Section 3 and also sections 4 and 5 depend on the matter which is in the Schedule. Since the amendments which have been put down to the Bill are amendments to the Schedule it would probably facilitate the debate if sections 3, 4 and 5 were postponed until the Schedule has been debated and then taken after the Schedule has been disposed of. Is that procedure agreed to?
Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1968: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Will there be a separate discussion on it?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Yes, it will be discussed when the Schedule has been disposed of, if necessary. There will not be a separate debate on any section on which matters were debated in the Schedule, only on matters other than those debated in the Schedule.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, by agreement postponed.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
I wonder whether it would be in order to raise a point that has concerned me about the polling districts in cities. The present arrangement is that where a polling district in the city is of such a size that more than one table is required for voting purposes, the allocation of areas within it to tables is done, I understand, on an alphabetical basis in regard to the names of the streets. This has the disadvantage that you sometimes get quite a big polling district in which the density of population is not very great and sometimes adjoining streets are far apart from each other. If the streets were organised geographically it would be possible to have people coming from the same geographical area coming to the same table.
There is no reason why the returning officer should not do that and arrange it in the way that the Senator suggests.
Perhaps if the Minister would tell them that he thinks it is a good idea—would suggest to the returning officer to do that——
It is the local authority who produced the register, and the returning officer follows the register.
People have to go by the register.
It depends on how the register is arranged.
The Senator thinks that the register should be compiled on that basis?
Perhaps it could be done that way for the future.
There is no need for legislation about it anyway.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, to delete the entry relating to Carlow-Kilkenny and to substitute the following:—
|
Name |
Area |
Number of Members |
|
Carlow-Kildare |
The administrative area of County Carlow and the ad- ministrative area of County Kildare. |
Five |
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I would like to ask the House to agree that amendments 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 19 be discussed together since they are closely inter-related and that one decision, the decision on amendment 1, be sufficient to dispose of all the amendments.
Agreed.
Agreed.
These are amendments which must be taken together because the whole scheme is inter-related regarding this part of the country, East Leinster, and are designed to provide a solution to the problem of keeping within the Constitution by maintaining the county boundaries and in my opinion provide a tidier and neater solution to this problem than the Minister's one. The scheme proposed by the Minister is one which involves considerable disturbance of county boundaries especially in North Leinster and into the Ulster counties of Monaghan and Cavan. Indeed it is difficult to see why such a complicated system was devised unless there is, as I previously suggested, some ulterior motive. A system which involves taking two separate bits of Louth plus a bit of Meath and giving them to Monaghan and giving separate bits to Meath which gets compensated by a bit of Kilkenny added to Meath seems to me a highly complicated round about way of solving what would appear to be a relatively simple problem.
I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say in opening the debate and a good deal of his reply to it. Unfortunately I missed portion of his reply but I have read it carefully since and I have tried to discover the basis of reasoning on which the Minister founds this extraordinary constituency distribution. His line of argument seems to be as follows: First of all he lays down a series of propositions each of which would appear to be a justification for this particular distribution, but they are principles which are not themselves very well designed to meet every case. One of the principles is "no five-seater constituencies". The justification for this is not very evident. The Minister has suggested that they are too large and cumbersome and that there has been a trend towards smaller constituencies. This is perfectly true, but it is not a very satisfactory explanation for something to say "We are going on doing what we have been doing before" particularly when it is largely the same Government doing this previously. We want to know the thinking behind this. There is no doubt a reduction in the size of the constituencies which has gone on since early in the history of this State, and which makes the system less proportional than it would otherwise be. There are arguments for and against this. The argument against is that it is less fair because it gives the largest Party an extra bonus in seats. The argument for is that by so introducing this bias, which is not a very big bias, you do slightly enhance the chances of an overall majority which otherwise a country with three Parties might frequently not provide. I can see the two sides to that argument, but the Minister has not developed it here.
I am not sure that he has justified the case for no new five-seater constituencies at all. One can see that there is a trend and a pattern in the Government's actions over decades in reducing the number of large constituencies and eliminating the very large ones. There was a nine-seat constituency and there were certain seven-seaters and six-seaters, and the Government's policy has been to reduce these on the ground that this is both making the areas smaller and more convenient for the TD who represents it, but it is also making it less proportional. The argument that the smaller constituencies are more convenient for the TD is one which, not only because I am a Senator, I find unacceptable. In that I am reinforced by the judgment of the High Court in which Mr. Justice Budd, in a memorable statement which ought to be engraved on the hearts of every Member of the other House and perhaps of this too, made it clear that it is no part of the function of legislators to concern themselves with administrative affairs and to spend their time representing their constituents. This was a ruling in a Constitutional case of very considerable importance, and the whole tenor of the discussion in 1959 and 1961 and when this matter came up again in the recent debate has been that this matter of convenience of the representative, of the TD, is the important thing. I do not accept this as being the over-riding consideration. As between two solutions one of which is more convenient than the other one would naturally choose the more convenient, but that this consideration should be the over-riding one is something which stands the democratic system on its head—that the system has to be designed to suit the legislators and not the legislators to serve the country.
However, the principle of no new five-seater constituencies is one which introduces great rigidity into the system now proposed, and it seems to me that it is designed so to do. Even if we were to accept the point of view that there should be smaller constituencies, which I do not accept because I do not accept the reasons for it, it does not seem to me necessary to apply it even if the consequences of the principle being applied on a great many occasions are many more county boundaries having to be crossed and many times the number of people put outside their own counties than would otherwise be necessary. Even if one accepts the trend towards smaller constituencies there is no ground for accepting that as a rigid principle in all circumstances and totally regardless of the consequences to the electoral body there should, as a matter of principle, be no new five-seater constituencies whatever.
The second principle is one which has suddenly emerged into the light of day into this discussion and which is in notable opposition to the earlier one that we should not unnecessarily disturb existing counties, that constituencies should not be shifted. The Minister, who had a great concern for county boundaries in the other debate, is giving them a very low priority now and is terribly concerned to keep existing constituencies as they are. We have had for example Wexford and Carlow where 4,398 people are transferred from one constituency to the other. The Minister, far from pressing for their return to their homeland of Wexford about which he was deeply concerned in the debate on the Constitution Amendment Bills, is now concerned that these poor people should not be disrupted again by being sent back to Wexford because they have since the other debate become so comfortable where they are that they do not want to return and it would be very sad to disturb them. This sudden change needs more explanation. Is the Minister suggesting that they are so happy where they are that they do not want to be sent home and would even resent being changed again? I rather doubt it. It is quite clear that here again a new principle was invented for the purpose of justifying a particular distribution designed to benefit a particular political Party in the next election.
The third principle which the Minister introduced and one of even less rationality is that constituencies in Dublin City should be devised on a uniform basis. It is quite clear what this means. It transpires that the Dublin constituencies must be divided either into nine three-seaters or into one three-seater with six four-seaters. The uniformity between these two alternatives is not entirely clear. They are not uniform as between each other. They are different principles, one insisting that the constituencies be the same and the other that they be different.
I suggested on the Second Stage that there was another multiplication of four three-seaters that would provide a similar result. However, the Minister in his reply very carefully ignored this and simply reiterated that his principle is to have either nine three-seaters or six four-seaters and a three-seater. This requires more clarification. This is a blatant attempt to gerrymander the Dublin constituencies because, in Dublin, Fianna Fáil, with an optimism for which I can only give them credit, believe that they will procure something like 38 to 42 per cent of the votes. Most detached observers say the Government might make the 38 to 42 per cent grade in some of the Dublin constituencies. The dishonesty of the Government approach is evident.
I turn now to a principle which it is necessary for me to consider in order to put forward this amendment. This is the principle which was put forward by the Minister at the end of his remarks when he said that it is desirable to minimise county boundary disturbances. The Minister's concept of a minimising disturbance is a very interesting one. From a mathematical point of view, it is quite extraordinary. I shall read the Minister's hand-onheart declaration which is reported at column 147 of No. 7 of the Seanad Debates, dated March 6, 1969 and I quote:—
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 further on at column 148:—
County boundaries are being breached in this Bill because the Constitution requires it to be done and for no other reason.
That is a simple statement saying that there is no alternative and that the Constitution requires this.
The Minister knows as well as I that this is not true. He knows that the three amendments which I am putting forward, all of which would fulfill the requirements of the Constitution, would, between them, avoid four-fifths of the disturbance of county boundaries which he is proposing. I shall come now to this interesting concept of minimisation. Bearing in mind the principles already referred to by the Minister and his desire to have the least possible disturbance in every constituency, the Minister says that when people have to be transferred out of their own county, it is better to transfer a significant number rather than an insignificant one. The principle of minimisation therefore becomes the principle of maximisation, causing a much greater breaching of county boundaries and involving 100,000 people.
The Minister does not succeed in convincing me. My sense of arithmetic is offended by his concept of the principle of minimisation. The solution which I propose would create one new five-seat constituency replacing another five-seater right beside it. In fact, one county—Carlow—is already in a five-seat constituency and my proposal involves the five-seater being in Dublin.
Those of you who were here for the debate will recall the Minister's particular concern for Wexford but he now seems to have lost this concern. My solution is to restore Wexford so that it is one county constituting a constituency with no disturbance. I proposed that Carlow/Kildare be made a single constituency just as Carlow/Kilkenny now is, but the Minister has a vital opposition to this. He tells us that it would be too straggling a constituency, not "straggly" but "straggling". The word "straggling" is an interesting one. It is a word that occurred in connection with one of the constituencies devised by the Minister, that of East Mayo. It bears such a striking resemblance to one of the Derry City constituencies that one could call it gerrymandering. It bears a striking resemblance to one of the Derry City constituencies in shape. No doubt it was designed for the same purpose.
Straggling is perhaps a neutral adjective to apply to it. There are many others which straggle all over the map in a most extraordinary way. There is one that goes from the middle of Leitrim through South-West Donegal with a long strip over almost to County Londonderry, as it is described on the map. I should say that the maps I am using——
County Derry.
Allow me to complete what I am saying—to County Londonderry, as it is described on the map. I should like to explain that I purchased this map from the Ordnance Survey and Derry is described as Londonderry, Laois is described as Queen's County and Offaly is described as King's County. This is an interesting example of the Government's sense of economy because these maps were printed originally about 1910 or 1915. There is no date on them. Apparently they must have printed more than they needed at the time and they are continuing to sell them with a total disregard for any of the little changes in geographical nomenclature we have adopted in the short history of the State—only 50 years.
When I said it was described as Londonderry I knew the Minister would jump on me immediately. He considers I am some kind of true blue Tory.
I do.
I am only quoting from the map which the Minister's Government sold to me. It is he who sold it, not I. I should say, because the Minister is so sensitive on this point, that in legislation which his Government introduced into the Dáil dealing with such places as Derry it was always described as Londonderry. In the Northern Ireland Act, 1958, introduced by Fianna Fáil, the Schedule refers to Derry as Londonderry. This is his word, not mine. I am more used to saying Derry.
However, as we are not actually gerrymandering Derry but other parts of this island at the moment, I will not pursue that line any further. The objection to Carlow/Kildare is that it is a straggling constituency. It straggles for something like 66 miles as the crow flies. The Minister's constituency of South-West Cork straggles for 66 miles, his South-West Donegal for 64 miles, his Sligo/Leitrim for 63 miles, his West Galway for 64 miles, his West Mayo for 64 miles, and his Cavan for only 58 miles, and East Mayo for 56 miles as the crow flies.
The Minister tried to contradict me about mileage which in fact I had not measured very accurately. He told me that some constituencies from one end to the other were more than 100 miles. His crow does not fly the same way as mine.
We go on the road.
We do not travel like the crows.
My figures are as the crow flies in all cases. If the Minister wants to compare mileage by road from one end to the other——
The crows would be violating another county's air space.
If the Minister wants to calculate mileage from one end of the county to the other by road, then let him do the same for both counties and let him say how far it is by road from the middle of Leitrim to the top of Donegal because that is his constituency. I bet if you tried to do that by road you would not do it in much less than 120 miles. So with comparable figures the fact remains that the constituency I propose for Carlow/ Kildare is no more straggling than the Minister's proposals for other counties. Those are the only grounds he gives. It would be too straggling and it would be a new five-seater. Half of it would be new because the other half is in a five-seater already. For these two vitally important reasons we must chop up the electoral map.
Under my proposals, Wexford is reintegrated in the boundary which the Minister was so concerned with in the other debate. Kildare becomes a three-seater. Carlow/Kildare becomes a straggling five-seater which is offensive to the Minister's sense of proportion. Cavan/Monaghan becomes a five-seater but the Minister said it is too big, not straggling but too big. I have not get the mileages with me but when you measure it you find that Cavan/Monaghan in its length and breadth is similar to a large number of other constituencies the Minister has worked out and put before us. It is no bigger in its length and breadth than some of the constituencies put forward by the Minister.
The only boundary crossing required in the whole of Leinster in order to fulfil the requirements of the Constitution is that one piece of Meath be allocated to Louth or of Louth to Meath. In order to minimise disturbance it is proposed that a small part of Meath, 6,644 people, be transferred to Louth making Louth a four-seater. You could do it the other way around and it involves transferring another few thousand people. If the Labour Party wish to have it the other way around I will happily vote for their amendment.
I am concerned only to show here, as Deputy Hogan showed in the Dáil, how this could be redistributed in such a way that only one county boundary in the whole of Leinster and south Ulster is crossed, and only 6,000 or 7,000 people disturbed. The Minister knows as well as me that this is right and can be done. He has invented faked reasons for not doing it: the straggling shape of Carlow/Kildare, the size of Cavan/Monaghan, and the principle of no new five-seaters. These are the only grounds put forward for not adopting the simple, straightforward and obvious division of this area of Leinster and south Ulster, almost half the country in all, which could be dealt with as a single boundary crossing in Louth and Meath. These are the only reasons he gives for not doing it.
Instead he proposes that the present situation between Wexford and Carlow/Kilkenny should be maintained and that the 4,398 people, over whom he wept crocodile tears in the other debate, should now remain where they are, apparently, so comfortable in Carlow/Kilkenny that they cannot be banished back to their native county of Wexford for which they have apparently lost all loyalty since the last debate. He proposes that a chunk of north Kildare be transferred to Meath, a transfer of 5,041 people. On the one hand he gives to Meath a piece of Kildare and he takes it away with the other. He takes away first of all one chunk of 3,829 people in Cavan but that is not enough. He takes away another 1,827 people and still that is not sufficient punishment for having received 5,041 people. He then takes 3,956 people from another part of Meath and gives them to Monaghan. Meath has to either gain or lose in this distribution. The fact that that has to be done is no excuse for taking three bits off it and giving them to Cavan and Monaghan and adding another bit on to it at the bottom involving a total disturbance of 12,500 people, twice as many as need to be disturbed and in four areas rather than in one.
Monaghan receives from Louth two further chunks. As well as 3,950 from Meath is gets 5,761 from one bit of Louth and 1,837 from another so that all the frontier changes involved between Meath and Louth on the one hand and Cavan and Monaghan on the other involve a total disturbance of about 17,000 people, all of it totally unnecessary. In all there are seven pieces of territory transferred in the proposal, almost 27,000 people are banished outside their counties to support the vital principle that we should not have a straggling constituency like Carlow/Kildare, no five-seaters and not having a constituency as big as Cavan/Monaghan.
That is the Kevin mander son of Gerry.
Smart, very smart.
I think the case is clearly made. I do not think there is much point in wasting further time on it. We want to hear now from the Minister whether in his opening speech and in closing the Second Stage of the debate, when he spoke with his customary brevity because of the lack of time he had available, and the fact that he did not want to detain the House, if he perhaps did not give the full reasons. Perhaps he has more valid reasons which he wanted to spring on us. Perhaps I have walked into a trap. Perhaps reasons so compelling as to leave me glued to my seat will emerge from his lips and with that hope in mind I will sit down.
I have always made it clear that there are innumerable ways in which this revision of constituencies that is required by the Constitution as interpreted at the behest of the Fine Gael Party can be carried out. Senator FitzGerald believes according to himself that this solution that he proposes in these amendments is, in his own words, a neater solution. It is possible that on paper it may appear to be neater. I am aware of course that it is only figures and maps that are of concern in this matter so far as Senator FitzGerald is concerned.
Out-of-date maps, too.
Senator FitzGerald is in the position of being prepared to approach this whole matter of revising constituencies by ignoring the existing position. I do not think that that is a realistic way of approaching this matter. Senator FitzGerald's figures with regard to the position——
I want to ask are the constituencies——
I do not think there is anything to prevent Senator Sheehy Skeffington speaking if he wants to. I do not think he usually is inhibited. Does Senator Sheehy Skeffington want to make a contribution? If so, I will give way and listen to him.
I will just ask if the constituencies are to be——
Is this in order? I do not think that is the rule of debate. I do not think there is a question of cross-examination, of question and answer. If Senator Sheehy Skeffington wishes he can do it in an orderly fashion, unlike the way he interrupted the proceedings of the Commemoration of the First Dáil, well and good. Senator Sheehy Skeffington has not his Internationalists with him here now, to deny me my right of speaking. I am entitled to speak now and the Senator is entitled to speak and he will be allowed to do so.
I understood that the Minister wanted to allow me to put the question——
I am prepared to allow the Deputy to speak on this now if he wants to do so but I am not prepared to conduct this debate on the basis of cross-examination by Senator Sheehy Skeffington or anybody else.
A point of order——
I am not prepared to agree to the Senator continuing this debate on the basis of cross-examination. I can shout as loudly as Senator Sheehy Skeffington when he has not got his professional disrupters with him, when he has not got his Internationalists here to deny me the right of free speech. Is this a point of order?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair is anxious to know who wishes to address the House. The Minister is in possession. The Minister should listen to the Chair.
Unlike Senator Sheehy Skeffington, I am prepared to sit down while the Chair is speaking.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Sheehy Skeffington should resume his seat. The Chair is anxious that this debate be conducted in an orderly manner. Earlier it was indicated that it was perfectly in order for the Minister, if he wishes to do so, to yield to Senator Sheehy Skeffington. I should like to ask the Minister does he wish to yield to Senator Sheehy Skeffington?
Yes, if he wants to make a contribution on the Bill but I am not prepared to conduct this on the basis of cross-examination by Senator Sheehy Skeffington.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the Minister yielding to Senator Sheehy Skeffington?
No.
That is a wonderful way of saying "no".
I wish to raise a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister to speak at this juncture on an amendment proposed but not seconded?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
An amendment does not require to be seconded on the Committee Stage.
I spoke because I was called on by the Chair to speak. After being called I waited to see if any Senator wished to make a contribution. Senator Sheehy Skeffington wishes to make a contribution in a disorderly way.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The interests of the debate would best be served if the Minister continued on the amendment and if Senator Sheehy Skeffington refrained from interruption.
In giving figures of population disrupted by these series of amendments, Senator FitzGerald ignores the fact that they involve the disruption of constituencies involving the total population of Counties Carlow and Monaghan. Kildare and Cavan could also be included in that. Senator FitzGerald's solution involves something he may consider of no importance but which I and the Government happen to consider is of importance. This is a question of opinion. It involves the disappearance of three existing constituencies—Cavan, Monaghan and Kildare. It involves another thing we consider objectionable but which Senator FitzGerald does not; it is a question of opinion. It involves the creation of two new unwieldy straggling two-county, five-seater constituencies— Cavan/Monaghan and Carlow/Kildare. If it was Senator FitzGerald's function to do it he would see no objection to the creation of these two constituencies. We think that would be undesirable. The Bill before the House proposes the retention of all the existing constituencies in this area. Only those that require to be disturbed in order to comply with the terms of the Constitution are, in fact, being disturbed. The existing constituencies that comply with the Constitution are being left undisturbed—Wexford and Carlow/Kilkenny. We are retaining a constituency of Cavan, a constituency of Monaghan, of Louth, of Meath and a constituency of Kildare. The adjustments that are necessary in order to comply with the Constitution in these constituencies are being made. It is purely a question of approach. What is proposed in the Bill involves the least combined disturbance of population and of the existing pattern of representation in the area.
Untrue.
Senator FitzGerald's solution is in my opinion a much more objectionable one because it involves the disappearance of three existing constituencies and the creation of these two new unwieldy and in our opinion undesirable constituencies. With regard to the question of Dublin, I do not know whether it is relevant at present or not——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Strictly it does not arise, but I will allow a passing remark.
Senator FitzGerald apparently sees something inconsistent in the fact that on the Second Stage of this Bill I reiterated my belief in the undesirability, as a general principle, of breaching county boundaries, of taking people from one county and requiring them to vote in another county. My opinion on this matter has never changed and is still the same, and if necessary I will repeat it here for the benefit of Senators. I consider it undesirable and it is not required by any democratic principle; it is merely required by the words that happen to have been used in the Constitution.
A Fine Gael Constitution.
The proposal in the Bill is that there will be three-seat constituencies in Cavan, in Monaghan, in Louth, in Meath and in Kildare. I think it would be much preferable if all these constituencies consisted of these counties only. I cannot see there would be any breach of democratic principle by having three Cavan Deputies elected only by the people of Cavan, three Monaghan Deputies elected by the people of Monaghan, and so on, but because the Constitution requires this giving and taking from one county to another this has to be done.
I think Senator FitzGerald disclosed the whole difference in approach between the Government's solution and his solution when he discussed this on the basis of mathematics. Apparently Senator FitzGerald considers this is simply a matter of mathematics and if you can show that the total percentage of people voting outside their own county is small this is a matter of no importance according to the Senator. There is no appreciation of the fact that it is individual people who are concerned. We believe it is undesirable that people should be required to vote outside their own county, but when this has to be done then it is better that the people who are so disrupted from their own county should be of such number as to form a significant factor in the new constituency.
I do not think there is any need for me to go into this in great detail. It is purely a matter of opinion. We believe our solution, which retains all the existing constituencies in so far as it is possible to do so and which disrupts only those which are a breach of the Constitution, is the best one. We believe that the two new suggested five-seat constituencies of Cavan/Monaghan and Carlow/Kildare are undesirable and while our solution retains the five-seat constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny it is not of such an objectionable nature as Carlow/Kildare. There is only a small border between Carlow and Kildare and little communication between them whereas there is a substantial border between Carlow and Kilkenny and most parts of Carlow are within a reasonable distance of Kilkenny.
This I consider a more desirable type of constituency than that of Carlow/ Kildare and it has the added advantage that during the years people have been accustomed to voting in the constituency of Carlow/Kilkenny. I am satisfied that the solution proposed is a much more reasonable one and involves a much smaller total disruption, both of people from their own counties and of the existing pattern of representation.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is now after 6 p.m. What are the arrangements for an adjournment? An adjournment to 7.15 p.m. has been suggested.
Business suspended at 6.10 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.
I listened with attention and interest to the Minister's reply to what I had to say on this amendment, and it seems to me that he places very great stress and importance on retaining existing constituencies. This was the main theme of his address. He made other points about the size of the constituencies, but the main burden of his remarks was about the importance of retaining the existing constituencies.
I find this interesting because while my memory can be at fault at times I have a quite clear memory of the recent referendum campaign both in the Dáil and the Seanad and in the country, and my recollection is that it was fought on the slogan as far as this area of argument goes of retaining our constituencies. Under our present distribution counties are chopped up in various ways, and there are six or seven cases where the county boundaries are crossed, but the great claim in that campaign was that if the electorate accepted the amendments to the Constitution it would be possible to restore the county boundaries in their integrity and avoid any breaching, or almost any breaching, of the boundaries.
The Minister made a slight qualification that there might be some circumstances where one-sixth might make it possible in particular cases, but that in almost every case it would be possible to preserve the county boundaries and that the variation in our present population distribution would not involve changing the existing constituencies. The bit of Wexford, for instance, could be put back into Wexford and similar other changes could be made in the country where perhaps counties are at present in part allocated to other counties.
The Minister's case in the referendum was "let us not change the existing constituencies, which have the unhappy characteristic that in seven instances they have crossed county boundaries; let us preserve the county boundaries which King John and God have handed down to our people. We are greatly attached to them and we must get back to them." He made quite a good case though it did not seem to me that our democratic system should be turned upside down for the sake of it. We could possibly have agreed that they should be preserved, and I in fact put forward a scheme of distribution under the existing system which was not, indeed, as good as the scheme now put forward, which is the product of Deputy Hogan, designed to minimise the disturbance of the county boundaries. This was the Minister's great concern—to keep the county boundaries and to get away from the present constituencies which cut across them.
This evening, however, as I indicated I thought he would in my opening remarks, he has adopted a very different line. We must preserve the existing constituencies even where they cross county boundaries. These 4,398 people in Wexford, we were told, were deplorably cut off from their homeland under the present system and the Minister promised to restore them to their homeland after the referendum went through. But now we are in the position where there is every opportunity to restore them but the Minister says "No, they must stay where they are in the present constituency. What matters is to preserve the present constituency."
It would not require an opponent politically to detect certain inconsistencies in this approach. Let us indeed accept the Minister's contention that for some reason unknown to us the vitally important thing now is to keep the constituencies in the counties but I would still like to be clear what he means by keeping to the counties. In one instance, in the case of Monaghan, it means having a constituency called Monaghan but adding to it a number of people equal to almost half the population of Monaghan from two other nearby counties.
The Minister considers that to be keeping the constituency. I want to be quite clear that this is what he intends even though up to one-third of the total population comes from outside the county, that this does not involve this idea of keeping to the county boundaries. I take it that I am interpreting the Minister correctly and that this means that he feels that he is keeping Monaghan although it includes 11,500 people from Louth and Meath. Keeping to the county does not mean keeping to the exact boundary but that it must be contained within the boundary subject to an adjustment of up to one-third. That seems to be the Minister's view as I interpret it.
This is an interesting viewpoint, and I wonder whether we could make some progress on this basis. I would be more than willing to accommodate the Minister, and I think we should try to meet him on it. If the Minister glances at the next amendment before us—I do not want to dilate on it at this stage since we will be discussing it later, but I would point out to the Minister that he has chopped up Connacht, taking 40 per cent or 45 per cent from Clare and adding it into a large chunk of East Galway and calling it the new constituency of Clare/Galway, and he divides East Galway to make a new constituency of North-East Galway.
I take it we can all deal with the whole country on this amendment.
If the Minister will allow me——
You, but not I.
I am sorry. I did not think the Minister was entitled to raise a point of order in this House. If the Minister is sincere — and I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt for a brief interval, until he speaks the next time—he will accept our amendments. If he has a sincere attachment to the constituencies as they are at present — he has been converted since the referendum—he will accept our amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15 and 16, which are grouped together, and he will be happy to maintain the existing constituency pattern. If the Minister is not sincere and is not prepared to accept the amendments, I am afraid I will have to press them.
It is true, as Senator FitzGerald says, that one of the two proposals at the referendum was on the subject of keeping the county boundaries intact. What we were asking the people to do was to give us some small amount of scope in regard to the population per Deputy for the purpose of adhering to the administrative boundaries. It is a fact that we put this case as strongly as we could in this House, in the other House and to the people of the country. It is also a fact, and one to which the Senator did not refer, that the people rejected this and that the people decided not to give us any scope whatever, though we were only asking for a smaller amount of scope than is available in any known democracy. However, the people decided that this would not be available and the result of this decision is that county boundaries may not be adhered to.
Is it compulsory to break them now?
Yes, it is compulsory to disregard them in case where the population per Deputy in adjoining counties is not closely related to the national average of population per Deputy. Therefore, the approach to this matter could not be to adhere to county boundaries. It would have been possible to approach this question in the manner in which Senator FitzGerald has approached it, but we think that the overall solution put forward by Senator FitzGerald is a more undesirable one than the one that is being put forward in the Bill.
I do not, for one moment, suggest that the arrangements of constituencies put forward in the Bill are desirable from any point of view but I say that it is the least objectionable solution that has emerged so far and that Senator FitzGerald's solution either for this part of the country or for any other part is much more objectionable and would give a much less effective pattern of representation for the people.
However, the result of the referenda was that it was not possible to adhere to county boundaries in this particular area that we are now discussing. It was not possible to retain a Cavan constituency containing the county of Cavan only. It was not permissible to do that with regard to Counties Monaghan, Louth, Meath or Kildare but, on the other hand, it was possible to retain the existing constituencies of Wexford and of Carlow/Kilkenny. I am convinced that the solution we decided on is the least objectionable one. It would have been possible for us to have eliminated certain constituencies that have existed since the foundation of the State and created these two new five-seat, long, straggling constituencies about which Senator FitzGerald is so enamoured.
We could have done this for the sole purpose of putting a comparatively small number of the Wexford constituency people back into their own county probably only temporarily. The retention of the existing constituencies of Cavan, Monaghan, Louth, Meath and Kildare involved additions from other counties to Cavan and Monaghan. These additions could only have come from the places from which they have come and they, in turn, involve the transfer of the excess population from Kildare to Meath. That is all that has been done in so far as this is concerned.
I would point out that the proposals in the Bill for this area involve also a small deviation from the national average of population per Deputy which is 20,028. In the constituencies in the Bill, the population per Deputy is 19,485 in Monaghan which is 543 less than the national average; 20,642 in Louth which is 614 in excess of the national average. The extent of the deviation would in fact have been less only for the fact that in the Dáil I accepted certain amendments from Deputies Sweetman and Farrelly which distorted the deviation from the national average to some extent.
Under the amendments put forward here, the range would be from 19,041 in Louth which is 987 fewer than the national average and, in fact, is very near to the maximum deviation that appears to be permissible under the decision of the High Court. In Wexford it would be 20,859 which is 831 in excess of the national average of population per Deputy so that another aspect of this solution is that it involves practically the maximum range of population per Deputy in the different constituencies.
With regard to the western area, on which Senator FitzGerald based so much of his case, I think it would be better if we deal with that area when we come to it. I do not see any point in raising that particular smokescreen now. In regard to the east of Ireland, I will say that the solution put forward by Senator FitzGerald is a possible one but, in my opinion, it is much more objectionable than the solution which we propose and it involves a much greater departure from the existing situation. Another undesirable aspect of it is the creation of these two unnatural five-seat constituencies of Carlow/Kildare and Cavan/Monaghan, neither of which has ever existed before.
Senator FitzGerald conveyed the impression that there was previously a constituency of Carlow/Kildare but, of course, that is not so. On the other hand, the constituency of Carlow/ Kilkenny has been in existence since the foundation of the State, with the exception of a short period from 1935 to 1947. I am quite satisfied that the proposals in the Bill, while they are not proposals that we like, are the best that have been put forward so far and that they are the best that can be done under the Constitutional provisions.
I do not think there is much point in spending any more time on this because the Minister clearly is not going to bring the debate any further. The Minister is riding two horses simultaneously and I do not think it is necessary to emphasise the hypocrisy of his approach.
We are now in a position where the Minister in the referendum debate was concerned with the keeping of county boundaries; at least, this was the concern shown by him during the campaign. I hope Senators will hold on and not go at this stage. Listen to the third stage of the saga, when the Minister will say that in the West constituencies are of no importance and that the important thing is to have three-seat constituencies everywhere in the hope that Fianna Fáil will get two out of every three seats.
The question is that amendment No. 1 be agreed?
Vótáil.
CARLOW/KILKENNY.
A division has been challenged. I am putting the question in the following form: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Carlow/Kilkenny stand part of the Schedule."
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 14.
Tá.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brennan, John J.
- Browne, Seán.
- Cole, John C.
- Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Fitzsimons, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Thomas P.
- Killilea, Mark.
- McElgunn, Farrell.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- Martin, James J.
- Nash, John Joseph.
- Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
- Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
- O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
- Ormonde, John.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Patrick W.
- Ryan, William.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Teehan, Patrick J.
Níl.
- Conlan, John F.
- Crowley, Patrick.
- Davidson, Mary F.
- Dooge, James C.I.
- FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
- FitzGerald, John.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- McDonald, Charles.
- McHugh, Vincent.
- Mannion, John.
- Murphy, Dominick F.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Rooney, Éamon.
- Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Browne and Farrell; Níl, Senators O'Sullivan and McDonald.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared negatived.
On a point of order, as I came in I had my hand on the door to walk in, and the Captain of the Guard locked the door. I think this is very unfair. I had a long way to come.
The Captain of the Guard was quite in order. The bell had rung for a long time and Senators had plenty of time.
I had my hand on the door as the Captain locked the door.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
CAVAN-MONAGHAN.
Question "That the entry in relation to the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan stand part of the Schedule", put and agreed to.
I am not sure if the Leas-Chathaoirleach has conveyed the ruling of the Chair with regard to amendment No. 3, but as this group, amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, and 16 relate to the revision of the constituencies of Clare, Clare-South Galway, West Galway, North-East Galway, Roscommon, Longford-Westmeath, Sligo-Leitrim, Donegal-Leitrim and North-East Donegal, they form a composite proposal, and accordingly a decision on amendment No. 3 would cover the amendments in the group.
CLARE.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In pages 4 and 5, to delete the entries relating to Clare and Clare-South Galway and to substitute the following:—
|
Name |
Area |
Number of Members |
|
Clare |
The administrative area of County Clare and the District Electoral Divisions of Ardamullivan, Gort, Beagh, Kil- beacanty, and Ballycahalon in the administrative area of County Galway. |
Four |
The amendments which have been grouped together, are concerned essentially with the alternative disposition of constituencies in Connacht and neighbouring counties. Once again there is a clear conflict between the proposals of the Minister as they stand in the Schedule and the proposals contained in the amendments which are now put forward. At this stage of the debate, when we have had discussion on the Second Stage as well as a comprehensive debate on the disposition of seats in Leinster, the differences between the Minister's viewpoint and the viewpoint of those of us on the Opposition Benches have become clear. It is, therefore, only necessary to underline, as it were, what our differences are in regard to the disposition of seats and constituencies in the western part of the country. The Minister has admitted repeatedly and without equivocation that the proposals which have been made from these benches would result in less disturbance of people from one county to another than his proposals.
It would be hard for the Minister to deny this, because while there might be argument in regard to what the exact figure was in the units place or the tens place, one would only have to look at the figures involved in hundreds, and sometimes in thousands, to see that there was a very distinct difference. Nearly all the cases with which we are concerned here, and the proposals made by the Minister, indicate five or six times as many people being moved from one county to vote in another county as those involved in the proposals which we put forward, and the Minister has not denied this. He has made a positive virtue of the fact that very large numbers have been transferred in this way. The issue is not therefore essentially one with regard to details of figures: the issue is one in regard to what should be the principle on which we should set about the job of reconstructing the constituency pattern of the country.
When replying to the Second Stage of this debate the Minister was kind enough to quote the words I used in this House last year with regard to the fact that county boundaries are not sacrosanct. The Minister has told us that he has not changed his views on this point. Neither have I changed my views. My argument on amendment No. 3, and the amendments connected with it, are not derived from any preconception about the sanctity of county boundaries, but merely from the point of view that the disposition of seats in the West of Ireland included in these amendments is, in my opinion, one which will do a better job to facilitate the representation of the people than the disposition which the Minister is proposing here in this Schedule. There is no doubt in my mind that counties as we know them today are not natural communities, but I think there is an onus on anyone who, in drawing up a constituency scheme, moves away from this out-dated pattern of what was once a pattern of real communities, to show that in moving away from this pattern he has moved to a system which is more akin to natural communities as we know them today than it was under the system which we have had heretofore.
I would be quite prepared to examine the principle which the Minister has put forward. I did examine the proposals which the Minister put forward on the basis that in certain instances these transfers of population might be transfers in the direction of more natural community groupings, but, I am afraid, one finds only too often that clearly these movements reflect political rather than demographic considerations. If the Minister's new dispositions and distribution were something which showed a real understanding of the new communities and the new links that have grown up in this country this indeed would be worthy of attention. In fact, if we examine them we find that the dispositions are distinctly worse.
The Minister has produced a number of arguments in favour of his dispositions. He has produced as a principle that we should not disturb the existing constituencies. He has introduced the principle that when we transfer any section of population into a neighbouring county we must transfer a very large number. The Minister has introduced the principle that we must at all costs get rid of five-seat constituencies. These principles, the basis on which the Minister has rationalised the proposals he makes to us, are ones which I do not think he has substantiated in argument here. Let us look at them in turn. Let us look at the first principle, that we should hold to the existing pattern of constituencies, that once we have made a change, once we have breached a county boundary, once we have decided that to keep within the constituency we must transfer a certain group out of the county into a neighbouring county, this can never be undone. In this way lies madness. In this way lies a complete crazy patchwork quilt in regard to the constituencies in this country.
The Minister has introduced this Bill because he says it must be done, that we must constitutionally have a revision immediately following the census of population. This means that in fact the Minister is saying that today and from now on we must have a revision of constituencies every five years. If we are to call every five years on the principle of the sanctity of the existing constituencies we are going to find that not only will we reach the position very soon that there will not be a single county in Ireland whose boundaries are not breached, but there will not be a single county not breached on all four sides. I think that the Minister is either misdirecting himself here or is grasping at a rationalisation which is a weak crutch.
There is every reason, once we come to revise the constituencies, to look, at least at the first time of division, at the natural administrative units and to start from that point, not to start from the constituencies units which the exigencies of the last census forced upon us. The instance has already been taken of the position in regard to County Wexford. If it was wrong and undesirable to take people out of the County Wexford six or seven years ago—and there will apparently only be five years between revisions in the future—and surely it is right to put them back now. Surely we should not start on the basis that what comes out from this Bill and the Bill in five or ten years time is the rigid starting point.
Surely we all admit that we may be forced by the exigencies of the constraints of this problem to do things that we would not like to do, but why must we say every time we make a change, that every time people are transferred, this must be for ever? There would be only one reason why we would do this, why a change must remain for ever, and that would be the reason that one election would be enough to give the people a loyalty to a new constituency above the county loyalties of which so much has been made in recent debates. I do not think that is the argument that is in the Minister's mind. Looking at this argument of the Minister that we must always start from the Bill as it left the House on the last occasion and only start from there, and that any constituency, whether a unified county, a split county or a mangled county, that emerged from the last revision of constituencies and that five years later was still constitutionally correct must stay. This is indeed a new constraint on our problems, that we cannot disturb such a situation. This is not a rational way of approaching a problem. It is not a realistic way. It seems rather a way of rationalisation.
The Minister invokes a certain principle, that if we are to disturb and take people from one area and put them into another then we must transfer a large number of people. He certainly lives up to this principle, because he transfers people in their tens of thousands from one county to another. This he does notably in instances such as the Clare-Galway situation which is covered by the particular amendment we are discussing now. He certainly does this on a large scale, on the ground that if fewer people are moved these people will have a sense of isolation. He says that we must transfer people in their tens of thousands, always in their thousands, so that we do not leave these people in the position that they can be ignored with impunity by their representatives. I do not think that it is necessary to deal with groups of ten thousand people before a group is in a position that no Deputy can ignore it with impunity. I do not think, even if we look at it from the harsh view of pressure politics, that Deputies are inclined to ignore with impunity even small groups within their constituencies.
There is of course some force in the argument that these people may not be able to elect a Deputy from within their own group, but if we add that we must transfer sufficient people, we must transfer ten thousand of a population, so that people can elect a Deputy from within their own group, then I do not think that we are going to get rid of any sense of isolation. We are in fact going to make these people an isolated group. They are going to be separated from the county which they have left, and they are also going to feel no sense of kinship with the Deputies other than the one local Deputy the Minister has arranged to be elected from the transferred areas. They will not feel in any sense that the other Deputies in this area to which they have been transferred will have any responsibility for them. I think again, that the principle on which the Minister is arguing here is a weak one.
Then the Minister has come forward with the suggestion that we must at all costs avoid five-seat constituencies just as there are arguments for them. What I think is not acceptable is that when we come to do this job of dividing out the constituencies that we will have to do every five years according to what the Minister has told us in regard to the advice of the Attorney General, if we take this question of no five-seaters at all costs again we are putting ourselves into a vice. We are putting ourselves into a straitjacket which will hamper our attempts to keep a reasonable and a rational form of constituency.
The principles the Minister has brought forward on this in fact constitute the conflict between the two sides of the House. It is not a conflict over figures. It is a conflict over the way to go about this particular job. The Minister has produced here principles and as he has gone on in the debate he has gone on repeating again and again. These arguments as he repeats them more and more seem to have less and less rationality about them and more and more of the mark of rationalisation. We feel it our duty to put forward these amendments to oppose what the Minister has proposed here in the Schedule. We feel that the principle which he has brought forward is not as suitable as what we propose in order to do this job.
It is a thankless task. Last year, at least, when we were arguing in this House, as fruitlessly as we are arguing today because of the majority of the Government, against the proposals in the Constitution Amendment Bills, when we heard the Minister produce arguments of rationalisation, we knew that there was an appeal from the decision of this House. When it became obvious that the Minister could produce no further argument as time went on we knew that indeed there was no case. We were confident, despite the protestations of the Minister to the contrary, that when we went to the country, when all of us on all sides went to the country to argue the case before the people, the Minister's argument would not be accepted.
We find ourselves in the same position today in regard to the Minister's arguments. We find ourselves rejecting his arguments in the same way as we rejected them then. Unfortunately this time there is no appeal from the decision of the majority of this House, but we will at least place it on record here that we believe the principles which the Minister is operating here are bad principles. The reason we suspect political motivation in regard to what the Minister has done here is that the arguments he has produced are so weak.
The Minister produced arguments as to why Mayo should be divided the way it is being divided. He produced rationalisations in regard to the proposed division of Mayo and he ended up with one of his colleagues in one constituency and another of his colleagues in the other. Perhaps that is a coincidence. The Minister produced arguments in regard to the Sligo-Leitrim-Donegal area but in the process he cut the throat of a Fine Gael Deputy. Perhaps a coincidence. The Minister produced what Senator O'Sullivan referred to as a swastikashaped constituency of mid-Cork and we end up with two sitting Labour Deputies in one constituency. Perhaps a coincidence. I am prepared to believe that in regard to matters of this type, when a job like this is being done, lots of things can happen. I am prepared to believe that we can have one coincidence. I am prepared to believe we can have two coincidences but when we get an absolute coincidence of coincidences and a concatenation of coincidences of coincidences we begin to believe that the job was done on another basis. The arguments we heard then appear as an attempt to rationalise the result.
I believe the proposals in amendment No. 3 and the connected amendments would lead to better representation for the people in the West of Ireland. They would lead to less breaking of links, such as they are, if they were adopted and in fact they would do a better job of setting out a basis for representation of the people. There is only one thing that gives me heart in regard to all this. This is not the first time when constituencies were redrawn with political ideas in mind. It was done in the past and I am glad to say that in many instances in the past it failed. Since it is quite obvious that the Minister is not prepared to accept these amendments may I just wish him the maximum of rebounds from his efforts.
Looking at the map here it is obvious that the Minister deliberately embarked on a bare-faced gerrymandering exercise and particularly when you examine the Clare-Galway constituency where a large number of the population of Clare was moved into South Galway. This was done of course as punishment for the fact that in a by-election some years ago Fianna Fáil were defeated when Deputy John Donnellan was elected. Apparently South Galway is to have its teeth drawn and Clare, which is a predominantly Fianna Fáil consituency, is to determine what the representation of South Galway is to be. It is to be whatever North Clare decides.
On examining the western part of the map and all the changes that have taken place it is obvious that the Minister set out first of all to prevent a third political Party from gaining ground there. It was aimed principally at the Labour Party who were gaining so much ground from Fianna Fáil after the Dublin Corporation elections. Does anyone want to speak to me?
Apparently not. I heard a squawk. A very peculiar line was drawn also in Mayo, obviously to facilitate two Ministers sitting in the Fianna Fáil Cabinet at present. It was divided in a manner which would ensure that there would be one Minister standing in each constituency instead of both Ministers standing in one constituency. The same happened, of course, in the Clontarf area and if I may make the remark the Minister ran away from Deputy Burke. He created a new constituency in the South County where he has declared that he will be a candidate. It is a three-seat constitutuency although all the other constituencies in Dublin were four-seaters. He created a three-seat constituency for himself.
The Senator must avoid the Dublin constituencies on this amendment. It is clear that the amendment relates to Clare. The Senator to continue on the amendment.
The Minister should not have been so peevish when he was drawing up this map. He certainly weakened the position of a number of Opposition Deputies by the manner in which he transferred populations from one area to another. It would appear that he concentrated particularly on carrying out the switch in the localities where the Opposition Deputies were residing or where they had a strong vote. If this is not gerrymandering, I should like to know what is.
In addition to that, he wiped Leitrim off the map except in so far as using the name of Leitrim in three different constituencies. The Minister, when carrying out this operation, took the population and used it in a manner favourable to his own Party by using 1,000 persons—leaving the constituency with minus 1,000 persons—in order to get the greatest advantage from it. When we say that those places are minus 1,000 persons in respect of a census which was carried out some years ago, we realise that already the Minister has broken the law because if the population were counted now, there would be a greater difference than 1,000 persons in those constituencies.
On the other hand, in the Leitrim area the Minister put the 1,000 people on the other side of the line because they were predominantly against Fianna Fáil. The Minister should realise that the Fianna Fáil constitution requires the representation to be altered in accordance with each census and that the period, of course, must not exceed 12 years. In the past, the census was disregarded and the 12 years limit was used instead but now it is the census which actually determines the representation for the people and, consequently, an adjustment should be made from one census to another. This means that there will be changes no matter what Government is in power after the next census or the one following it and with the drift of people from the West in particular and considering the emigration from there, it is obvious that those are the very areas which will need to be altered again.
However, on the east coast, which has an increasing population, it is obvious that changes will be necessary again and that is why the Minister should have kept fairly to the national average as between the West and the East instead of putting the minus 1,000 on the western side and the plus 1,000 on the eastern side when he was planning the representation that the people would have in each particular constituency.
I am very much in favour of an independent commission particularly when a person like the Minister gets the chance of gerrymandering the constituencies as he has done on this occasion. It is obvious that he has carried out this gerrymander so that Fianna Fáil, who have been losing support in recent times, would hold on to their representations in so far as is possible by the creation of three-seat constituencies, particularly in the West. This is designed to prevent any major change taking place and, having regard to the previous election figures and to the creation of four-seat constituencies in the areas which were not favourable to Fianna Fáil, this shows that Fianna Fáil were prepared to organise the constituencies in every way possible so as to prevent people from making a change of Government if they so wished.
It would now be more difficult for the people to make a change of Government in the next election than it would have been if the constituencies had remained unchanged or if the constituencies had been fairly created in every area. The Minister has disregarded the slogan of "one man, one vote", by reducing the value of the vote in the four-seat constituencies, that is the value of the anti-Fianna Fáil vote in the four-seat constituencies as compared with the pro-Fianna Fáil vote in the three-seat constituencies.
It is obvious then that in future years it will be necessary to alter the constituencies again and when that time comes that the people who are involved and those are the people who determine who their representatives will be should ensure that no Minister be associated with any kind of political trickery such as the movement of population backwards and forwards across boundaries as has been done here.
During the campaign, the Minister talked all the time about the possibility of having to breach county boundaries if the proposals were not accepted although, he said, at the same time, that he was not in favour of county boundaries being broken but now, when he gets an opportunity to create constituencies and draw up a map, he conveniently forgets all the statements he made and the case he made in favour of avoiding breaches in county boundaries. Of course, he did warn the people that if Fianna Fáil were defeated in the referendum, constituencies would be butchered. Certainly, they have been butchered but in the process the Minister made sure that those who were opposed to Fianna Fáil were the people who will be victimised by this new exercise.
First of all, I should like to refer to a statement made by Senator Dooge to the effect that the proposals in the Bill involved the transfer of five or six times more people from one county to another than the Fine Gael proposals. This, in fact, is a gross distortion of the facts. The number being transferred is approximately 102,000 compared with approximately 49,000 by the Fine Gael proposals so that even on that basis it is little more than twice the number and not five or six times more.
Is the Minister referring to movements from counties or is he referring to county movements from western constituencies which already breach county boundaries?
I am referring to the number which will be attached to other counties and this does not even take into account the fact that whole counties like Monaghan will be attached to Cavan and that Carlow will be attached to Kildare for the first time.
You were including the union of counties in this?
No, it does not include that. Within these figures it is a fact that in the proposals in the Bill all transfers of population are of significant numbers of people who will form an important element in the new constituency with the single exception of a part of the County of Roscommon included in the Clare-South Galway constituency, but this part forms the natural hinterland of Ballinasloe. In each case under the proposals put forward by the Opposition the transfers are of numbers of people who will be inconsequential in the new constituencies into which they are being transferred. Apart from that altogether in respect of this group of amendments, and in so far as the previous group is concerned, I am satisfied that the proposals contained in the amendments would not produce as reasonable a scheme of constituencies as that set out in the Bill. If we take the Western area consisting of the Province of Connacht, County of Clare and County of Donegal the proposals in these amendments are for three four-seat constituencies.
Because there is no change in regard to Mayo, we can say six three-seat constituencies. The proposals in the Bill are for ten three-seat constituencies. The total number of Deputies which is available for this area of the Province of Connacht and the two large counties of Clare and Donegal is 30 Deputies. Even three-seat constituencies in that area, which is the smallest constituency we can have, will obviously be very extensive constituencies to cover. Taking into account the small number of Deputies available for the comparatively large area of this western region, we came to the decision that we should have three-seat constituencies, the smallest possible average size, and even on that basis the average area of the constituencies would be 970 square miles.
The proposals in the amendments create three even larger constituencies. They create three four-seat constituencies in this area. This was one of the things we decided against originally. The three-seat areas are comparatively compact. They are not compact by any means because of the sparseness of population and because of the topography of the area. These things having being taken into account, we decided on 3-seat constituencies rather than on constituencies returning four or five members. As well as that there is the fact that three-seat constituencies also facilitate a more decisive result in an election. In fact they have been advocated for this reason by a prominent Fine Gael Front Bench Member of the Dáil, Deputy O'Donnell. I believe, with Senator Rooney, that in the circumstances where it is reasonably feasible for the people to give decisive election results they are likely to return a Fianna Fáil Government. I find it just as inconceivable as Senator Rooney does that they will ever decide to return a Fine Gael Government. I find it surprising that a member of a Party that put themselves forward as an alternative Government should adopt this defeatist attitude and should state, as Senator Rooney states, that the creation of three-seat constituencies almost ensures——
I said "in Clare".
——the return of the Fianna Fáil Government. However, the fact is that the greater the number of three-seat constituencies the more likely it is that there will be a decisive result in a general election, and if Fine Gael members interpret that as meaning it is more likely that there will be a Fianna Fáil Government I shall not argue with them on that. Apart from that, here in this area again the proposals in the Bill achieve a higher degree of equality of population per Member. It is something which is laid down in the Constitution should be aimed at. In this area the population of the constituencies in the Bill range from 19,171 in North-East Galway, 857 below the national average, to 20,859 in Sligo-Leitrim, which is 561 above the national average. The amendments put forward by Fine Gael involve a wider deviation as well as involving a much less workable scheme of constituencies. They also involve wider deviation of population per Member, ranging from 19,060 in Roscommon, which is 968 below the national average, to 20,868 in West Galway which is 840 more than the national average. Under the Bill the range is of 1,418 in population per Member as between the highest and the lowest, and in the amendments put forward by Fine Gael the number is 1,808.
I also suggest to the Senators opposite that they might look at the boundary they propose between Sligo-Leitrim constituency and the South-Donegal constituency and see just how incongruous a boundary it is. On the previous group of amendments I agree that one of the principles that I said we were trying to have regard to was the existing pattern of constituencies. It is not true that I said this was an unalterable thing and that we must at all costs hold on to the existing pattern of constituencies. I said this was a desirable thing to do, where it was feasible. In that part of the country it was feasible. It was feasible to retain the constituencies of Cavan, Monaghan, Louth, Meath, Kildare, Carlow-Kilkenny and of Wexford. This could be done. It was not a question of the sanctity of existing constituencies but this was one of the desirable principles and it was one which was feasible in that area but one which is not feasible in this western area which must lose a minimum of three seats. The maximum number of Deputies there is 30 and that involves, even on the amendments put forward by the Fine Gael Party, quite a considerable disturbance of the existing constituencies. Their suggestions, for instance, involve the constituency of County Clare with part of County Galway, Roscommon with part of County Galway, Sligo with Leitrim, and South Donegal with part of Leitrim.
It is quite clear there had to be a major disruption of constituencies in any case. This being so, and in view of the large areas involved and the small number of Deputies, we decided to divide it into ten three-seat constituencies and we are satisfied it has been done in the least objectionable way possible. By doing this, the populations required to vote outside their own counties are in every case a significant number so that the sense of frustration and almost of defranchisement will not be present in cases of transfers of population.
Except Leitrim.
In each case put forward by the Opposition the transfers of population were so small as to be completely insignificant in their new constituency. It seems to me to be largely a question of disagreement on the overall approach and I appreciate that the Opposition had to find some grounds on which to oppose this Bill. Their original decision was to make it appear to be an unnecessary gerrymander and, therefore, they had to adopt a completely different approach to the approach in the Bill. I have shown quite clearly the Government's view and this has now boiled down to a disagreement on approach. Our opinion is the same as that of Deputy O'Donnell, that there should be a general move towards three-seat constituencies so as to make it more feasible to have decisive election results. The Opposition's approach shows inconsistencies. Where it suits them they would create new two-county five-seat constituencies where there has not been any tradition of association between the two counties concerned and they would have three-and four-seat constituencies where it suits them.
And nine three-seat constituencies.
This is the difference of opinion on the approach to be adopted when population has to be transferred — whether the number should be significant or be so small that it will be submerged in the new constituency to which it is being transferred. There is a difference of approach as to whether we should have reasonable regard to existing and traditional constituencies or whether these should be completely ignored and we should start from scratch and draw up a scheme of constituencies. We believe there should be reasonable regard to the traditional pattern of representation and this approach has been adopted where it was feasible to do so.
Senator Rooney returned to this question of the arrangement which has been decided on in the Clare and Galway areas. It is quite clear that our proposals under the Bill will enable the population of Clare that will be attached to the Clare-South Galway constituency to elect their own Deputy and, in fact, the likely result will be that Clare will have the four seats to which it will be entitled on the basis of the number of voters.
That is an admission.
On the basis of the number of voters per Deputy, Clare would be fully entitled to four seats. It is clear that it can, in fact, get four seats under this arrangement. Therefore, under our proposals the transfer of population in this case will not have the same sense of defranchisement and of isolation in a strange county as would be the case under the Fine Gael proposals where an insignificant number of Galway people would be submerged in the large county of Clare.
There would be four seats.
Reference has been made, both in this group of amendments and in the previous amendment, to the proposed division of Mayo into two three-seat constituencies instead of the existing three-and four-seat constituencies with a bit of Roscommon attached. Though the proposed arrangement was criticised, I note that neither here nor in the Dáil was there any amendment put down in an attempt to do what it is claimed it is possible to do, namely, to retain North and South Mayo constituencies. Probably this exercise was attempted and it was found that the dividing line between those constituencies would, in fact, have to turn downwards at each end round the town of Castlebar and the resulting constituency would look ridiculous. It is obvious how the dividing line proposed under this Bill was decided upon. It was a question of leaving associated with the two major towns of Ballina and Castlebar as much as possible of their natural hinterlands, and the line which originally ran almost directly north and south had to be changed in order to have a reasonable area associated with the two towns.
The most amazing suggestion was made by Senator Rooney, naturally, when he accused me of breaking the law by basing this revision of constituencies on the last available census of population, but this is exactly what the Constitution requires me to do. It must be based on the population per Member in accordance with the last preceding census of population. Senator Rooney, in spite of the fact that we have a court decision on this matter, wants me to estimate the population, to estimate what he calls the declining population in the West of Ireland and the increased population in the Dublin area, and to allot to the Dublin area an unspecified number of extra seats based on some estimate of the increased population in Dublin. I am precluded from doing this and must act on the last available figures in the census of population carried out in 1966.
I pointed out, if not here certainly in the Dáil, it is quite clear even in the Dublin area itself that the constituencies I must now draw up in accordance with the Constitution on the accurate basis of equality of population per Member, will be completely out of line with the Constitution when the next census is carried out in 1971. So far as the whole Ballymun scheme is concerned, no account has been taken in the census of 1966 of the population there, but we know there are more than 10,000 people living there now. The same situation applies in other areas that have become built up in the last few years. In Clondalkin, Tallaght, Lucan, Howth, Kilbarrack, Baldoyle there have been significant changes in population. I pointed out that one of the results of the manner in which the Opposition misrepresented the proposals in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill to the people will obviously be that there must be another revision of the constituencies within a few years because of the fact that we should not have been allowed to take account of changes in population which we know have taken place since 1966.
However, I am interested in the fact that at this stage of the Bill again, as on the Second Stage, Senator Rooney put forward this claim that the allocation of seats to the Dublin area at 38 to the City and County of Dublin is not sufficient and that the allocation of 30 to the western area, the province of Connacht and counties Clare and Donegal, is too large. He did not say how many extra seats should be put into the Dublin area or how many he judges should come from the western area or where they should come from. I wonder whether this is official Fine Gael policy or not, because the same proposition was put forward in the Dáil by the two Deputies Belton and I think also by Deputy Maurice Dockrell, and it certainly was put forward very strongly by Senator Rooney's erstwhile colleague from the Labour Party, Deputy Seán Dunne, the only spokesman for the Labour Party on the subject, so I can assume that it is official Labour Party policy that we should not have these 30 seats in the western area but should have less there and more in the Dublin area. I do not know what is the official Fine Gael policy on it. Apparently on this matter as on many other matters they can have as many voices as there are Deputies in the Party. Certainly the amendments they have put down to this Bill appear to accept the distribution that is proposed in the Bill, that is of 38 seats in the Dublin area and 30 in this western area.
I do not know that there is much need to go into the rest of Senator Rooney's contribution. His theory that Fianna Fáil have been losing ground can of course be shown to be completely controverted by the remarkable record of Fianna Fáil winning six by-elections out of seven, something which was never achieved before. Never before in the history of this country was it known for an existing Government, particularly in circumstances where its majority was not in danger, to actually win six by-elections out of seven and increase its strength in the way it has. I think that Senator Rooney knows that since then there has been if anything an accretion of support to Fianna Fáil, and this arises largely out of the evidence provided by the two Opposition Parties of the fact that any future change of Government is certainly going to lead to the same type of irresponsible handling of the country's affairs as it did in the past. The unrealistic nature of the policies they have put forward, and the obvious disarray of the two parties, definitely shows that Fianna Fáil can expect increased support.
I would agree with Senator Rooney that under the proposed scheme of constituencies the increase in the number of three-seat constituencies does appear to make it more feasible for the people to give a decisive result in this election and that this is likely to result in the return of Fianna Fáil again. I am not going to argue with them if he says that this is so, in fact I think that that was the only realistic statement the Senator made.
The Minister knows very well that what I said in relation to the gerrymandering of constituencies in the west was that it was to prevent people from making a change. That is why the Minister organises the constituencies in that way so that the people would not have a fair chance of making a change. I am in favour of the one man one vote arrangement but I have pointed out to the Minister that he did not do that as far as Dublin city and county is concerned when it is compared with the manner in which he reorganised the constituencies in the west of Ireland. The Minister is talking about these by-election victories, but in every one except one the Fianna Fáil Party lost heavily in votes and Fine Gael gained votes in every constituency except Cork. Fianna Fáil lost 3,000 in Cork in the by-election and Fine Gael lost 1,000.
And Fianna Fáil won seats.
The more victories you have like that the better we like it.
Our percentage of the vote went up in every constituency and we are satisfied that when the opportunity comes it will go much higher. When we hear the Minister talking as he does about the six by-elections out of seven it seems he has forgotten that Fianna Fáil were beaten by a quarter of a million votes last October. They try to forget that, but it is on that basis that we calculate that Fianna Fáil will be removed from office and the change will be made, but the Minister has done as much as possible to prevent people making the positive change in the matter of the West of Ireland.
Listening to the Minister's long reply to the points put forward on this particular group of amendments I begin to realise the reason behind the Minister replying at length on such occasions, because I gradually realised the great disparity between the argument which the Minister was using at the beginning of his reply and the argument he was using at the end of it. At the beginning of his reply the Minister was putting forward the point that the degree of distribution in the proposals we were putting forward was of the same order of magnitude as those in the Bill, in fact the number of people disturbed by his proposals was not more than twice the number, and so the Minister talked on and on, but when it came to the end of the Minister's discourse he was lauding his own proposals on the ground that he was transferring enough people in each case to elect a Deputy of their own compared with the completely insignificant numbers proposed to be transferred under our amendment. Even in the course of a long reply like that the Minister cannot have it both ways. The Minister should pick his ground and fight on that and not be moving from the argument that the changes we propose are virtually as large as his but at the other end the proposals we suggest must be ruled out because they are insignificantly small compared with the substantial changes that he has made.
The Minister was specific in repeating a remark of mine about what I thought from a quick look at the figures involved in regard to the amendments we were talking about—and in spite of some of the things we have heard in the last ten minutes we were talking about the West of Ireland. The Minister said that in fact my statement was wrong. I said at the beginning of my contribution to these amendments that there was little point in arguing about the details of figures, but when I look at the figures here—and I have not worked them out in detail so I am open to correction on them—my reckoning is that when you compare the Minister's proposals and our proposals in regard to the exchange between Leitrim and Donegal, under our proposals you have an exchange of 5,600 people and the Minister's proposal is based on an exchange of population of 30,600—a ratio of five to one. Our proposals would be something in the order of 2,800 while the Minister's would be in the order of 14,800 which would be about five to one. In regard to exchanges between Galway and Roscommon our proposals, in so far as I can make out, would be less than 1,000 while the Minister's are more than 14,000 which is more than 14 to one.
In regard to these amendments which we are discussing, the statement I made was a fair one. The Minister has made many half replies to some of the points put forward in my original contribution to the discussions on these amendments. I see little hope for any of these amendments being passed by the House and, equally, I see little hope of convincing the Minister in this regard. It would be fruitless, therefore, to merely reliterate those arguments. However, one thing intrigued me and that is the Minister's proposal to do justice to the people of Clare and to get the people of Clare the four seats to which he thinks they are entitled on the basis of the voters. The Minister goes about this in a rather strange way. He transfers a large number of people into Galway in the hope that it will be possible to elect a fourth Clare Deputy under the guise of a Galway Deputy and this is the argument that the Minister uses against the proposals of amendment No. 3 to which I would direct your attention.
Amendment No. 3 proposes that the Clare constituency be made up by adding a few thousand people from County Galway to give the constituency of Galway four seats.
There is one point with which I should like to deal and that is this contention of Senator Rooney that there is some injustice being done to the people of Dublin in allocating only 38 seats to that region. If we take the area of Dublin City and County, the overall divergence for the national average of population per Deputy in that area is 894 above the national average of population per Deputy but if we take the number of voters per Deputy we find that the number per Deputy in the Dublin City and County area will be 280 below the national average of voters per Deputy.
In the rest of Leinster, excluding Dublin City and County, plus the two counties of Cavan and Monaghan, the divergence in the national average of population per Deputy is 53 less than the national average while the number of voters per Deputy in that area is only eight over the national average. In the Province of Munster, excluding Clare which is included in the western area, the average population per Deputy will be 385 below the national average whereas the number of voters is only 61 below the national average and in the area west of the Shannon, that is the Province of Connacht and Counties Donegal and Clare, the divergence from the average of population per Deputy is 558 below the national average so that it will in fact take 426 more voters to elect a Deputy in that area, the number of voters per Deputy being 426 above the national average.
I think, therefore, that in allocating these 30 seats which is the maximum that can be allocated to this area under discussion, we have not done any injustice whatever to any other part of the country and it will, in fact, take substantially more votes to elect a Deputy in this western area than in the area of the City and County of Dublin. In fact, it will take 706 more votes per Deputy in the western area.
I wonder if it will be possible for the movers of amendment No. 5 to explain this amendment to me as I find it very difficult to understand?
I fail to see how this is more inexplicable than the other amendments.
The districts of Buncrana and Letterkenny are certainly not in the district of Stranorlar.
That is where the local knowledge comes in.
Senator Rooney talks about local knowledge but looking at those amendments, I would say that Fine Gael did not go to much trouble when tabling the amendments and that they know very little of this county.
I think this is a typing error; at least, we will put it down as such.
The Minister is very charitable. I listened to Senator Rooney wailing and moaning about gerrymandering but we all remember that back in 1956 in anticipation of the changes in the constituencies, the Coalition Government had drawn up a Bill of their own and it is well known that the butcher's knife was at work and that many charges of gerrymandering could be made in regard to that Bill. Unfortunately for them, of course, they had to leave office in a hurry and did not get back, without having had an opportunity of implementing the gerrymandering which they intended implementing at that time.
We never created constituencies.
But you were ready to do so; the Bill was there.
It was not law so let us keep to what was law.
I shall not deal with the West of Ireland but I notice that there are charges of gerrymandering in this area and that these charges have also been made in relation to Donegal. However, I wish to say that no matter what way Donegal is divided, Fianna Fáil must take two seats out of three in every constituency.
Hear, hear.
They will learn; they have been learning for a long time.
I do not think it is necessary to make a charge of gerrymandering in County Donegal because, as I have said, no matter how Fine Gael could divide the county, the loyalties of the people would always remain the same.
The referendum showed them up.
There was a by-election in Clare and there can be another one there at any time.
Amendment declared negatived.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Clare stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
CLARE-SOUTH GALWAY.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Clare-South Galway stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
CORK CITY (NORTH-WEST).
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Cork City (North-West) stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
CORK CITY (SOUTH-EAST).
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Cork City (South-East) stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
MID-CORK.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Mid-Cork stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
NORTH-EAST CORK.
I move amendment No. 4 with which amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are to be taken in conjunction:
In page 5, in the entry relating to North-East Cork, after "Curraglass" to insert "(except the townlands of Kilmacow, Lackenbehy and Ballyerrin)"; and to delete "Knockmourne".
As I said in moving amendment No. 3, there is a clear difference of opinion and difference of principle in regard to the way that this job should be done in the Schedule. The Minister has applied his approach to these areas and in our amendments we have applied our approach. I do not think anyone here wishes to have an encore of the arguments used on the past two sets of amendments and in the absence of any great desire for repetition I merely move the amendment.
I would agree with the Senator that probably no one wants an encore and I will merely indicate that I think the proposals in the Bill are preferable to these proposals one of which would create a constituency of Waterford with parts of three counties.
In regard to Waterford again we are sticking to our principle that it is better to move the smallest number of people in Waterford rather than a large number of people out of Waterford. We stick to the principle of minimum disturbance.
These people are out of Waterford already and have a Deputy elected.
Where is he from?
From West Waterford.
Amendment declared negatived.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of North-East Cork stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
SOUTH-WEST CORK.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of South-West Cork stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
NORTH-EAST DONEGAL.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of North-East Donegal stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
DONEGAL-LEITRIM.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Donegal-Leitrim stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
NORTH COUNTY DUBLIN.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of North County Dublin stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
SOUTH COUNTY DUBLIN.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of South County Dublin stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
DÚN LAOGHAIRE-RATHDOWN.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
DUBLIN CENTRAL.
Question proposed: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Dublin Central stand part of the Schedule."
The outstanding thing about the question of the arrangements in regard to Dublin in comparison with the rest of the country is the change of rhythm. In regard to Dublin the Minister has stuck to a straight one, two, three, four rhythm whereas he appears to prefer the old time waltz beat of one, two, three in the remainder of the country. To my mind the Minister is being disingenuous in regard to his arguments about Dublin. Even if we accept that there should be no five-seater in Dublin, the Minister says that there are only two ways of doing it. We must either divide it by making it all fours or all threes but there is another way even allowing for the Minister's assumption that you cannot have a five-seat constituency in Dublin. There was no hesitation in previous years about breaking the city boundaries and combining the city and county for electoral purposes. The emergence of four-seat constituencies in Dublin and three-seaters in the rest of the country is capable of many explanations of which the most obvious is a political explanation.
There were already two five-seaters and Fine Gael suggested only three.
Where are the two-five-seaters?
Laois-Offaly and Carlow-Kilkenny.
We are in Dublin now.
They are talking about five-seat constituencies but they succeeded in proposing one extra only after a day's work.
There is this strange arrangement in Dublin City and County that they are all four-seaters except the one in which the Minister is standing, Dublin South County. He made it a special constituency for himself.
No, I will have a colleague. Do not worry about that.
I know the Minister will have a colleague but what chance will he have?
I will have two in the election and one afterwards in the Dáil.
If the Minister created three-seat constituences in the West why did he not make three-seat constituencies in Dublin City and County. Of course the reason is that Fianna Fáil would get only one out of three in Dublin City and County and he is giving himself a chance of getting two out of four by making them four seaters. He is giving himself a fighting chance, a running chance, whereas in the West he has organised it so that he will have whatever little advantage there is from three-seat constituencies in the West.
He is away in a canter.
He did not create three-seaters in Dublin City and County because he would get only one-third of the representation. He deliberately organised the constituencies to ensure that the effect of the Opposition votes would be minimised and that the people would not be fairly represented whereas Fianna Fáil would get elected with a minority of the votes.
It is true as Senator Dooge says that in the Dublin area we have not got as many three-seat constituencies as there are in the rest of the country. I am sure he will see that the problem here was that we had to have 38 seats within the confines of the boundary of Dublin County. If you decide as we decided to adhere to the city boundary so far as possible this meant 11 seats in the county area and 27 seats in the city area. Even under the Bill as we proposed it we have ten constituencies within this small area. We have two four seaters and one three seater in the county which, if you accept the principle that we should not create any new five-seat constituency is in fact the only way in which that area could be dealt with. I say, "If you accept the principle of creating no five-seat constituency" in the city area. I said there were only two ways to make the division that if you decided to go for the maximum number either of three-seat or four-seat constituencies. I agree that if you do not have regard to any definite principle like that there are numerous ways in which it could be done.
The scheme of constituencies we have brought in involves six four-seaters in the city and one three-seat constituency which is a total of seven, or a total of ten for the Dublin area. If we had decided to go for the maximum number of three-seat constituencies, we would have nine three-seat constituencies within the city area and a total of 12 constituencies in the Dublin area altogether. The situation in Dublin city is confusing enough as it is where we have six constituences. We will have seven now, due to having to squeeze in these extra seats. If we had three-seaters here we would have nine constituencies. If these were to be named in the traditional, by cardinal and subcardinal points, there would be confusion with south-south-west and north-north-east and so on. Senator Rooney says we have all four-seaters. In fact there are two three-seat constituencies, one in the city and one in the county. Personally I am very confident that the three-seat constituency in the county will be the one that will ensure a Fianna Fáil majority there, and it will ensure the retention of the majority which we have at present, as Senator Rooney knows so well. I am sure he has vivid memories of the last general election when Fianna Fáil won the first two seats on the first count, being the only two Deputies elected on that count, the Labour Party got the third and Fianna Fáil the fourth and Senator Rooney had the distinction of unsuccessfully contesting the last seat with his colleague, Deputy Clinton. I am certain the result of the three-seat constituency in the County Dublin area will be the same, as Senator Rooney agrees it is likely to be, in other parts of the country and that the people will decide to give Fianna Fáil the majority there. It so happens that because of the location within the existing constituency of County Dublin of myself and my two colleagues, Deputies Burke and Foley, that they will be contesting North County Dublin constituency and I will be in South County Dublin.
What about Deputy Clinton?
He will be there too and possibly retain his seat. It may even happen that the people of North County Dublin may be afflicted with Deputy Rooney again for another period. I am quite sure I will not have the assistance of Deputies Burke or Foley on this occasion but I can assure Senator Rooney that there are plenty of very strong, potential candidates in that area and the result of the election will be that I will have an effective colleague in that constituency.
The Minister's argument for having six four-seat constituencies and one three-seat constituency in Dublin is about the shallowest argument I have heard for some time. If he has perceived that difficulty in designating the newly delineated areas how would he propose to manage with the 27 constituencies that he would of necessity have introduced had the people accepted his proposals in the referendum?
We could call them Clontarf, Dollymount, Rotunda, North Dock and so on. It would be no trouble at all.
The Minister has avoided throughout the debate making any references to the other possible distribution of Dublin constituencies— three four-seat constituencies and five three-seat constituencies which make up 27 seats. I suspect this must be a disposition which would be extremely favourable to Fine Gael or to the Labour Party. I must undertake a study of it.
I did not avoid that. I pointed out that the original decision with regard to the whole position of revising constituencies was that five-seat constituencies should be avoided.
I did not mention five-seat constituencies. The other possibilities seem to be three with four seats and five containing three seats.
It would be an extra constituency.
The Minister would be incapable of finding one extra name for it.
No, but there would be confusion.
Question put and agreed to.
DUBLIN CENTRAL.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Dublin Central stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
DUBLIN NORTH-CENTRAL.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Dublin North Central stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
DUBLIN NORTH-EAST.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Dublin North-East stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
DUBLIN NORTH-WEST.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Dublin North-West stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
DUBLIN SOUTH-CENTRAL.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Dublin South-Central stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
DUBLIN SOUTH-EAST.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Dublin South-East stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
DUBLIN SOUTH-WEST.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Dublin South-West stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
NORTH-EAST GALWAY.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of North-East Galway stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
WEST GALWAY.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of West Galway stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
NORTH KERRY.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of North Kerry stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
SOUTH KERRY.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of South Kerry stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
KILDARE.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Kildare stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
LAOIS-OFFALY.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Laois-Offaly stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
EAST LIMERICK.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of East Limerick stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
WEST LIMERICK.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of West Limerick stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
LONGFORD-WESTMEATH.
Question proposed: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Longford-Westmeath stand part of the Schedule".
In regard to Longford-Westmeath, the Minister has produced a number of what I referred to as coincidences by having decided to operate along certain principles. Having decided to operate these principles he ended up with a situation favourable to his party and colleague. In regard to Longford-Westmeath the position is that Athlone has been removed from Longford-Westmeath and put into the county of Roscommon. I might be inclined to say here the operation of the principle has led to a coincidence of political benefit to one of the Minister's colleagues except that I fail to see even a "principle" of the type which the Minister has been producing. It is not necessary within the arithmetical operation which is in process to put this part of Athlone into Roscommon and take it out of Longford-Westmeath. There is not even a shadow of a principle to justify this particular violation of county boundaries.
This is another example obviously of stinking gerrymandering. Athlone was brought in deliberately because the Minister, Mr. Lenihan, is located near Athlone. I think he is actually resident in Athlone. It was taken in there for the benefit of that Minister. You have the example of the Mayo constituency being split for two Ministers and the Minister providing a constituency for himself in South County Dublin. There are indications of political gerrymandering all over the map when it is examined.
Has not the Senator got a mean mind?
The Minister was very generous.
With regard to Longford-Westmeath, I commend the Minister for having undone something which should never have happened in 1961, when quite an amount of Westmeath was put in with Kildare. When part of a county is put in with another county it should border it at some point, but Westmeath did not border Kildare at any single point. We were in the ridiculous position of being tied up with a county with which we had no interest. In Longford and Westmeath, the population is exactly as laid down in the Constitution entitling Longford-Westmeath to four seats. In fact I would go so far as to say that it was common knowledge that Longford-Westmeath was one unit until two days before the Bill came out. Something then happened: a certain person went to hospital and the slicing up took place in order to bolster up a Minister and make sure that he was in a safe position. However, damage had to be done to the Minister's father who held that seat in the Athlone area.
It is, of course, completely incorrect to say that the town of Athlone has been removed from the constituency of Longford-Westmeath and transferred into Roscommon. That is not proposed in the Bill. What is proposed is that the Athlone West Urban Area should be included in the Roscommon constituency. Athlone, as the Senators know, consists of Athlone West Urban and Athlone East Urban; Athlone West Urban Area lies physically to the west of the Shannon in the County of Roscommon, and is, in fact, a Roscommon town. It is the market town for a large part of South Roscommon and all around the Carrigallen area, these people are naturally associated with the town of Athlone West Urban. They do their business there and they rarely, if ever, cross the Shannon; in fact, there are two separate parishes in this area, one west and one east of the Shannon. The association of Athlone West Urban with Roscommon is completely natural.
The remaining part of the town of Athlone, which is east of the Shannon, remains in the constituency of Longford-Westmeath. The principle adopted here was what was required by the Constitution—to aim in so far as it is feasible, and within the very narrow limits that were specified by the High Court Judgment, at near equality of population per Deputy. This rationalisation in the area of Athlone and this adherence to the physical boundary of the Shannon should have pleased Senator Rooney who was so perturbed about the comparative lowness of the average population per Deputy in the western area, because this helps to redress the balance. It was an obvious thing to be done, particularly, as I say, since this part of Athlone is much more closely associated with Roscommon than with Westmeath.
What about the River Liffey?
The last time I visited Athlone the bridge was still standing. I wonder whether some latter Sergeant Custume has removed part of the span. The Minister's argument, based on the community interest as between Roscommon and West Athlone, that West Athlone should form part of Roscommon seems to me a relatively weak argument. Indeed I understated the case and I propose to move an amendment to that effect on the Report Stage.
The Minister did not answer my question as to whether the complete Athlone area should have been left in Longford-Westmeath. For years and years there was a division between the people of Athlone. The division was there at the river. You had the Gael on one side and the Gall on the other side and that barrier was broken through by the Urban Council. I am afraid that the Minister has divided the town again and that the old undesirable atmosphere that was in Athlone years ago will return.
Of course it was feasible to leave this part of Athlone which is west of the Shannon with this constituency which is east of the Shannon, but Senator McAuliffe has only to consider Longford-Westmeath. I have to consider the whole of the country and the requirements of the Constitution as to equality of population per Deputy as far as it is feasible within the very narrow limits. The rationalisation of the situation by adhering to the physical boundary of the Shannon here did, in fact, result in in an overall raising of the population per Deputy in the Western area, bringing it nearer to the national average. It therefore appeared to me to be something that was in line with the requirements of the Constitution. Senator McAuliffe has remarked that this division, which was originally between the Gael and the Gall is something that has been there down through the years. In fact Athlone West Urban Area is, as he knows, referred to by the people of Roscommon who do their business there and from whom that part of the town derives its livelihood, as Irishtown down to this day. The parts of Roscommon that have been taken into the area down through the years are extensions of the urban boundary that have been ceded with reluctance by Roscommon and there is certainly nothing unnatural in Athlone West Urban Area being associated for electoral purposes with a county whose population carries out its business in that area.
The Minister did not answer my question.
I did answer it.
I wanted to hear the Minister saying it.
Question put and agreed to.
LOUTH.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Louth stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
EAST MAYO.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of East Mayo stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
WEST MAYO.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of West Mayo stand part of the schedule "put and agreed to.
MEATH.
Question proposed: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Meath stand part of the Schedule".
I will move an amendment on the Report Stage in relation to this constituency.
On a point of order, I think that Senator Rooney is under a misapprehension with regard to his rights to put down an amendment on the Report Stage. I think that he did not realise that it would be necessary for him to give the substance of his point on the Committee Stage.
The point I had to make is that North Meath apparently has been butchered in two areas. I believe that this was quite unnecessary and I intend to have figures which will prove my case on the Report Stage.
I take it that Senator Rooney will propose an amendment in regard to Meath which will not have any consequential effects in regard to Cavan and Monaghan?
I intend to show that.
That will be interesting.
Question put and agreed to.
MONAGHAN.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Monaghan stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
ROSCOMMON-LEITRIM.
Question proposed: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Roscommon-Leitrim stand part of the Schedule".
I should like to point out that consequential on the amendment with regard to Longford-Westmeath, there will be an amendment on Report Stage with regard to Roscommon-Leitrim.
Question put and agreed to.
SLIGO-LEITRIM.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Sligo-Leitrim stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
NORTH TIPPERARY.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of North Tipperary stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
SOUTH TIPPERARY.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of South Tipperary stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
WATERFORD.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Waterford stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
WEXFORD.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Wexford stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
WICKLOW.
Question: "That the entry relating to the constituency of Wicklow stand part of the Schedule" put and agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I should like quickly to say in regard to the governing date which it appears in subsection (2) is 1st January, 1968, that I appreciate it is necessary to be definite and specific on this point, but it does strike me that there is a choice in regard to dates. I take it that any date between the date of the census and the date of the passage of the Bill would be appropriate. I wonder was there any significance in regard to the 1st January, 1968?
No.
Are there any boundary extensions coming during 1968 or pending at the moment? Are there likely to be any boundary extensions or changes between now and when the General Election takes place?
There is no particular significance about the date. It is just in case any change is made. There is no intention to make any change. The 1st of January was the date that was utilised in the 1961 Act and there did not seem to be any particular reason for any other date.
It almost looks as if it was anticipated that the Bill would have been passed in 1968.
Well, there is no reason why it should not have been.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 20th March, 1969.
BUSINESS OF SEANAD.
Just before the House adjourns, I should like to ask the Leader of the House does he anticipate that there will be any business before the House tomorrow morning other than the Report and possibly the Final Stage of this Bill?
I anticipate that the Export Promotion (Amendment) Bill will likely be moved too.
I should like to take the opportunity of asking the Leader of the House whether he anticipates that there will be any other business before the Seanad before the recess?
I cannot say at the moment. I will let the Senator know in the morning.
Thank you.
The Seanad adjourned at 9.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 20th March, 1969.