Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 6 Mar 1969

Vol. 66 No. 7

Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1968: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Murphy

When we reported progress last night, I was making a reference to the Seanad's responsibility with regard to a Bill like this. I do not think that any of us can separate this Bill from the debate we had last summer on the proposal to amend the Constitution and the subsequent referendum and the decision of the electorate. To my mind, what is proposed and what is being done here is a deliberate attempt to frustrate the decision of the electorate in the referendum.

We know that we can all, as members of particular Parties, interpret the referendum to suit ourselves. We can say that the decision of the referendum was a definite swing against Fianna Fáil and we can interpret it as being a swing towards Labour; I suppose Fine Gael can equally say, with their hand on their heart, that it was a swing towards Fine Gael. I must confess that, in spite of being a Party member, I do not hold very strong Party views on this. I would be more inclined to the view that the referendum was a demonstration by the electorate of this country that they are responsible and that they wanted to retain as much control over Parliament as was possible. I do not think they made any conscious decision at that time in respect of Parties or in respect of what the composition would be of any future Government.

I look with suspicion on a proposal to change a system of election and a way of representation in Parliament which has been successful in this country and which has given us fair play and which, as I said last night, enabled us to act in a reasonably responsible way.

The electorate also decided that they did not want to deprive minorities of representation in Dáil Éireann. They really interpreted the proposal to change the system of election as meaning that minorities would not for the future be represented in Dáil Éireann in proportion to the support that the electorate might wish to give them from time to time. I suggest that what we have here now is a sneaky effort behind the backs of the electorate to try and frustrate what the Irish people decided in the referendum last autumn.

I want to draw your attention, first of all, to the Constitution. This point has already been made in the debate that the Constitution provides for the system of proportional representation in election to Dáil Éireann and it says that no law should be enacted whereby the number of members to be returned for any constituency shall be less than three. That is the very minimum. We are now finding in this Bill that there is a further swing towards the very minimum.

We would all accept that proportional representation cannot work effectively in three-seat constituencies. In a three-seat constituency the quota, as you all know well, would be 25 per cent of the valid poll plus one. This is the mathematical position and you cannot do better. A Party can win two seats with 46 to 48 per cent of the poll, but a Party must be certain of winning two seats with 50 per cent of the poll plus one. It would win two seats out of three. For 50 per cent support, a Party could get 66? per cent representation in a constituency. It is important to not that, on the other side of the coin, people are deprived because of that arrangement. A Party with 24.97 per cent of the vote, which is nearly 25 per cent of the support, in a three-member constituency will be left without representation. Representation of one-in-four is not unimportant and cannot be ignored or brushed aside.

In this Bill it is being proposed that such a Party would be deprived of representation in Dáil Éireann in a three-seat constituency. This is intolerable and is against the wishes and the decisions of the Irish electorate as represented in a very definite way when they rejected the proposal to amend the Constitution and abolish PR. What is being attempted here is to so arrange things that PR will be largely ineffective. It will be so weakened that the PR system will no longer give reasonable representation in Parliament to minorities in proportion to the support they are getting from the electorate. In four-seat constituencies we all know that the quota would be 20 per cent of the valid poll plus one. To get a majority of the seats a Party would have to get 60 per cent of the poll plus one, or three out of four seats. The Party with minority support of 19.96 per cent, which is nearly one in five, would be left without any representation whatever in that constituency.

We go on from there. We all know there is no need to demonstrate this to people who have been elected themselves under PR but the greater the number of seats in a constituency the more representative the results will be and the more effective PR will be. I know it will be argued that large constituencies with a big number of seats are awkward and hard to cover. These arguments were effectively made in the debate on the referendum but the Irish people decided that they did not want the handy, convenient single-seat small constituency. The Irish electorate came to a decision which we must accept and not try to frustrate it as the Government are attempting to do in this measure. Under our system of PR, which has worked up to now, there is a fair and reasonable relationship between the percentage support received by the various Parties and the representation they have secured in Dáil Éireann. Because of the way constituencies can be drawn by any Government there is a bit of a bonus for the larger Party. They tend to get a higher percentage of seats than they, in fact, get by way of first preference votes. It has not been unreasonable up to the present time. In 1951 Fianna Fáil gained 46.3 per cent of the first preference votes and got 46.6 per cent of the seats in Dáil Éireann. Fine Gael got 25.7 per cent of the first preference votes and 27.4 per cent of the seats. Labour got 11.5 per cent of the first preference votes and 11 per cent of the seats, and so on in the various general elections. On another occasion Fianna Fáil got 47.8 per cent of the first preferences and 50.3 per cent of the seats. Labour got 15.4 per cent of the first preferences and 14.7 per cent of the seats. What this Bill is designed to achieve is a lower percentage of first preferences. Under this measure Fianna Fáil would secure a far bigger bonus, they would get a far bigger representation in Dáil Éireann.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Why should it be Fianna Fáil? Have you no hope of converting others?

Mr. Murphy

In fact, I was waiting for this intervention. Time and time again we have this sort of sneer, that because you are a minority you are somewhat less than human. You are not entitled to be heard, you are to be trodden on. This, of course, is what is involved. This is an attempt to deprive minority Parties of representation in proportion to the support they get from the electorate. Minority Parties, whoever they may have been from time to time, whether Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, Clann na Poblachta, Sinna Féin, are entitled to representation in the Parliament of this country in proportion to the support the electorate gives them, nothing else and nothing less. What is proposed here is that the will of the electorate, as demonstrated in the referendum, be frustrated.

Up to now we have had five-seat constituencies—that has been the largest size constituency for some years —but under this Bill the five-seat constituencies are being reduced by 78 per cent, the three-seat constituencies are being increased by 50 per cent and the four-seat constituencies are being increased by 16? per cent. These figures may not mean very much, but, when put another way, it means that under the 1961 Act 45 of the Deputies in Dáil Éireann out of a total of 145, including the Ceann Comhairle, came from five-seat constituencies and under this proposal only ten Deputies will come from five-seat consituencies. I am sure everyone will accept that proportional representation can only work effectively where there are a reasonably large number of representatives forming a constituency; in other words, it cannot work effectively in three- or four-seat constituencies and is only marginally effective in five-seat constituencies.

Under the 1961 Act, 51 Deputies came from three-seat constituencies where, as I said, proportional representation does not work effectively, but under this proposal, 78 per cent, that is half the membership of the Dáil, will come from three-seat constituencies. Even though we in this House are not involved in the drawing up of constituencies, we should be concerned with the maintenance of parliamentary democracy and with seeing that the will of the electorate is not frustrated. We are opposing this Bill because we see in it a sneaky, underhand way of trying to frustrate the decision of the electorate. It is unfair, unjust and can only lead to further trouble in this country. We are, therefore, voting against the Bill.

Mr. McHugh

Let me begin by saying what the majority of the people of this country are saying, that this Bill is intended simply as a gerrymander and that the Government are endeavouring to do now what they failed to do in the referendum. It is obvious from the speed with which this Bill was produced that it had been prepared as an alternative. The Government had some preconceived notion that their intentions in the referendum would be defeated. We all know what happened, but it is quite obvious that this Bill was an alternative and one must always look with suspicion on Bills which are produced so quickly.

The Bill is obviously highly technical in its preparation and highly skilled in the manner in which it was produced and presented to the people. It must have taken many weeks, even months, to prepare. It is quite obvious that there was not sufficient time to do this between the referendum and the date on which it was introduced here. Therefore, we must look with suspicion on the motives behind it. The only conclusion any reasonable man can come to—I say reasonable man, even Fianna Fáil supporters will accept this—is that the Government are obviously trying in this Bill to do what they failed to do in the referendum.

The Bill is bad because it introduces wholesale breaching of county boundaries. This means that many thousands of people will be removed from their traditional voting centres where they have voted for generations. It is one thing to ask people to vote in a different county, but it is a completely different thing to ask them to vote for a different man, a man they do not know and for whom they may not wish to vote, but this is one of the results of this Bill.

It is bad to make so many breaches in what have come to be the traditional boundaries of our constituencies. Our people are traditional, they are conservative—indeed one might say they are the most conservative people in the world—and they will not accept in good faith the position where they are being asked to vote in Galway instead of Clare, where their fathers and grandfathers before them voted. Many of them have loyalties which go beyond geographical boundaries. Many of them have deep political loyalities and they feel outraged that, for no reason other than to give advantage to a certain Party, this has been foisted on them.

The Minister's proposals as put can be described as just one way in which the difficulties facing the Minister and the Government could be met. However, other ways have been fully discussed. They were the proposals put forward by Senator Garret FitzGerald and Deputy Hogan. In saying that I am not making the case that these proposals were better than the Ministers but what I am saying is that there were, in fact, other methods which the Minister could have adopted. When one looks at the Minister's plan and sees that it is so obviously designed for political purposes then one must look with suspicion on it.

Last evening we had Senator McElgunn making what, I understand, was his maiden speech and I must congratulate him on his courage. He comes, I believe, from Leitrim.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): Did he make a good speech?

Mr. McHugh

Yes, and I must compliment him on making what I consider to be a good speech and a speech which took a certain amount of courage to make, coming, as he does, from a county which is about to disappear from the political map. However, I do not quite understand what he means when he says that it is not possible to gerrymander unless one knows the voting pattern in a certain county and that one is sure that that pattern will continue. Even a child could say how the people of Clare have voted during the past 50 years. The Minister, I am sure, has never had any difficulty in deciding in advance who would be returned in Clare.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Was the Senator able to forecast the vote on the referendum in Clare?

Mr. McHugh

I was able to influence it slightly. Here, I quarrel with Senator McElgunn because it is possible to forecast the result of an election in a constituency such as Clare and, therefore, gerrymander is possible. If one looks at the Minister's plan it is obvious that there is an attempt to gerrymander. We have the position where the Minister is removing 14,500 people to Galway, the purpose of which is an attempt to give Galway sufficient extra votes to return nine Deputies, thereby giving three three-seat constituencies. This, obviously, would give Fianna Fáil an advantage there and it is being done in such a blatantly political manner as to be obvious for what it is—gerrymander of the worst type.

If this had been other than a gerrymander, one would have expected, during the three or four months that have passed since this Bill was introduced, that some of the Fianna Fáil representatives in Dáil Éireann and in the Seanad would have made some attempt to defend the Minister's plan, either in the Houses of the Oireachtas, or in the press. One would have expected that, since 14,500 people, practically one-third of our county, are being removed and put into Galway, that some of our public representatives —the men who were specifically elected to represent the entire county and who got no mandate from the people to cut any of it off—would have made some attempt to justify the Minister's proposal.

I have searched through the Dáil Debates and through the national and provincial papers but nowhere is Dr. Hillery, Minister for Labour, on record as defending or condemning this Bill. One would have expected that he, at least, would either have defended or condemned this Bill, but since he has not done so we can only come to the conclusion that he does not accept it but that he is not in a position to do anything about it. We have the same position in regard to his colleague who was elected with him in that general election. Not one word did we hear from Deputy Ó Ceallaigh except in the Final Stages of the Bill when he said, and I quote from the Clare Champion of February 8th, 1969; this quote is a translation and, to be fair to Deputy Ó Ceallaigh he quarrels with the translation. However, he is quoted as saying:

The responsibility for these changes did not rest with the Government but with the people who had voted against the Government's proposals at the Referendum. The boundary of Clare was not a natural one and was first introduced by Queen Elizabeth I. The people of Clare were satisfied with the change which was according to law.

Mr. Boland

Níor labhair an Teachta as Béarla cor ar bith.

An Cathaoirleach

It is not usual to criticise Members of the other House.

Mr. Boland

Níl sé ceart gur dhúirt sé é sin.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator is quoting a "phony" translation of a speech made in Irish.

Mr. McHugh

I am quoting a report in the public press. I am quoting the Clare Champion. It was a report of a speech made in Irish and is a translation.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Quote the thing properly. Quote it in Irish from the Dáil Debates.

Mr. McHugh

This in fact is the only utterance in four months. Now we come to Clare. We had a man elected in a by-election in Clare last year. There is no doubt whatever that, whatever can be said about the other Deputies getting their votes from various parts of the county in the by-election, the vote came from the whole county. I quote now volume 238, No. 11, column 1643 of the Dáil Debates of last week.

An Cathaoirleach

I would again suggest to the Senator that he should not proceed to criticise Members of the other House or even to quote from the speeches in the other House when it is by way of criticism, but the Chair cannot prevent the Senator from doing so.

Mr. McHugh

I am sorry, a Chathaoirleach, but the point I am trying to make is that these Deputies, by their silence and by the little they say, show an implied criticism of the Government plan.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

They all voted for the Bill at every Stage.

Mr. McHugh

I am trying to say that they would have done better than this if they were in favour of it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

They voted for it at every Stage of this Bill.

Mr. McHugh

The Deputy said that the people of Clare realised as a result of the referendum that they would have to revert to a three-seat constituency. I do not know how the Deputy came to the conclusion that the people realise this. All they realise is that, by a decision of the Fianna Fáil Party as a result of the Fianna Fáil Party majority in Dáil Éireann, almost 15,000 of their people were put into County Galway. For the Senator's information, the people of Clare are not satisfied with it. In my opinion, they will show that quite clearly when the time comes.

One of the arguments made by the supporters of this—and I speak again of my own county—is that there are 9,000 Clare votes among the 15,000 people. Nine thousand votes is sufficient to elect a Clareman whatever political persuasion he may have in the constituency of Clare-South Galway. Nine thousand votes would elect a man if all the 9,000 people voted, but everybody knows that a 70 per cent poll in that particular area is remarkably high. In the conditions under which they are voting now in a different constituency, and voting for people they do not know and have never seen, we will be lucky if we get 40 to 50 per cent poll because of the manner in which these people feel they are being treated. We would be lucky to have 4,000 votes. If they divide, and they have always divided into political Parties, one could have 1,500 votes for Fine Gael and 3,000 votes for Fianna Fáil. Where will the 1,500 Fine Gael minimum get a seat in South Galway?

The thing is ridiculous. If it was necessary to make any alterations in the boundaries of Clare—and I accept that — because we were 2,000 voters short of the number to maintain our four seats, they could have been got from Galway. There was an alternative and a precedent for this. Part of South Galway, including the town of Gort, was within the constituency of Clare. There was a precedent for the Minister if he chose to use it, but for some unknown reason he did not. In south Clare, just the Clare side of Limerick city boundary, there is a rural area partly formed by the Coonagh airfield. They vote in a local election in the Bruree electoral area of West Limerick. They do not even vote in the Limerick Corporation area. They vote in Bruree. I do not know, how this decision was arrived at. Some of the county councillors for the electoral area of Bruree in West Limerick constituency, when they stand for the county council, have to cross through Limerick city and come into County Clare to canvas votes there. This is peculiar but is, nevertheless, a fact. This area could quite easily have been put into a constituency of County Clare. Incidentally, they vote also in Limerick. They could have been put into Clare. I cannot understand why it is outside it for local elections. A much smaller number of people would have come from Galway. It is clear that the boundaries of Clare could have been arranged so as to maintain four seats without any great effort on the part of the Minister or any great disturbance of the people. The Minister chose to do it this way and it is obviously a political manoeuvre.

Last evening Senator Nash made a statement that a Deputy should know the hopes, aspirations and ambitions of all his constituents. His constituency should be of such a compact nature that this would be possible. I should like to ask the Senator how a Deputy from the Clare-Galway constituency is going to know the people there. How will a Deputy who comes from a rural area in West Clare know his constituents in County Roscommon? That is my complaint. It is completely beyond my comprehension. How can a Deputy representing a rural or urban area in Ballinasloe, Killaloe or Kilfenora in West Clare get to know all his constituents?

The Minister further said that not alone must the Deputy know the hopes, ambitions and aspirations of his constituents, he must also know their traditions. I fail to see how any Deputy can at the same time be properly aware of the traditions of the people of Roscommon, Galway, East Clare and North West Clare. How can the hopes, ambitions and aspirations of the fishermen from Galway Bay, and the people from Roscommon and Killaloe become familiar to any Deputy who has the responsibility of representing that constituency? It is clear that the Minister is going to put them into Galway in spite of their hopes, ambitions, aspirations and traditions.

No matter what is said, it is apparent that this Bill is going to be pushed through because of a Government majority. We shall have to grin and bear it, and when it comes into force we shall have to operate it. However, if at any time Fine Gael get an opportunity they will repeal this Bill.

Mr. Flanagan

I did not intend to take part in this debate but, now and again, one is forced into a position arising out of the tone of the discussion and the manner in which it is carried out in this House. I regret very much the tenor of the debate. One would hope that, in an important matter such as this, we might have considered opinions. We might, indeed, expect opposition but we do not, and I do not, think this House should have inflicted on it so much misrepresentation, so many statements which are bordering on the untrue, so many statements which are closely allied to slandering people who have a responsibility in the Government and in the country. It is true that anybody who accepts and takes on an office of importance in this country is supposed to have a tough hide. At the same time, if we are to maintain the dignity of this House, the dignity of the Oireachtas, and if we are properly to interpret the feelings of the people in the country, then our debate should be tempered and should be reasonable. It should, in as far as is possible, be related to an effort to do what is best in the interests of the people. I am not setting out to defend the Minister because the Minister is very well able to defend himself but I am amazed to hear the remarks that have been made in connection with the suggested division of my own county—Mayo.

During the debate last summer on the question of the referendum, it was pointed out clearly by the Minister that if the people should refuse to accept the questions put to them in the referendum there would have to be a loss of membership of Dáil representation in the west of Ireland and that there would have to be a loss of one Deputy in my own county—a county which is so scattered, which has so many problems, which has much difficult terrain and which, in fact, is suffering from a lack of real care and attention by our public representatives and will now suffer a tragic loss. Two of our Deputies are at present living in Dublin and another is also living outside the county.

It was clearly pointed out that there would be one Deputy less in Mayo unless the question put in the referendum was answered in the affirmative. I do not unnecessarily take up the time of the House unless I have a worthwhile contribution to make but during the debate last summer I pointed out the loss which my county would suffer in losing a Deputy if the referendum proposals were not carried but this point was answered with slander from the other side of the House.

I regret very much that the Senator who sought to slander me on that occasion is now ill. I sincerely regret his illness and I wish to say publicly in this House that I bear no animosity towards him and I sincerely hope that he will be restored to health in the interests of his wife and children. However, I regret that statements of the kind which he made are made in this House and I think we should make an effort to improve the tone of the House.

On that occasion also, I paid a tribute to the two members of the Fine Gael Party who are living and working in Mayo. I can honestly say that those two people are working very hard in the interests of the people of Mayo and that they are available to supporters of any Party who approach them for help at any time, just as I try to make myself available to members of any Party who come to me for assistance and advice. Indeed, afterwards, while speaking on a public platform in the presence of those people, I again paid tribute to them and I said that it would be a great and a tragic loss for our constituency if one of these Fine Gael Deputies should lose his seat and if the constituency lost their representation and their help as a result of the non-acceptance of the referendum proposals.

One of these Deputies who is a particular friend of mine and who worked under me for years, when speaking to me about the revision of the constituencies which arose out of the failure on the part of the people to accept the referendum, seemed quite satisfied that, on balance, the division was a fair and a just one. However, I was very surprised when, during the debate in the Dáil of the proposed changes in the constituency of Mayo, this man expressed entirely different views.

Many suggestions have been put forward as to how Mayo could be divided and I must confess that, knowing Mayo better than any other man in this House and that includes the Minister, one could come up with possibly a hundred different solutions to the problem but not one of them would be acceptable to everybody. At the moment, we have seven Deputies, two Senators and the Minister which gives us a representation of ten and I am quite sure that no two of those ten people would come up with a similar solution.

I suppose it is only natural that when the division of the county had to take place, that very many of us, myself included, would begin to think of what the probable division would be in the future. Ours is a county whose boundaries were changed way back in 1898. The district of Ballaghaderreen was formerly included in Mayo but at the passing of the Local Government Act, the Ballaghaderreen part of the county was transferred to Roscommon although the people of that district have always maintained their association with Mayo. In fact, for the purpose of the GAA, Ballaghaderreen is in Mayo. The Minister, when looking at the total population of the county, found that we would be entitled to six Deputies without including this portion of Mayo or Roscommon and he handed that portion back and then was set the problem of dividing the present administrative county of Mayo into two three-seat constituencies.

I must confess that when I saw the Minister's solution I had to admit that it was a better solution and had more merit than anything I had thought about myself. There were in the county eight electoral areas and the Minister was about to divide the county very closely so as to have four electoral areas in one constituency and four electoral areas in the other. One constituency of West Mayo in the future will have the electoral divisions of Ballinrobe, Castlebar, Westport and Belturbet while the eastern area will have Killala, Ballina, Swinford and Claremorris. I will first refer to the fact that one of those constituencies is maritime and the other is inland. One takes in most of the western, mountainous, inaccessible portions of the county, with areas of smallholdings and low valuations, and the other has a preponderance of the better holdings with the higher valuations. One constituency has a certain set of problems as distinct from the other. The division of the county was arranged on a very fair and reasonable basis.

I was absent last night for some time at a meeting of the Joing Library Committee and I came back to hear Senator Rooney from Dublin referring to the butchering of County Mayo. I have great respect for Senator Rooney's knowledge of many things but no respect for his knowledge of County Mayo. When he talks about the pattern of the division as set out in the new constituencies he has absolutely no knowledge whatever of the position and no right to get up and make misrepresentations in this House as to butchering and gerrymandering when he has not even the foggiest notion of the physical features of the county or the physical difficulties of dividing it up.

No one in an area like Mayo can draw a line from north to south and from east to west making a fair division of the county. If that is done it would cut off villages and individual electors and their families from any approach at all to a polling booth. I know of houses in remote bog areas in the heart of the mountains where people are living three or four miles away from any other population. I know of villages three or four miles away along the bank of a river with only one approach road. Those people have to come out by that road and have to vote at the nearest polling station to them. If you draw your line from north to south and from east to west it is possible that those people would be completely cut off from the polling station. In order to get to the next nearest station it would be necessary to make a journey of ten or 15 miles. One should not make nonsensical statements in this House in connection with the division of Mayo when a person knows nothing about it. It is simply wasting the time of the House and abusing privilege as a Member of this House.

I also heard Senator O'Sullivan last night and, again, I do not know why this House should be made the wailing wall for people who now see the folly of their advice and of their misrepresentations in connection with the referendum. They are now beginning to realise things are not going to work out as they hoped and they come wailing into this House. The attitude is that we will pursue the policy which was effective during the referendum campaign and throw as much mud as possible, make as many insinuations as possible, working on vicious propaganda in the hope that it will be successful for a second time.

During the campaign on the referendum I addressed a meeting in a county district and after I had spoken a man who used to work for me and whom I knew pretty well and who had confidence in me asked me could he speak to me. I said: "Yes, we will go down the road." He asked then whether it was true that if he voted "yes" in the referendum for the questions in the referendum that the pensions would be reduced. That was lying, malicious, injurious propaganda that was disseminated in that area. It was disseminated through the length and breadth of my county without any scruples or any justice in the hearts or minds of the people who were deliberately misrepresenting the position. Why is that necessary in public life? Let us face facts.

Last night also Senator Rooney said that the people are not sure. They have shown by their voting in the referendum that they are grown up and mature. They know what they want and how to do it. In the name of God let us accept that. That is true and becoming more true. All we should really try to do in this House is bear in mind that people made great sacrifices on behalf of this country in the past and that all we are asked to do at the present time is to make laws and regulations in the best interests of the people and the best interests of the country.

It is possible to make any number of statements which are correct theoretically. This morning Senator Murphy went into considerable detail about the injustice of the Bill and the sinister motives which activated the Minister into designing three-seat constituencies. He said that in a three-seat constituency a Party that gets 24.7 per cent of the votes will be left without representation. Theoretically, that is correct, if every single member of every Party voted strict Party, if there was no cross voting and if every person voted a full panel. Senator Murphy knows in practice that that is not true. Let us take the experience that we have and not try to distort the fact that individuals of minority Parties have been elected on the first count at much less than 20 per cent, or even 15 per cent of the first preference votes.

Mr. Murphy

In a three-seat constituency?

Mr. Flanagan

I do not say in a three-seat constituency, but certainly in a four-seat constituency a Party who get 60.1 per cent of the votes could get all the seats.

Mr. Murphy

If the Senator will permit me, a majority of the seats.

Mr. Flanagan

If a party gets 60.1 per cent of the votes, they are entitled to get a majority.

Mr. Murphy

Three out of four.

Mr. Flanagan

There is no problem there.

Mr. Boland

That is the system. We did not invent it.

Mr. Flanagan

At the same time, if a Party gets 60.1 per cent of the votes, it is entitled to a majority of the seats. It is suggested that an attempt is being made here to deprive a minority of a percentage of seats to which they are entitled. There is no great advantage to anybody doing that. Of course, I am not talking on the broad question of forming a Government. Even if the Labour vote increased tommorrow by 50 per cent, and if Labour increased their present 18 members to 30, which they say is their target—apparently they are going to break the barrier this time and get 30 seats—where does it leave us? What we want in this country is a Party who will get an overall majority. I do not care who they are. I am quite satisfied that the best interests of the country now and in the future will be served by having a Government Party will Senator Murphy's remarks when he said that the proposals were sneaky, an underhand effort, unfair and unjust. It is not like him, it is not usual.

Mr. Murphy

But it is correct.

Mr. Flanagan

I do not want to deal any longer with all the expert suggestions as to how County Mayo could be divided. I do not think anyone who is in a position to be fair and just could divided the country up, except the Minister who has his advisers and all the information and data available to him.

I heard Deputy Hogan speak in the Dáil. I am quite satisfied that he could do a better piece of surgery, but then the Deputy is accustomed to operating with his patients under an anaesthetic. Of course, if the people are confused and blinded by misrepresentation, by vilification and by slander, it is quite possible that the people would get into such a condition that they would be glad of any sort of surgery. I suggest that if Deputies and Senators two months ago had been asked to carve up their own constituencies in the best interests of the people, there would not have been agreement between any two people and in the end the man who is responsible is the Minister.

The statements made last night that the present arrangement is one which is going to remain in force for ten, 15 or 20 years is not true. The Senator who made that remark knows that under the Constitution there has to be a revision of constituencies every 12 years. It is well known that the drift of population in the West from one area to another necessitates a revision of constituencies more frequently than every 12 years. The present revision of constituencies is based on the last census. It is quite possible there has been a movement of population in the city of Dublin, but the Minister has to act on one set of figures, and one set of figures only, and those are the figures of the population at the last census. I can see both justice and merit in the division of County Mayo. The Minister has made a good job of things.

Mr. McDonald

I do not know very much about County Mayo, but I have a few good friends there. I am inclined to agree with the point Senator Flanagan made when he complimented the Minister on the difficult task he had in getting around the hills, mountains and dales, but I am sure it is a happy coincidence that, when the dust had settled on the Minister's work, he found that he had a Minister neatly centred, one in each constituency. I do not wish to deal with any particular area in depth, because the constituency in which I live is, I think, the only constituency that has remained as it has been for the past 40 or 50 years, but I would like to make a few general comments.

It is now quite apparent that we shall have some revision of constituencies after each census and I would ask the Minister not to treat as sacrosanct the proposals he is now putting to the Oireachtas. Perhaps on the next occasion when a revision is necessary every possible effort will be made to restore to the counties the bits and peices that have been taken from them, not only in this revision but in the last one. I feel it would have been appropriate if possible to give back to County Wexford that piece of it which is at present in County Carlow. I am not making that as a suggestion. I am using it as an illustration. People have a great affinity with their own county and they are used to it. I think it is only right that every effort should be made to keep units in one place, as we know them, and as we have known them.

Last night Senator O'Donovan was rather sore at the mention of gerrymander. On reading through the Minister's text, I quote, "The question of county boundaries or rather of counties and their loyalties and the sentiments they attract is very important". Yet, on looking through the Bill, we find that the Minister has found it necessary to split parishes as well as counties and county boundaries. I do not agree that it was necessary to resort to these tactics. Some Senators are disappointed that there were not more proposals put forward as to how other people might have carried out this now necessary work. Yet, those very same people have drawn up a scheme which, in the opinion of many, is superior to the one before the House and it causes much less population disturbance as between one county and another. In the same way, Deputy Hogan of South Tipperary obviously spent some considerable time on a different scheme and yet—to some people—it bears nothing concrete. I think it is wrong that suggestions cannot be accepted. It is difficult to recall when the present Minister accepted an amendment to any of the pieces of legislation he has brought before the Oireachtas of late. Of all the Members of the Government, he has wasted two parliamentary sessions on his electoral reform efforts. The country is now suffering. We have strikes, lock-outs, sit-ins and so on, in every industry in the country and desirable legislation such as the long-awaited health proposals is shelved: no time is being allocated in Parliament for them. With the present difficult Health Act, under which local authorities and health authorities are working, the ratepayers are being saddled with an increase of up to 20 per cent to meet the health charge in the coming financial year. Yet, here we are, with practically another quarter of the year gone, discussing this measure. We are still on the subject of electoral reform. There are many more important items that this House and the Oireachtas could be discussing at this time.

I also read in the Official Report of Dáil Éireann that the Minister said that Dublin was cut into four-seaters because it would have been difficult to get geographical names for the three-seaters. Where did the Minister think he would get 35 geographical names if his proposals in the referendum had not firmly and definitely been dealt with last October by the people? I feel that the Minister has been ruthless in his effort to ram through this piece of legislation. This entire exercise is a disgrace. It is wasteful. The country at large will certainly have to pay for it in the year ahead.

Mr. Honan

These fulminations of the Opposition Parties against the Bill which is before the House remind me of the story of the old man who was going along a country road one day and came upon a small country pub. He knocked at the door and, even though it was within the hours of prohibition, he persuaded the old lady who opened the door to give him a "pint". When he got into the dimly-lit bar, the woman bent down under the counter and produced a "pint". After he took the first mouthful, the old lady noticed by his grimances that he was not pleased. She asked: "Is there something wrong with the `pint'?""There is," he said, "a mouse in this `pint' ". "Good gracious," she said, and removed the "pint", placing it underneath the counter. A little later, she produced a "pint" from underneath the counter and placed it in front of the man. He made no move to drink it. She asked him: "Is there still something wrong with it?" He said: "I will not drink the `pint'." Then she said: "I do not know what kind of a man you are; you will not drink the `pint' with the mouse in it and you will not drink the `pint' without the mouse in it." That typifies the attitude of the Opposition Parties to this Bill.

When the referendum was put to the people, a decision was given by the people, a decision on which this Government have now acted. They did so in accordance with the wishes of the people. However, that would not seem to be the case to judge by the complaints now being made by the Opposition Parties about this measure. If the people who are now so concerned about the breaching of boundaries had recommended acceptance by the Irish people of the tolerance contained in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, and if the people had accepted that recommendation, then we should not be having the type of discussion we are having here today.

I remember that a special meeting was called, at the behest of the Fine Gael members of the Clare County Council, to deal with a resolution from Fine Gael headquarters. They were exhorted to call a special meeting to consider it. Everybody who attended that meeting that day knew, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that a rejection of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill would result in a breaching of the Clare boundary: there was no doubt about that. The Fine Gael Party stood to gain either way. However, I was amazed when I found that the members of the Labour Party there, on instructions from their higher echelons, had decided to support Fine Gael. I was amazed because it must have been obvious to them that a breaching of the county boundaries must arise and that, therefore, the possibility of Labour's ever gaining a seat there was practically nil. Despite that knowledge, they exhorted the people to refuse to accept the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. If that measure had been accepted, the tolerance proposal in it would have been put into effect and this breaching of county boundaries would not arise. I could never understand the attitude of the Clare Labour Party members on that matter but I could well understand the motives of the higher echeons in the Labour movement in that regard. It was apparent to them that, if the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill was rejected, then three to four seats from the western counties would be bound to be transferred to Dublin and, in Dublin, they had a chance of winning them whereas they had no chance of winning them where they belonged.

I do not think all the present arguments against this measure will impress anybody. We had the cutting of the cake in our own hands. It is too bad, indeed, that the Opposition are not sincere. I remember that when the question of the breaching of county boundaries was raised here by many people they were chided across the floor of this House and told that these boundaries were created by King John and had no relevance in modern conditions. I do not see why, therefore, the Members of the Opposition Parties should shed crocodile tears today about this measure. Senator Fitzgerald has a solution for settling the position as it would affect Clare. Deputy Hogan, in the Dáil, had a different one, but they must not have consulted one another on this because they each have a different view.

Senator McHugh seemed to think because of the special position of Clare that county should have got preferential treatment. We cannot close our eyes to the other problem that would arise if this had been done. I should like to think that the Banner County would have got preferential treatment, but I cannot see any way in which this could have been done. If Senator McHugh were to suggest that a piece be taken from Limerick, I am sure he would be in trouble with his Fine Gael colleagues there because they in turn, wouuld have to get a piece from Tipperary or somewhere else. Everybody knew that the defeat of the Third Amendment proposals would bring this position about and that, no matter what solution were attempted, it would not meet with everybody's approval and that that defeat would have a reaction that would be felt all over the country. I am satisfied that, if we were to stay here until doomsday, we would not get unity on this question. I am satisfied, too, that finding ourselves in the position in which we are that the solution put before the House by the Minister is as good as anything else any other person would be likely to think of.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): Listening to the debate on this Bill I cannot but get the impression that there is an attempt being made by many speakers to represent those of us on this side of the House as people who wish to do something quite unjust and unnecessary and who, in the process, are getting a vicious delight in the doing of it. Lest people on the opposite side should convince themselves of their own vicious statements and propaganda. I wish to make it quite clear that I dislike this Bill just as many other people on this side of the House dislike it and dislike the situation brought about which makes this Bill necessary.

I support the Bill in that it is necessary in the circumstances, but I dislike it in so far as it necessitates the breaching of county boundaries to a greater degree than they have been breached in the previous revisions of constituencies. However, this is necessary if we are to keep within the Constitution. It was always necessary under the Constitution and it was necessary under the old Constitution of Saorstát Éireann. In view of the fact that so many speakers from the other side of the House have attempted to suggest coruption and improper conduct on the part of the Minister in devising this particular scheme, there are some things which should be said. I support the Bill because I regard it as being necessary, but it is the necessity for it which I dislike. There was nothing the Minister could have done to avoid the breaching of county boundaries except to have an alternative scheme that might be more suitable to Fine Gael or to any other Party.

The real difficulty was caused when a group within Fine Gael saw fit to take an action in the court to question an Article of the Constitution. I do not believe that that was the work of the entire Fine Gael Party but it was the work of a particular group of people— lawyers and academic gentlemen— within the Party. I have been told that this is so by some of my friends in Fine Gael who, themselves, were not in any way responsible for this decision. However, the result of that action was to place the Government in a straitjacket in which there was no flexibility and, if you like, no tolerance although I do not like the word "tolerance" which, perhaps, was a word thought up by some person in a Government Department. I should prefer the use of the word "flexibility" to describe that kind of situation. Being a sort of half-baked mechanic myself, I thought of things like nuts and bolts when I first heard the word. I was at a loss to know what was meant by it.

When dealing with the revision of constituencies, I had to refer to people in their absence, particularly those who may have been Members of the Oireachtas but, while I may appear to speak strongly at times, I am not a vicious person; I have succeeded in exorcising that characteristic out of my system long ago. I remember saying, not in the House but outside this House, to one of the principals in the particular law case which brought about this situation that this would mean a disastrous position in County Leitrim. I said at the time that I would burn an effigy of this person on the bridge of Carrick-on-Shannon. However, I did not get around to doing that. Many people who have now spoken supported that whole business which brought about the situation whereby the Articles of the Constitution in regard to the revision of constituencies must be looked at in the straitjacket which they are in because of the decision. I do not know much about court procedure, but I suggest it is still open to the people who are now talking to go to the Supreme Court to see if the decision of the High Court will be upheld by the Supreme Court. Perhaps there are still legally minded people in the Opposition who would like to carry out that exercise if the rules allow it. I think they do.

The situation is that it has now come to the level at which the people and the Party who have created this difficulty are getting so cynical, unjust and unfair that, after creating the situation, they want to flog it in order to get whatever political kudos they can manage from it. They do not blame those who started it off, but want to put the responsibility for this business on the Minister for Local Government or on the previous Minister for Local Government. That is really what is disturbing about this whole matter. We know the rather ugly suggestion of Senator McHugh that the Minister must have something sinister in preparation or otherwise he could not throw out this Bill so quickly after the defeat. The whole business was brought about when it was examined by the officials in the Department of Local Government and it emerged that county boundaries would have to be breached severely. That is why the Government came to the decision to give flexibility or tolerance but they were advised by all sorts of people not to agree.

Senator Hogan gave a good example of what happened in Clare. The county boundaries would have to be breached one way or another there. I do not think the people there fully understood the mathematics of the decision but the people opposing it did know that the situation would be so. After creating the situation and helping by misrepresentation to create the situation, we now have the suggestion from Senator McHugh—if I understand him correctly, which I may not have—that the Minister for Local Government and the Department of Local Government wanted to lose the referendum so that they could put across a situation like this in order that they might have more three-seaters in some places, and four-seaters in other places, with a view to carrying out what the people opposite call a gerrymander. I do not think it is a good thing that we should get down to suggestions like this in this House.

There are other speakers like Senator McDonald who did not make such suggestions and I recognise that also. I agree with Senator McHugh that you could have as many solutions as you have Members in this House. The simplest one of all under proportional representation, since that is a system of election, is to have the State all one constituency. The people who advocated proportional representation as a theoretical operation in the first instance, the academic supporters of proportional representation, had that in mind but that system was never applied to any great degree anywhere in the world. In the earlier elections to this House there was a situation in which all the candidates were on one ballot paper irrespective of panel or subpanel. I was elected when the situation was such. I remember that in the case of the Seanad the ballot paper was as big as the press table of this House and had 100 to 150 names on it. I remember how difficult it was to vote for every single candidate on it. It was a laborious piece of work.

I was sorely tempted to interrupt Senator Miss Davidson but because there are so few lady Members in the Seanad I refrained and tried to raise a question afterwards and then make a comment while Senator Sheehy Skeffington suggested I was trying to make a speech. That is why I did not interrupt Senator Miss Davidson. If you want to have that sort of representation of minority groups of all sorts and kinds the only way that can be achieved is by having the whole country in one constituency. Then you are likely to get candidates for bee-keepers, as representing the farmers, for grain growers as representing another section of the farming community, for Grand Canal openers and Grand Canal closers, for the Georgian houses.

Once you arrive at that situation you forget that the whole purpose of the election is to elect a Parliament to elect a Government. That is what an election is all about. That is what an election is for.

If we lose sight of that we will ultimately go further on the road towards disorder and chaos. I know that in every country of the world in which that sort of thing took place under any system of government, in the long run it was the poor and underprivileged who went to the wall, which is always the situation in every disorder. It is a fact of history that minority groups can make common cause against an existing system, but once they have done that and the existing system of things has broken up, they break up into confusion and fight amongst themselves. I agree it might be possible that if the State was one constituency, which would give the greatest order of representation to all sorts of people, whether they are farmers, businessmen, cranks or crackpots, the situation could arise in which minority groups could form a Government. Who then would represent the majority, the silent people? We are, I am afraid, coming to a stage where people will have to ask themselves seriously who will represent the majority, because Governments have become so impotent that they are unfit to do it. The trend seems to be for minority groups and the smaller they are the more vocal they become. They then want to put the dagger to Caesar's head.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair is a little distrubed with the length at which the Senator is dealing with the point. We are discussing the revision of constituencies.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): I accept the Chair's ruling. All that has been brought about by our attitudes in this matter. In the long run, we must have practical and cohesive constituencies if we want practicality in government, and most important, stability of government. While I regret the circumstances which have arisen to necessitate the introduction of this Bill I do support it.

A document called Document Number 2 has been circulated by Senator FitzGerald and I understand from listening to the debate that he was aided by Senator Dooge. The one merit it had was that it covered the whole country. It was unlike Senator McHugh's suggestion in regard to Clare but it did necessitate the transference of part of Clare to Galway. That point alone proves that Senator FitzGerald had a different attitude to Senator McHugh. The same thing happens all over the country. As a Leitrim man I cannot say I would like to see Leitrim in three parts, and I would therefore have a difference of opinion from some of my own colleagues as to how Leitrim should be changed. Senator Davidson spoke about Leitrim from information she had extracted from somewhere. Apparently she did not have any knowledge of the situation as it exists.

Since Leitrim has been bandied about so much in this House, in the same way as County Clare, I should say that Leitrim in its existing form was never a constituency. From 1923 onwards we had Leitrim/Sligo. For a short time we then had Leitrim with a number of electoral divisions of Sligo forming a three-seat constituency, the rest of Sligo forming another three-seat constituency. We then had Leitrim/ Sligo a five-seat constituency. However, the population shift brought about the situation where this inflexible straitjacket was put on and the situation became worse. We now have a situation where part of Leitrim is annexed to Donegal. It is no use the Opposition, either here or in the Dáil, saying that the people were not told. The Taoiseach went to County Leitrim especially to advise the people to vote for tolerance and for greater flexibility in those matters, and he further told them that if they did not take his advice he saw no way out except that part of Leitrim would have to be transferred to Donegal. The tragedy was that people who though they had a vested interest, or who thought they could use this as a means of whipping Fianna Fáil, irrespective of its merits, did not have any regard to the damage that was being done to rural Ireland by the transference of three or four seats from west of the Shannon to the city of Dublin. The people who took part in that campaign are now apparently, if I can take it from Senator McHugh, prepared to suggest that the Government deliberately wanted that situation brought about so that a measure like this could be introduced. I think it is a low level of cynicism if that is the type of thing that goes on. Senator McHugh was, in fact, the only Senator from whom I heard that. I do take exception to the way he spoke. I only hope that is the end of that sort of thing. There is nothing more objectionable than creating a situation which does damage and then trying to draw political kudos from it. But that sort of thing has happened before. I know of individuals who have done that sort of thing.

While I do not like the measure, I support it as being necessary. I do repudiate completely the suggestion that the Minister for Local Government deliberately brought about this situation so that he could carve up the constituencies in a way that was calculated to be to the advantage of the Fianna Fáil Party. If that were the case why did not Fine Gael and the Labour Party support the tolerance question and the single member constituencies? They were warned in advance that this would have to be done. Certainly, nobody can suggest that the Minister did not speak enough about it in this House when the other measures were being dealt with. Many people, like myself, felt that the Minister spoke far too long; be that as it may be said that I am also speaking too long.

Senator FitzGerald's plan had only one merit in that it covered the whole country. There was one weakness in it, which Senator McElgunn pointed out, that it did not show the existing situation. The Senator seemed to try to pretend that there would be less movement of population under his scheme, but he avoided comparing his scheme with the existing scheme. He dealt only with existing country boundaries and the present situation. He did not show the existing situation in regard to Roscommon-Leitrim, Sligo-Leitrim, or Waterford-Tipperary. The picture was only black and white because it suited Senator FitzGerald to do it like that. Without having the statistical background that Senator FitzGerald seems to have, I am prepared to suggest that if the existing situation had been shown it would be about the same, it might possibly have shown even less of a shift of population than under the scheme proposed in this Bill.

Mr. K. Boland

It depends on the interruptions, to a certain degree.

Mr. Murphy

I think we should continue and see how far we get.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the Senator proposing that we sit until 1.30 p.m. and make a decision then?

Minister for Local Government (Mr. K. Boland)

The first decision I have to make in replying to this debate is whether or not I should descend to the level of debate initiated by Senator Garret FitzGerald and continued by other Senator such as Senator Quinlan and Senator Murphy; whether I should, as they did, base my reply almost entirely on personal abuse and unsubstantiated charges such as the charge that my opening statement consisted entirely of a collection of untruths and that the Bill was nothing more or less than a gerrymander. I have to decide whether I should try to compete in personal vilification with the contributions of Senators Garret FitzGerald, Quinlan, Murphy and some others and substitute vicious personal attacks— attacks on their personal character—for argument. I may say I do not think I could compete successfully with them in this respect and I intend, instead, to try to extract from their contributions real criticisms of the Bill. That will not be very easy. For instance, in the case of Senator Quinlan, it was only in the closing stages of his contribution that he said, in effect, "Now, to deal with the Bill ..." The major part of his contribution, on his own admission, had not anything whatever to do with the Bill. It was only when he was concluding that he decided to deal with the Bill.

We have had, as was to be expected, the ritual and apparently obligatory allegations of gerrymandering. I suppose it is inevitable to expect this. The peculiar thing is that here, just as in the Dáil, we had allegations of skilful gerrymandering and, at the same time, the claim was made that the new scheme of constituencies would result in a resounding defeat of Fianna Fáil. That is not my interpretation of skilful gerrymandering. I understand the term "gerrymandering" to indicate an operation which produces a political result favourable to the Party that carries out the so-called gerrymander. If the result of this new proposed scheme of constituencies will be a resounding defeat for Fianna Fáil, then I think it can hardly be called "skilful gerrymandering". I think the more likely thing is, as at least one Deputy in the Dáil admitted—my colleague, Deputy Seán Dunne—that, in fact, the information on which to base a gerrymander is just not available in this country; that we have not got the knowledge of how people in the various electoral divisions and townlands throughout the country have voted in the past and, more important still, how they will vote in the future. Not having this information, it just is not possible for anybody to gerrymander constituencies to the advantage of their own political Party. I am perfectly well aware that Senators opposite know this just as well as I do but that they are riding to instructions in using this charge of "gerrymandering".

I think I might as well point out, in reference to a number of the contributions that were made from the Opposition benches, that, in a Fianna Fáil Government, Ministers do not act as individuals. I appreciate that, for Parties that have been involved in the type of Coalition Government we have had here, it must be difficult to grasp that fact. The position is that, in a Fianna Fáil Government, Ministers put forward Government policy: there is a policy decided on by the Government. Fianna Fáil, Minister do not decide to institute proposals of their own accord. That is how Fianna Fáil Government last. It is because the opposite is the position—under the type of Government we are offered as an alternative—that Coalition Governments do not last: they break up, even while they hold a majority in the Dáil, because they operate in the same manner as Senators opposite think we operate, that is, individual Ministers carrying out their own policies. There is no such thing, under a Fianna Fáil Government as, let us say, Deputy Blaney's agricultural policy or as Deputy Colley's industry and commerce policy or as my local government policy——

Mr. Rooney

And Deputy Blaney's foreign policy.

Mr. K. Boland

——there is just Fianna Fáil policy — Government policy.

Mr. Rooney

What about Deputy Blaney's foreign policy? The Taoiseach repudiated it.

Mr. K. Boland

I appreciate that, as far as Senator Rooney and his colleagues on those benches are concerned, the policy relating to the six north-eastern counties of this country is foreign policy, but, as far as this Government is concerned, as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned, as far as every individual in the Fianna Fáil Party is concerned, from the Taoiseach down to cumann members, the policy with regard to the six north-eastern counties is internal domestic Irish policy and not foreign policy.

Mr. Rooney

Why did the Taoiseach repudiate what Deputy Blaney said?

Mr. K. Boland

Senator Rooney and his colleagues on the Opposition benches represent the Party that arranged to have created here two separate countries. They represent here the Party that accepted the infamous Boundary Agreement and ratified it in the Dáil and registered it at The Hague as an international agreement. We never accepted that. So far as every individual of the Fianna Fáil Party is concerned and so far as every supporter of Fianna Fáil is concerned, there is only one country in this island. It is all one country and it is not foreign policy.

Mr. Rooney

You recognised stormont—both Taoiseachs.

Mr. K. Boland

We do not. We do not recognise the right of two separate states to exist here. What Senator Rooney does not appear to appreciate is that his Party's policy of recognising this as a permanent solution and of registering it at the International Court as an international agreement has been rejected. This arrangement of theirs was abrogated by the people themselves in enacting the Constitution of 1937. Senator Rooney is over 30 years out of date in that regard. There is no question, then, of this being foreign policy as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned——

Mr. Rooney

You recognised Stormont.

Mr. K. Boland

——or that they have nothing to do with that part of our country. The point I wanted to make is that, under a Fianna Fáil Government, each Minister acts on behalf of the Government.

Many of the arguments put forward against this Bill are, in fact, arguments in favour of one or other of the proposals for the amendment of the Constitution which were recently rejected by the people. For example, complaints that were made about the size of the constituencies, about the diversity of interests between the people in one part of the constituency and another part of it—particularly when these people are, in some cases, resident in different counties—are arguments in favour of smaller constituencies, in favour of what we proposed, namely, single-seat constituencies. Complaints about the breaching of county boundaries, about the attachment of part of one county to another county, are arguments in favour of the proposals we put to the people to allow a certain minimal of scope in order to take account of things like that. It is, of course, much too late now for the Opposition to be arguing in favour of one or the other of these proposals.

Senator FitzGerald put forward the question as to why the Constitution requires this Bill now and why it was suddenly discovered that we must have a revision of constituencies earlier than the maximum 12 years, as specified in Article 16 2º subsection (4). Of course, Senator FitzGerald knows the reason for this. He was here during most of the debate on the proposed amendments to the Constitution and he knows that the necessity for this came about because of Parliamentary Questions having been put to me by members of his own Party as well as by members of the Labour Party. He knows that, as soon as the report of the 1966 Census was published, questions were put to me by my colleague, Deputy Dunne, asking "If it is proposed to revise the Dáil constituencies before the next election in view of the population changes since the last distribution of seats". He knows, too, that Deputy Fitzpatrick, the Fine Gael spokesman on Local Government matters, pressed me on that question and that I also had similar questions from Deputy O'Leary and from Deputy Sweetman. I was pressured in supplementaries on this question by Deputies L'Estrange, Cosgrave, Dunne, Clinton and Dillon and as a result of these question the position was examined and it was quite clear from the constitution and from the interpretation put on the Constitution at the behest of Fine Gael as a result of the official action of the Fine Gael Party that a revision of constituencies is now required in order to comply with the terms of the Constitution.

Senator FitzGerald knows that the Constitution says that:

The ratio between the number of Members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency as ascertained in the last preceding census shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.

Fine Gael procured an interpretation from the courts of the phrase "so far as it is practicable" and it is clear that at the present time the constituencies do not comply with the terms of that section of the Constitution which says that the ratio shall "at any time" be the same. At the present time the ratios are not the same and therefore it was clear that the demand made in the Dáil by Opposition that the constituencies should be brought into conformity with the Constitution was a demand that would have to be complied with. Therefore, it is quite clear that this must be done and it is also quite clear why it has to be done and where the responsibility for it lies.

Mr. Rooney

It is a reflection on the courts to say that Fine Gael procured the decision.

Mr. K. Boland

It is no reflection on the courts. The court did not of its own accord come forward with the interpretation; Fine Gael procured it. I think then it is quite accurate for me to use the word "procured". It is no reflection on the court and there is no suggestion that the courts were in any way wrong in this regard.

The Article which Senator FitzGerald quoted indicates the maximum time that there can be between revisions of constituencies, but it is quite clear that the Constitution lays down that this equality of population per Deputy shall exist "at any time". Since 24 of the present 38 constituencies are not in conformity with the Constitution, the demands of the Opposition for a revision now must be conceded.

Senator FitzGerald says that the bringing forward of these proposals now assumes that all Governments prior to this have acted in ignorance of the Constitutional provisions but, of course, that is exactly what has been established as a result of the Fine Gael action in the courts because, from 1922 up to and including 1959, the Constitution was interpreted by all Governments and by all Parties in the Oireachtas in a certain way. However, as a result of the Fine Gael action in the courts it was established that all Governments and all Parties from 1922 up to 1959 were wrong.

Throughout this debate we have had this sudden concern of the Opposition Parties for the sanctity of county boundaries. I describe it as "sudden" because it completely contradicts what their attitude was when it was relevant and when something could have been done about it but, of course, they did have the same attitude when the 1961 revision of constituencies was before the Oireachtas. However, they changed their attitude in between and at the time when it was proposed to make it possible to exercise a certain very small amount of scope in order to take into account the practical consideration of county boundaries, their attitude was completely different. In this connection, I quote Professor Dooge at column 1228 of volume 65 of the Seanad Debates of the 10th July, 1968:

but the position is that the counties do not necessarily correspond with the natural communities of Ireland as they stand today and it is, therefore, rather distrubing that the Minister in charge of the physical planning of this country should be obessed with the idea of the sanctity of county boundaries.

Further on, he says:

As I remarked in passing earlier, sticking within counties will not necessarily give us reasonable constituencies.

Still further on, he says:

Therefore, it is a mistake to make overmuch of the idea of the administrative counties.

That was the attitude of the Opposition Parties when it was proposed to make it possible to take account of county boundaries. Now, when they have succeeded in making sure this would not be permissible, they suddenly become concerned about this breaching of county boundaries.

Senator FitzGerald went on to make the case that by making changes in the constituencies in the South Leinster area we could avoid some of the things that are being done in the North Leinster area in which he apparently included Monaghan and Cavan. That is a rather peculiar suggestion. It happens that in the South Leinster area there is not any need to make changes. The constituencies there happen to conform with the requirements of the Constitution. The constituencies in the other part of the area that he thinks should not be touched do not conform with the Constitution. His solution involves things which we consider objectionable, such as the creation of a new five-seat constituency of Monaghan-Cavan and a new five-seat constituency of Carlow-Kildare. Under our proposals we keep so far as is possible the constituencies that are there complete. We are keeping a constituency of Cavan, of Monaghan, of Louth, of Meath, and of Kildare. Under the suggestions put forward by Senator FitzGerald the constituencies of Cavan, Monaghan, Kildare and Carlow-Kilkenny would completely disappear. In order to keep these five constituencies of Cavan, Monaghan, Louth, Meath, and Kildare we have to make boundary adjustments but in our scheme we keep those constituencies that have always existed and level a number of others untouched.

Apart from the boundary adjustments the only material changes in those constituencies is that Kildare loses the seat made up in 1961 by the addition of areas from Meath and Westmeath. Senator FitzGerald went on to challenge my statements that most county boundaries must be breached. That statement in my opening speech obviously referred to the principles on which the Bill is based and which were specified in the opening speech. It meant that if you accept these principles then most county boundaries must be breached. I was asked by Senator Miss Davidson why have I changed my mind in regard to county boundaries and the undesirability of breaching them. I have not changed my mind about the undesirability of taking parts of one county and putting it into another. It is objectionable and undesirable and not required by any democratic principles but it is required by the Constitution and continues to be required by the Constitution because the Opposition Parties misrepresented the proposals to the people and the people decided this was necessary and should be done. I have not changed my mind. County boundaries are being breached in this Bill because the Constitution requires it to be done and for no other reason. We asked permission to avoid doing this. We asked for a small amount of scope, a smaller amount of scope than is available in any other democracy we know of and because of the campaign of the Opposition Parties, who are now complaining of what has to be done, our proposals were rejected and we are required to do what is being done under this Bill, or something very similar.

I want to point out that I did not say, either in my opening remarks or on any other occasion, that the least possible number of people will be voting in other than their own counties under these proposals. I said the least amount of disturbance is being caused bearing in mind the principles I mentioned here already, bearing in mind the desirability to have the least disturbance of existing constituencies and bearing in mind the desirability that when people have to be transferred out of their own counties it is better to transfer a significant number rather than an insignificant number, and bearing in mind the undesirability of creating new, straggling, unwieldly five-seat constituencies. Senator FitzGerald sees some inconsistency in my argument that the creation of a new five-seat constituency of Cavan-Monaghan is undesirable, and that it would be too large and straggling, while at the same time the constituency of Laois-Offaly which is greater in area is left undisturbed. The reason is that Laois-Offaly as it stands is within the requirements of the Constitution and there is no constitutional need to change the constituency or to reduce it from a five-seat constituency. That would only be done because of the desirability of having smaller constituencies in themselves. We did not think that was sufficient reason for disrupting the present pattern of representation in the area. I agree that the constituency of Laois-Offaly is far too large and unwiedly to expect any Deputy to look after it properly. It is of course not correct, as Senator FitzGerald stated, that the maximum distance in the Cavan-Monaghan constituency would be 60 miles. The distance between Iniskeen and Dowra is 104 miles. One of the principles in the Bill was that no new five-seat constituencies would be created. Only two remain, and they remain because there is no need to disturb them because they are, as they exist, within the constitutional requirements. The move under the Bill is towards smaller constituencies, towards constituencies which will be easier to represent effectively and, as Deputy O'Donnell put forward during the referendum debate, which will make it more feasible for the people to give an effective decision. As a result of the Bill we will have 26 three-seat constituencies, 14 four-seat constituencies and these two five-seat constituencies remaining.

The Opposition are apparently now very concerned about the sanctity of county boundaries. They now see the enormity of breaching them. I have seen this all along. Fianna Fáil have seen it; our attitude has been consistent. It did not change between 1959 and 1961 and it did not change between 1961 and 1968. It has been the same all along.

In the Second Reading debate in the Dáil I indicated what appeared to me to be the only way in which we could avoid any breaching of county boundaries, a scheme which would involve the grouping together of counties in multi-county constituencies and involve constituencies returning a much greater number of Deputies than at present. Although, as I pointed out, this would be moving much nearer to the intention of the inventors of the system of proportional representation, much nearer to what would be desired by the illustrious Miss Lakeman, who we are assured by Senator FitzGerald actually exists, there was no enthusiasm for this type of solution.

What I suggested could be done was that the three Counties of Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim added together without any addition from anywhere else, could return ten Deputies under the present Constitution; that the Counties of Mayo and Roscommon could be grouped together to return nine Deputies; Clare and Galway grouped together to return 11 Deputies; Limerick and Kerry grouped together, justifying 13 Deputies, and had that constituency been in existence it would have had the very pleasant experience of having had three by-elections already there. No doubt that would be a desirable thing.

Counties Tipperary and Waterford could be grouped together to justify ten Deputies; Cork County would have 11 seats; Cavan-Longford-Westmeath would form a seven-seat constitutency; Louth-Meath-Monaghan a nine-seat constituency; Kildare-Laois-Offaly an eight-seat constituency; Carlow-Kilkenny-Wicklow-Wexford 12 seats; Cork city six seats; Dublin County 11 seats; leaving 27 seats for Dublin city which would be arranged as three nine-seaters or in a number of other ways.

Mr. Flanagan

I think an all in one constituency would be better.

Mr. K. Boland

That would be much nearer the wishes of the illustrious Miss Lakeman and her devotees on the opposite side of the House. I put forward this suggestion in the Dáil, pointing out that it would be nearer to the theory of proportional representation. It would also get over the necessity of breaching county boundaries, but as I said, I found no enthusiasm for it. I did not find any Deputy in the Dáil who was anxious to represent a constituency of 11, 12 or 13 seats.

It has been alleged again that I have failed to deal with either Senator FitzGerald's or Deputy Hogan's proposals in regard to this matter of revising constituencies. I recall dealing with them on a number of occasions. I would first like to say I disagree with Senator O'Reilly when he says they were comprehensive. They were not. They did not deal with the whole country. They did not attempt to distribute the seats in the Dublin or Cork areas and they did not deal with County Mayo. Apart from that, I suppose one could say they were fairly comprehensive; indeed, they were the most comprehensive suggestions of the many put forward by the Fine Gael Party. In the Dáil every Fine Gael Deputy who spoke had a different soluseater tion, each being based on the desirability of retaining his own constituency as closely as possible to what it is at present. At least these two suggestions did purport to cover the country as a whole.

A feature about those two proposals is that they are both based on the theory that all that is required is to have the smallest possible total transferring of population from one county to another, based on the theory that all that is involved here is the matter of percentages and that so long as the total percentage transferred from one county to another is small the individuals do not matter, and so long as by some rigging of figures you can show the total percentage is not great, then everything is satisfactory. I think, in fact, that the smaller the number of people who are transferred from one county to another the greater the sense of isolation and the sense of defranchisment they feel because of their transfer, and, therefore, the transfer of significant population is better. The transferring of a large number of people will form a significant element in the new constituency which cannot, therefore, be ignored with impunity by any candidate or elected Deputy.

In my opinion figures that were put forward of the numbers being disrupted in this way were faked. In fact, either of these solutions would actually disturb more than have been disturbed under the Bill, not to mention the creation of new unwieldy two-county constituencies. In my opinion when it is necessary to have a transfer of population from one county to another it is better that we should transfer a number that will form a significant factor in the new constituency.

For instance, I believe that in the transfer between Waterford and Tipperary, the fact that there was a substantial number of Waterford people has enabled a Deputy to be elected for that constituency who resides in the Waterford area. Because of that, the sense of frustration of the people so transferred has been considerably lessened. Similarly, there will be less frustration felt as a result of the proposed transfer from Clare to the new Clare-South Galway constituency than there would be by transferring a small number of Galway people who might be submerged in the large County of Clare. It is quite clear that it would be possible for the Clare people who will be attached to this new constituency to elect a Clare Deputy, so that there will be none of that feeling of frustration in the area.

The same argument applies to the other areas, but to Senator FitzGerald and Deputy Hogan they are purely matters of percentages and if the percentage can be kept to five it does not matter if the individuals concerned feel themselves lost in their new constituencies. We happen to take a different view of that, but, as I said on a number of occasions, there are very many different ways in which this whole problem can be dealt with. We are satisfied, and become more satisfied every day the debate proceeds, that the proposals we have put forward are the least objectionable of any that have come to light so far.

Our proposals involve the least combined disruption of the existing pattern of Dáil representation and of county boundaries, but there is a combination of those two things there. The Opposition apparently think we should ignore the fact that there is an existing scheme of constituencies there and just concentrate on keeping the percentage of people voting outside their own counties as low as possible. We do not agree with that approach but I agree it is a point of view. I think the approach in the Bill is justifiable. In the West, as has been pointed out, in the province of Connacht, in the counties of Donegal and Clare there can be a total allocation of 30 seats. This is a very large area and in our opinion constituencies returning more than three Deputies would be excessivly large in that area.

The peculiar thing is that the very Senators who argue against the creation of ten three-seat constituencies there in the West also argue that the constituencies that are being proposed in that area are too large. The fact of the matter is that you cannot make them any smaller than three-seaters. Each constituency must return at least three Deputies. The smallest constituency we could have in the west of Ireland is the three-seater. In view of the sparseness of the population, the vast area involved and the fact that there were only 30 seats available, I think the solution of ten three-seat constituencies was the best. I think this has been done in the best possible way.

It is a fact that there is only one of those seven counties that could be dealt with entirely within its own boundary in accordance with the constitutional provisions. That is obvious to anybody from the figures of population in the census report. The only county in the west of Ireland that could be dealt with entirely within its own boundary is the County of Mayo and that has been done. The population of County Mayo is 115,547 which is acceptable under the Constitution for six seats and that is the way in which it is dealt with. But none of the other counties could be dealt with within its own boundary—even if we had not to consider neighbouring counties.

The population of Donegal is 108,549 which is too high for five seats and too low for six seats. The population of Sligo is 51,263 which is too low for the minimum of three seats. The population of Leitrim is 30,572 which, again, is too low for three seats. The population of Roscommon is 56,228 which, again, is too low for three seats. The population of Galway is 148,340 which is too high for seven seats and too low for eight seats. The population of Clare is 73,597 which is too high for three seats and too low for four seats. Therefore, bearing in mind the position that no county there, except Mayo, could be dealt with within its own boundary and bearing in mind the other principles to which I have referred about the desirability of having three-seat constituencies and the undesirability of having to transfer a population constituting an insignificant element in the new constituency, I am satisfied that the solution we put forward is the most reasonable one for that area.

In regard to the Eastern area, the present constituencies of Waterford, Wexford, Carlow-Kilkenny, Wicklow and Laois-Offaly are within the requirements of the Constitution and these are not being touched under the Bill. We have decided to leave those constituencies as they are. The solution is also based on the decision to retain the existing constituencies of Longford-Westmeath, Cavan, Monaghan, Louth, Meath and Kildare which are traditional constituencies. This does involve adjustments as between the Counties of Cavan, Monaghan, Louth, Meath and Kildare but we do retain these constituencies. We think that this retention of the traditional pattern of constituencies is better than the solution put forward by the Opposition which involved the creation of new five-seat constituencies of Cavan-Monaghan and Kildare-Carlow and adjustments between two other counties and which involves the disappearance of a number of traditional constituencies.

In the Munster area, excluding Clare which has been dealt with with the West, the approach was based, first, on adhering to the Cork County Borough boundary. This involved taking back part of the County Borough area which is in one of the rural constituencies and this, plus changes in the distribution of population, involved the adjustment of the other county constituencies. It involved, for instance, the reduction of North-East Cork from five to four seats and other adjustments between the constituencies. But, apart from that, there has been no fundamental change in the scheme of constituencies in the Cork area.

Similarly with regard to Tipperary. The approach was to make the minimum adjustment between existing constituencies. The same is obvious with regard to Limerick and Kerry. I was asked, I think by Senator Sheehy Skeffington: "Are not some of the three-seat constituencies which are proposed unwieldy?" I say: "Yes, they are, but I cannot have constituencies smaller than three-seaters."

In the Dublin area, which is a small area, we have to have 38 seats. The proposals involve 10 separate constituencies. I think that that is enough. To go in so far as possible for three-seat constituencies in that area would involve even a greater number of constituencies and more confusion in the Dublin area. Dublin had to accommodate four extra Deputies. Obviously, therefore, there had to be a completely new scheme drawn up for the Dublin area. In addition to squeezing an extra four Deputies into the area, we already had to take account of the substantial shifts in population within the area itself. A number of Deputies, mainly the Labour Deputies in the Dáil, argued that this extra allocation of four seats to the Dublin area was not enough and some Fine Gael Deputies stated the same thing. Here, in the Seanad, Senator Rooney put forward the same argument that even with these four extra seats in the Dublin area, we still were not giving enough. I admit that, in so far as this whole matter is concerned, there is one thing I have completely failed to do and that is to find out just exactly what Fine Gael policy in this matter is.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

What about the Report Stage amendments in the Dáil?

Mr. K. Boland

I am glad to see that Senator FitzGerald has at last found it possible to be present. No doubt he will make his presence felt so long as he continues to find it possible to be present. I was here during the Senator's contribution. I have dealt with it to a certain extent already. I do not know if the rules of procedure in this House require me now to go back all over it again—now that the Senator has made his belated appearance. I have no doubt he would not be here at all only he assumed that, by now, the House would be adjourned and he came here to have his lunch, not to hear the reply to the debate——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Minister is totally uninformed.

Mr. K. Boland

——but having found that the House is sitting and having decided that it would not be ethical for him to go and have his lunch as he had intended to do, he wishes to make his presence felt here by interrupting in this disorderly way.

I have already explained to the House that I did not propose to follow Senator FitzGerald's example—that I did not propose to base my reply, as he based his contribution, purely and simply on personal vilification and abuse but that I would try to extract from his contributions and from the contributions of some of his colleagues, some constructive criticism of the actual Bill. I do not feel called upon to go back over all I have already said with regard to some of the criticisms of Senator FitzGerald but the point I am trying to elucidate is whether the policy that the allocation of four extra seats to the Dublin area is not enough is official Fine Gael policy. I think it has been fairly well established that this is official Labour Party policy but Fine Gael refused to say if this is so and certainly they have refused to say where the extra seats that they claim should be allocated to Dublin are to come from. Perhaps, at a later stage in this debate, Senator Rooney may elaborate on his complaint that there are not enough seats allocated to Dublin and he may specify where the other seats should come from.

Neither the Labour Party nor the Fine Gael Party have so far specified where the over-representation is to be remedied by the allocation of an unspecified number of extra seats to the Dublin area.

Now that Senator FitzGerald has decided to come into the House, I shall deal with his claim that, because there are three existing five-seat constituencies in the Dublin city area, these could, in fact, be retained. The fact is that the population according to the 1966 census of the Dublin North East constituency is 139,163 so that even if it were decided to retain a five-seat Dublin North East constituency, it would bear little relation to the existing and, I might say, almost traditional Dublin North East constituency.

Similarly with the Dublin South Central constituency where the population is 90,687, a figure which is too small for a five-seat constituency and, therefore, could not be retained in its present state either. Dublin South West has a population of 100,221 which is within the requirements of the Constitution but it could not remain as it is at present constituted because of the fact that neighbouring constituencies would require to be adjusted.

Therefore, even if we were to have five-seat constituencies in Dublin city area they would bear little resemblance to the existing ones. One of the many allegations of falsehood on my part that were made by Senator FitzGerald was that it was dishonest to say that there were only two ways in which seats could be allocated in the Dublin area. Of course, that is not what I said at all. I said "two ways on a uniform basis"—on a basis of opting either for three-seat constituencies or four-seat constituencies but, of course, there are innumerable ways in which one could allocate 38 seats if one ignores everything but the actual figures. I am just as well aware of that fact as Senator FitzGerald is.

There are many ways in which it could be done but on the basis of a uniform approach of trying to have the maximum of four or three seaters, there are only these two ways.

Professor Dooge

There are three.

Mr. K. Boland

There is no way, as was alleged both here and in the Dáil, in which it is possible to deal with the Dublin city area without having at least one constituency crossing the river Liffey.

Senator Rooney argued that the approach was to have three-seat constituencies in the west and four-seat constituencies in the east.

An Cathaoirleach

May the Chair interrupt the Minister? The Chair understands that it was agreed to suspend business for lunch at about 1.30 and it is now after 1.45 p.m. and I wish to ask the House what the wishes of Members are with regard to this suspension of business?

Business suspended at 1.50 p.m. and resumed at 2.45 p.m.

Mr. K. Boland

I was dealing with the argument made by Senator Rooney who said that in this Bill we were aiming to have three-seat constituencies in the west only, and four-seat constituencies in the east. I pointed out it was clear that the tendency was towards three-seat constituencies particularly in rural areas where the constituencies would be large owing to the distribution of population. This is with two objects in view, firstly, to have reasonably-sized constituencies from the point of view of representation and secondly because we believe, with some members of Fine Gael—notably Deputy P. A. O'Donnell—that three-seat constituencies make it more likely that it would be possible to have a definite result in an election.

There are, in fact, 26 three-seat constituencies proposed in the Bill. Of these ten are in the western area comprising Clare, Donegal and the province of Connacht; six in the rest of Munster; six in the east of the country; two in the Dublin area and two in Cork city. There would be more only that it was permissible under the Constitution to leave a number of constituencies untouched as they are at present. I am speaking of Wexford, Carlow-Kilkenny, Laois-Offaly, etc. Otherwise the Government would have decided to have even more three-seat constituencies. So far as the larger constituencies are concerned the two five-seat areas remain. They did not need to be altered in any way because they comply with the Constitution. There are eight of the 14 four-seat constituencies in the Dublin area and of the other six one is the result of the reduction of the existing five-seat constituency to a four-seater, and the other five four-seat areas are four-seat constituencies already. They are South Tipperary, East Limerick, Longford-Westmeath, mid-Cork and Wexford.

One point I did not really expect to have to deal with here was the suggestion made by Senator Rooney who claimed that the River Liffey should be the boundary between North and South County Dublin. He claimed that the area north of the Liffey would suffice as a three-seater. I was not so surprised that Deputy Clinton should put forward a suggestion similar to this in the Dáil because he had already pointed out the fact that he was more familiar with conditions in the County of Meath than in Dublin.

I would have thought that Senator Rooney would have some knowledge of the distribution of population in the County of Dublin. If he has not got a copy of the census report himself, perhaps he would get one and get some statistically-minded member of his Party to go over it with him. He will see that the population of the Swords electoral area, No. 1 area as it is called, was 31,412: the population of the Lucan area, the No. 2 area, was 26,410. The total of these two figures is 57,822. It is true that if you divide that total by three the resulting figure is 19,274 and that if you could consider the Swords-Lucan electoral areas on their own, that area could constitute a three seat constituency. But you cannot consider them on their own because the total population of Dublin County is 795,047. If you subtract 57,822 the figure is 737,225. Even if it were possible to allocate the remaining seats on the basis of strict and exact mathematical equality of population per Deputy the resultant population per Deputy would be outside the limits that are allowable under the Constitution. Even if North County Dublin was to be a three-seat constituency then it would require some addition from outside the No. 1 and No. 2 electoral areas. The only place from which it could come would be from the Tallaght electoral area and the area of Walkinstown happens to be the most northerly part of that area.

The choice, therefore, was whether to take only a small part of the Walkinstown area and add it to the No. 1 and No. 2 electoral areas to make a three-seat constituency or to take practically the whole of that area and make it a four-seat constituency. Even apart from that and even if it were possible to have a three-seat constituency comprising only the Nos. 1 and 2 electoral areas, as Senator Rooney should know, at least half of the Lucan, or No. 2 electoral area, is in fact south of the River Liffey, so that the total population of County Dublin north of the River Liffey would hardly be sufficient for a two-seat constituency let alone a three seater. You cannot have a two-seat constituency. Senator Rooney should know that this No. 2 electoral area comprises areas south of the River Liffey, in Lucan, Palmerston and Clondalkin. As I have said, even to have a three-seat constituency would require some additional population from the only neighbouring electoral area, Tallaght, or No. 3, therefore, the obvious place was Walkinstown. I am not inclined to accept that Senator Rooney is as ignorant of this matter as he pretends to be. It is just that he believes people will not examine the facts closely and he will get away with this type of deliberate misrepresentation.

Senator Quinlan asked me if I would promise that this is the last time we would have to do this. He knows I cannot promise any such thing. In fact, it appears likely that this type of operation will be necessary after every census in the future, and it is largely because of his Party. He posed the question: why cannot we show an example to the country and resolve our differences? I think Senator Quinlan was trying to be funny because if he examines his own approach to every question that has arisen he will see it is based on the very simple principle that everything proposed by Fianna Fáil is wrong and anything proposed by Fine Gael is right. His is a completely black and white approach to things, but surely he can see, so far as he himself is concerned, that there can be no question of resolving our differences since he is animated solely by this principle that anything Fianna Fáil suggests is wrong?

There are some minor corrections. Senator Sheehy Skeffington said at one time we had 14 five-seat constituencies. That is not correct. The maximum number of five-seat constituencies at any time was nine. Senator O'Sullivan maintained that Senator Nash had said that foreigners, non-citizens, could vote in this country. What Senator Nash said was that to be counted in the census people did not have to be nationals and it is on the result of the census that distribution of seats has to be based.

Both Senator FitzGerald and Senator Quinlan said that Fine Gael would insist on introducing a commission. First of all I want to point out that under the Constitution it is the Oireachtas that must revise the constituencies. Therefore, without a constitutional amendment it is not permissible to have constituencies decided by a commission. Apart altogether from that is the question of what type of commission are we to have? As far as we are concerned we think that the people most competent to decide on the revision of the constituencies are Members of the Oireachtas. We put forward what appeared to us to be the most balanced type of commission possible. Three Deputies from the Government side and three Deputies from the Opposition side presided over by a High Court judge. The Opposition have only recently conducted a nationwide campaign that such a commission was merely a front for gerrymandering. I do not know what type of commission they are now proposing. In fact, I do not believe they are considering one at all. In other words, it is hard to see how we could expect any commission on which there will be more than one Fine Gael member to arrive at any new solution because, as we saw during the debate on this Bill in the Dáil, we had as many different solutions from the Fine Gael benches as there were Fine Gael Deputies who spoke.

I do not know who it was but one Senator stated that it was unrealistic to expect that I would ever accept an amendment, and that I had never been known to accept an amendment. In fact, on the Committee Stage of this Bill, which is the latest Bill I have had in the Oireachtas, I accepted three amendments from Deputy Sweetman and one from Deputy Farrelly. In addition, I introduced amendments myself as a result of representations from Fine Gael Deputies. Then on the Report Stage of the Bill I accepted an amendment from Deputy Sweetman and from Deputy L'Estrange.

As far as I can see the question is whether in revising the constituencies we should completely ignore the existing scheme, the established pattern of representation, or whether we should accept the idea of new, large, straggling five-seat constituencies—two-county constituencies—and whether we should accept the Fine Gael principle that when it is necessary to transfer people from one county to another it is better to make the number to be transferred so small that they will be of no significance and will be completely submerged in the new constituency, or whether to have reasonable regard to the existing scheme of constituencies, to aim to have reasonably workable constituencies from the point of view of size and to decide it is better that a population transfer from one county to another should be of sufficient size to make their presence felt in the new constituency.

I agree with Fine Gael on one point at any rate. I agree that the system based mainly on three-seat constituencies is more likely to produce a definite result to an election than a system of constituencies returning larger numbers. I agree with them that in those circumstances it is unlikely that Fine Gael will ever get a majority. If they believe that in a system of constituencies consisting mainly of three-seat areas Fianna Fáil must always get the majority, I am not going to argue. From my own experience I can see that there is at least as much dissatisfaction with the arrangements that have been proposed in this Bill among the Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party as there are among Deputies in the other Parties and there is at least as much personal satisfaction with the new arrangements among the Opposition Deputies as among Fianna Fáil Deputies.

The main point that seems to be made here is whether or not this, in fact, is gerrymandering. The peculiar thing is that when we proposed, not a very long time ago, that there should be a requirement to adhere to existing county boundaries, which were not established by Fianna Fáil, this was alleged to be for the purpose of gerrymandering, and now that the Opposition have had their way and we are required instead to ignore county boundaries and take account of actual numerical population in different areas, this has also been described as gerrymandering.

As I pointed out, the term "gerrymander" implies that the Party carrying out the operation will get an electoral advantage from it, but the case made here was that it was gerrymandering and still Fianna Fáil were going to suffer as a result. This Bill is not of our choosing, neither in timing nor in its actual provisions. So far as we are concerned, we think it would have been quite reasonable to wait for a revision of constituencies until 1973, which is the maximum date we could wait in accordance with the Constitution, and we are only introducing it now because of the pressure exerted on us in the Dáil by both Opposition Parties, and because of the fact that it is clear the Constitution requires us to accede to that demand.

We also thought it reasonable to avoid the breaching of county boundaries and we made every effort to get permission from the people to do that. For instance, as I pointed out, we retained Cavan, Monaghan, Louth, Meath and Kildare constituencies but we could only do that by transferring portions of the population from some of these counties into others. So far as we are concerned, we do not see anything wrong or undemocratic in retaining these constituencies without doing this unnecessary butchering of existing counties. It is the Opposition Parties who have insisted we cannot do that. They have insisted if we want to retain Cavan and Monaghann constituencies we can only do that by taking population from Meath or Louth and making up the population of Meath by transferring from Kildare. We tried to avoid this. The Opposition said "No" and they succeeded in getting the people to say "No." The responsibility for this Bill is theirs, not ours. We are merely conforming with the constitutional requirements.

In conclusion, I want to assure Senators FitzGerald, Quinlan and Murphy that I regard the very viciousness of their personal attacks as a very great personal compliment indeed. So long as I continue to evoke these personal attacks upon my character, I can be reasonably sure that I am proceeding along the right lines.

Question put and declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

Next Stage?

Senators

Now.

Professor Dooge

In view of the fact that the Minister, in his reply, has used certain figures as a basis of argument, some on units of population, I think that even the Minister cannot be serious in asking that the next Stage be taken now. I think it would be unfair to the House and to those of us who might wish to put down amendments that it be taken earlier than next Wednesday week. We shall not have the Minister's reply in our hands until early next week. It would not be possible for us to have this in our hands in time to put down amendments for next Wednesday. Therefore, I put the counter-proposal for next Wednesday week.

Mr. Farrell

Could we not meet next Tuesday, 11th instant?

Professor Dooge

Possibly Tuesday, 18th.

Mr. Farrell

If that is so, could we get all Stages?

Professor Dooge

I think every endeavour would be made to facilitate that. I do not think there would be any attempt to hold up this Bill or to filibuster. If it is taken on that week, I suggest it should be taken on separate days. If we take the Committee Stage, I suggest we be allowed an overnight period to take the Report Stage.

Mr. K. Boland

Since this is a Bill which mainly concerns the other House, which was debated at length there and to which a number of amendments were put down there, and since I still have the Estimate for my Department to go through the other House and at least four Bills, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the Seanad to meet two weeks in succession.

Professor Dooge

It is not that the Seanad has any desire to be uncooperative on this matter but this Bill is relatively complicated. The Seanad is always in a difficulty when it is asked to take the Committee Stage of a Bill within one week. It is in the position of not having the Official Report of the previous week in its hands. This is always a serious disadvantage. On a minor Bill we are prepared to do it, but this is a major Bill. The Minister has at least once repeated a mistake he made on the Second Stage: he repeated it in his reply. We must have a chance to examine the whole of his concluding speech.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Does the Opposition desire the Bill to be taken on the 19th?

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

19th and 20th, with the aim of getting through all Stages.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It is understood that we shall complete the Bill?

Mr. Crowley

Not on the same day.

Mr. K. Boland

I understood that Senator Dooge agreed to Tuesday, 18th.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 19th March, 1969.

Professor Dooge

If the Committee Stage goes on for two days, if necessary we could meet on the Friday.

An Cathaoirleach

The House has decided that the Committee Stage will be taken on Wednesday, 19th March, 1969.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

And it is also understood that we shall complete it?

Professor Dooge

Yes, we shall do our best.