earlier Stage, and I repeat it now, that the people of Cavan and Monaghan, very decent people, are very alike in many ways. The Counties of Cavan and Monaghan are very alike. Except for a very small portion of Monaghan— less than 2,000 people in the Enniskeen area transferred to County Louth—the remainder of those two counties forms one constituency.

It has been said that we should give more representation to the Border areas. The Constitution or the High Court ruling, which govern how constituencies are drawn up here, make no reference whatever to Border areas. We have got to give the very same representation there as we do to any other place. When it was claimed here that Cavan on its own or Monaghan on its own was entitled to three Deputies, the people making that claim knew quite well that it was an inaccurate one and it could not be done. They knew that, because the number of people living in Counties Cavan and Monaghan would not be, on their own, entitled to three Deputies. When the two were put together they made enough for five Deputies and that is what they are getting. The remainder of the area from Meath and Louth—the area formerly attached to Cavan—are getting the extra Deputy to which they are entitled in their county and constituency.

It is utterly ridiculous to hear people come in on the discussion of this Bill and attempt to prove that we were doing what Fianna Fáil did. We heard a number of Deputies talking about setting up a commission. I do not want to deal at length with this because I would be out of order. I want to make two points. One is that the first time anyone in Fianna Fáil admitted that a commission might be a fair way to draw up constituencies was one minute after Deputy Jack Lynch, the former Taoiseach, had agreed that he lost the general election and he was then in favour of a commission drawing up constituencies. Until then—he had no use for a Commission of any kind. Recently we have had people, particularly Deputy Noel Lemass, say that they were not in favour of a commission. This is not a point which can be stressed at this Stage of the Bill. But I wanted to show the hypocrisy with which this whole matter has been dealt by Fianna Fáil. They should not imagine that they, and they only, are entitled to rule this country, because we have proved for 12 months that that is not true and we will prove it for many long years to come.

Deputies

Hear, hear!

Fianna Fáil are not the only people who can rule this country. The charge was made by Deputy Molloy, at the conclusion of his statement, that we were in fact ruining the country and that people were only waiting to get at us. That was not proved at the by-election which took place and will not be proved at the local elections. The very opposite will be proven in four years' time when the next general election takes place.

As far as we are concerned, we have drawn up a Bill which has now almost passed through this House. I believe and the Government believe that the matter has been fairly dealt with. For that reason we believe it will be generally accepted in the country. The first people to spot on what was happening here—that there was a rather ridiculous filibuster being mounted— were the Press Gallery because in the daily papers after a debate here lasting a whole day about four lines was all that was given to the Constituencies Bill. It was about all it was entitled to because it is not that important to the ordinary people. While this Bill was being dragged through this House there was a stack of legislation piling up. Maybe Fianna Fáil felt that if they could succeed in putting us off we would either have to allow these things to lapse or we would finish up with important legislation piled up at the end of the season. This did not happen. The Bill has gone through. After the Recess, and indeed before it, we will be dealing with important legislation and we will not be hindered by people who want to hop in and out here when it suits them and make silly remarks about a Bill which should have taken approximately half the time it took to pass through the House.

As far as any of the areas covered by the Bill are concerned they are fair, they are areas which were allowed by the Constitution and which are recommended on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment. There is not any other way in which I could do it. Of course I could have consulted Fianna Fáil and asked them what they would do and put that into the Bill but I do not think there was any onus on me to do that. I have looked at the efforts made by my predecessor to prepare such a Bill and found stacks of his doodling in the Custom House, where he went from one side to the other. Incidentally he listed the Monaghan-Cavan constituency as a five-seater—it is interesting to note that—and he gave an extra seat to the constituency he represents himself in Galway, as his amendment here also suggested. He taunted me across the House about the four seats in Meath, which I put there because of the number of people in the constituency along with the remaining area of County Kildare. There was nothing else I could do about it unless he wanted to leave 20,000 people unrepresented. When he was throwing that taunt across the House he seemed to forget that he was doing worse than that because he was taking a seat away from Roscommon and putting it into Galway, if he could get away with it.

Is it not remarkable to recall that, after all the song and dance we had over there for the last few weeks, it was open to Fianna Fáil for the last two years they were in Government to introduce this Bill if they wanted to do it? If Deputy Molloy was allowed to prepare it or to put it before the House, there was not a reason in the world why the Bill they wanted could not have been pushed through here. The Constitution demanded that a change take place but they ignored that demand and they waited until they had gone out of office. Maybe they felt that after the last election they would have a bigger majority and be able to trample on the rights of some of their own Deputies they did not like so well. I am sure they would be very happy if a number of the people who have been backing them in the votes were not here. Therefore they did not introduce the Bill which they could have introduced and the job was left for me to do. It is not a job which I or any Minister for Local Government would relish. It has been a very difficult Bill. I do not claim to know every area in the country. There is a lot of the country I do know. There are vast areas of the country where I know every tree and bush, as Deputy Molloy found to his surprise when he attempted to introduce some of his rather foolish amendments. Here now we have a Bill which will be fair to anybody. If there is anyone in this House or outside it who imagines that a Government can gerrymander in such a way that they can get themselves returned at the next election, let me say that the only thing that will return them is their record over the period they have been in Government.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn