Tairgim: "Go léafar an Bille don Dara hUair."
Sé an cuspóir atá leis an mBille seo ná na Dáilcheantair a athmheas ag féacaint do na hathraithe ar dháileadh an daonra a léiríodh sa daonáirimh a rinneadh i 1966.
Faoi réir an Acht Toghcháin (Leasú), 1961, 144 chomhalta an líon comhaltaí atá i nDáil Éireann faoi láthair. Nuair a bhí an tAcht sin faoi bhráid an Oireachtais, glacadh go foirleathan leis an líon sin agus ní beartaítear é a athrú anois. Os rud é, ámh, go bhfuil Acht na bliana 1961 á athghairm anois beartaítear an fhoráil sin a athachtú in alt 2 den Bhille seo.
Forálaíonn alt 3 gurb iad na Dáilcheantair a shonráitear san Sceideal a ghabhann leis an mBille seo a bheidh ina Dháilcheantair tar éis an céad lánscor eile ar Dháil Éireann agus forálaíonn alt 4 gurb é an líon comhaltaí a shonraítear sa tríú cholún den Sceideal a thoghfar do gach Dáilcheantar ar leith díobh. Sna haltanna eile, leagtar amach na forálacha is iondúil i mBille dá leithéid seo.
Sa mheamram mínithe a cuireadh amach leis an mBille, tugadh achomair de fhorálacha an Sceidil agus tá léarscáileanna curtha ar fáil i leabharlann an Oireachtais a thaispeánann na Dáilcheantair mar atá siad faoi láthair agus mar atá molta sa Bhille.
Ag féacaint don bhreith a thug an Árd-Chúirt ar an Acht Toghcháin (Leasú), 1959, agus don bhreith a thug an Chúirt Uachtarach ar an mBille Toghcháin (Leasú), 1961, bhí iachall orainn ag socrú na Dáilcheantair nua dúinn, deimhin a dhéanamh de nach mbeadh an líon daoine os coinne an Teachta, os cionn ná faoi bhun, an meánlíon náisiúnta méid is mó ná míle duine i gcás ar bith. Lena chois sin, thugamar aird ar an gcoibhneas atá idir an daonra agus líon na dtoghthóirí sna codanna éagsúla den tír sa dóigh nach mbeadh difríocht ró-mhór idir fiúntas an vóta in áit amháin seachas áit eile. Thugamar aird, freisin, ar theoranta na gcontaethe, ach ag féachaint do na forálacha Bunreachta agus do bhreitheanna na gcúirteanna ina dtaobh, níor éirigh linn na teoranta san a choinneáil slán ach i gcor-chás.
Dar ndóigh, tá an-chuid slite ann ina bhféadfaí na Dáilcheantair a athmheas agus, cé go bhfuil an Rialtas den tuairim nach inmholta daoine a scaireadh ón a gcontae féin i gcás ar bith, táthar sásta gurb iad na tairiscintí atá sa Bhille na tairiscintí is lú locht.
The purpose of this Bill is to revise the Dáil constituencies in the light of changes in the distribution of the population recorded in the 1966 census returns.
The present total membership of the Dáil was fixed by the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1961, at one hundred and forty-four. There was general acceptance of this figure when that Act was before the Oireachtas and no change is now being proposed. Since, however, the 1961 Act is being repealed, this particular provision is being re-enacted in section 2 of the Bill.
Section 3 provides that, after the next dissolution of Dáil Éireann, the constituencies will be those specified in the Schedule to the Bill and the number of members for each constituency will, under section 4, be as set out in the third column of the Schedule. The remaining sections contain the consequential and other provisions usual in a Bill of this kind.
A summary of the provisions of the Schedule has been included in the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill and maps indicating the effects of these provisions have been provided in the Oireachtas Library. In deference to views expressed some time ago by Members opposite I will be as brief as possible and confine myself at this stage to certain general considerations which are essential for a proper understanding of the proposals in the Bill.
It is necessary in the first place to be quite clear about the relevant provisions of the Constitution. Subsection 3º of section 2 of Article 16 lays down that:
The ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.
I would draw particular attention to the reference to the number of Members "to be elected at any time". From this it appears that equality of population at the time of the revision itself is not enough and that having regard to the 1966 Census returns, which show substantial departures from parity in the case of many constituencies, a further revision of constituencies as requested in Parliamentary Questions by a number of opposition Deputies must now be undertaken.
The requirement of equality in the ratio of Members to population is qualified by the phrase "so far as it is practicable". What this means has to be determined in the light of two court decisions. The High Court held in 1961 that the relevant provisions of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1959, were unconstitutional because they had produced some substantial departures from the average population ratio per Deputy and that there were no relevant circumstances to justify these departures. In other words the Court ruled that deviations of up to 17 per cent from the national average were excessive and could not be justified on the grounds of the desirability of adhering to county boundaries, having due regard to geographical features and so on. The judgment did suggest, however, that a deviation of up to 1,000 would be acceptable.
The 1961 Bill provided for a scheme of constituencies in which the maximum deviation was of this order. That Bill was referred by the President to the Supreme Court who advised that it was not repugnant to the Constitution. The following extract from the Supreme Court judgment setting out their attitude towards the provisions of subsection 3º of section 2 of Article 16 of the Constitution has particular relevance here. I quote:
The sub-clause recognises that exact parity in the ratio between members and the population of each constituency is unlikely to be obtained and is not required. The decision as to what is practicable is within the jurisdiction of the Oireachtas. It may reasonably take into consideration a variety of factors, such as the desirability so far as possible to adhere to well-known boundaries such as those of counties, townlands and electoral divisions. The existence of divisions created by such physical features as rivers, lakes and mountains may also have to be reckoned with. The problem of what is practicable is primarily for the Oireachtas, whose members have a knowledge of the problems and difficulties to be solved which this Court cannot have. Its decision should not be reviewed by this Court unless there is a manifest infringement of the Article. This Court cannot, as is suggested, lay down a figure above or below which a variation from what is called the national average is not permitted. This, of course, is not to say that a Court cannot be informed of the difficulties and may not pronounce on whether there has been such a serious divergence from uniformity as to violate the requirements of the Constitution.
To justify the Court in holding that the sub-section has been infringed it must, however, be shown that the failure to maintain the ratio between the number of members for each constituency and the population of each constituency involves such a divergence as to make it clear that the Oireachtas has not carried out the intention of the sub-clause.
In the opinion of the Court the divergencies shown in the Bill are within reasonable limits.
We thus have the position that the Oireachtas may have regard to a variety of factors unless there is "a manifest infringement of the Article". The Supreme Court refused to lay down a figure above or below which a variation from the national average would be permitted but it did hold that the divergencies shown in the 1961 Bill were within reasonable limits. The Supreme Court stated that the problem was primarily one for the Oireachtas but it also made it clear that the Courts could pronounce as to whether the Constitution has been violated and since the only figure mentioned as an acceptable divergence is the 1,000 indicated by the High Court, it is clear that this is the only figure that can be utilised with impunity. In the recent referendum a proposal to allow a greater divergence from the national average in order to take account of the factors mentioned above was decisively rejected.
Against this background, it is clear that in no case should the population ratio diverge from the national average by more than 1,000 and the present proposed revision has been prepared on this basis.
On the basis that a deviation from the national average of 1,000 persons per Deputy is tolerable, only 14 of the 38 constituencies determined by the 1961 Act are now within the constitutional limits. Eighteen constituencies have a population per Deputy of more than 1,000 below the national average while in another six the population per Deputy ratio is more than 1,000 above the average. If the existing constituencies are disregarded entirely and if, instead, we look at the existing counties, we find that, even if each county could be considered in isolation from its neighbours, 20 of the twenty-seven administrative counties could not, within the tolerance permitted, be dealt with within the confines of the county boundary, that is, without either grouping the county with another, adding part of its population to another or adding to it part of the population of another county. The only counties which, if considered in isolation, could be dealt with within the confines of the county boundary are: Cork (including the city), Dublin (including the city), Kilkenny, Limerick (including the city), Mayo, Wexford and Wicklow. However, even in the case of some of these seven counties, breaching of the boundaries or grouping with another county is unavoidable because of the position in neighbouring counties.
A consideration which it appears to be reasonable to bear in mind is the desirability of ensuring within the permissible limits of population per Deputy that there should not be too great a disparity in the value of the votes to be cast in different areas. A revision based solely on population is bound to produce such a disparity because the proportion of voters to population varies throughout the country. In the Dublin area, for example, voters on the 1966-67 Register of electors represent 55.4 per cent of the population enumerated on 17th April, 1966, while in the area west of the Shannon the proportion is 63 per cent.
As will be apparent from the tabular statement circulated in reply to a Parliamentary Question by Deputy G. Collins on 26th November, 1968, the allocation of seats on the basis of population within the limits of a divergence of 1,000 results in the vote in the Dublin area being more valuable than the rural vote.
For example in 1966-67 which is the registration year closest to the date of the census the estimated electorate per member for the proposed constituency of Dublin North-West is 10,520. The corresponding estimated figure for the proposed constituency of South-West Donegal is 13,240. The vote in Dublin North-West will, therefore, be over 25 per cent more valuable than the vote in South-West Donegal, although in the case of Dublin North-West the population per Deputy is 21,002 while in South-West Donegal the population per Deputy is only 19,449. In other words the result of adhering to the Courts' interpretation of the Constitution is that the number of voters per Deputy is highest in a constituency with one of the lowest populations per Deputy while the number of voters per Deputy is lowest in a constituency with one of the highest populations per Deputy. If in each of these two constituencies the population per Deputy were fixed at the national average there would be 13,560 voters per Deputy in South-West Donegal and only 10,210 voters per Deputy in North-West Dublin so that if seats were allocated on the basis of strict parity of population per Deputy a vote in North-West Dublin would be 33 per cent more valuable than a vote in South-West Donegal.
We must also consider the question of how many Deputies should represent a constituency. In the present Bill, we propose an increase in the number of three-seat constituencies from 17 to 26 and in the number of four-seat constituencies from 12 to 14 while the number of five seat constituencies is being reduced from nine to two. Five-seat constituencies have proved unwieldy in practice, particularly in rural areas, and are being retained only in the case of two constituencies which do not have to be disturbed to comply with the Constitution.
It is clear that the only way of avoiding the breaching of county boundaries is by aggregating a number of counties together but as this would result in constituencies returning as many as 13 Deputies most people would not regard it as an acceptable solution. If the constituencies based on individual counties are to retain their identity as far as possible and if the maximum divergence from the national average is not to exceed 1,000, then the boundaries of more than half of the counties must be breached. We have kept these transfers at an absolute minimum and indeed if county boroughs are taken into account, the total population of transferred areas under the proposed revision will in fact be less than is the case at present.
It seems reasonable to deal with the area comprising the province of Connaught, the County Donegal and the County Clare as a unit. This area at present returns 33 Deputies. The population according to the 1966 census is 584,096. If 30 Deputies are allocated to the area the average population per Deputy will be 19,470, for 29 Deputies the average will be 20,141 and for 28 Deputies the average will be 20,860. The area can therefore be dealt with within the constitutional provision by allocating it 28, 29 or 30 seats. The 1966/67 register of electors which is the register most nearly corresponding to the date of the 1966 census provides the figures for voters which most nearly correspond to the population figures in the 1966 census and on the basis of these figures the number of votes per Deputy for 30 seats would be 12,295, for 29 seats the number is 12,718 and for 28 seats 13,173, while the national average is 11,869. In other words, although at 30 seats the population per Deputy will be near the minimum allowed, the number of voters per Deputy will be above the national average. If 31 seats were allocated the population per Deputy would be below the minimum permissible but even at this figure the number of voters per Deputy would be above the national average. It is clear then that to allocate anything less than 30 seats would result in an excessive devaluation of the actual votes in this area as compared with other areas and the Government accordingly decided that there should be 30 seats in this region.
In this area west of the Shannon then, a loss of three seats is necessary and most county boundaries must be breached. The population of County Clare is too small for four seats and too large for three and there must, therefore, be a breach in the boundary between Clare and Galway. The population of Galway is too high for seven seats and too low for eight seats. At the northern end of the area, the population of County Donegal is too large for five seats and too small for six and, accordingly, the boundary between Donegal and Leitrim must be breached. The population of County Roscommon is too small for three seats and there must, therefore, be a boundary adjustment between that the county and county Leitrim, as at present. The population of Sligo is too small to support three seats and—again, as at present—portion of Leitrim must be joined with it to form a constituency. The only county in the area which can preserve its boundary is County Mayo.
In the general area of South Leinster no change is necessary. To the north of this area, however, we find that the population of the constituencies of Longford-Westmeath, Cavan and Monaghan have fallen below the required minimum ratio. The most obvious change to make here is to restore to Longford-Westmeath the portion of County Westmeath ceded to the Kildare constituency in 1961, to transfer portions of Meath to the Cavan and Monaghan constituencies and to recoup Meath from Kildare, the population of which would be too low for four seats and too high for three seats.
In Munster, other than Clare, the only change of importance is in the Cork-Kerry area. The population of Kerry is too small to support six seats and much too large for five seats in accordance with the Constitutional provision. It is accordingly proposed to cede part of South-West Cork to South Kerry, and to make further adjustments as between the present North and South Kerry constituencies. At present, Cork borough constituency does not extend over the whole of the county borough area, and it includes part of Cork county. It has been decided to form two constituencies within the county borough boundary and to increase the number of Deputies for the city from five to six. There will be a reduction of one in the representation for North-East Cork and a consequential rearrangement of the three county constituencies. I should mention that the population figures quoted in the memorandum for the two Cork city constituencies are still tentative and because of certain practical difficulties it may not be possible to arrive immediately at definitive figures.
Having allocated seats in this way there are 38 seats left for the Dublin area and this gives an average population of 20,922 per Deputy which is within the permissible limits. The average number of voters per Deputy in accordance with the 1966/67 register of electors is 11,589 compared with the national average of 11,869. In other words in this area while the population per Deputy is close to the upper limit allowed, the number of voters per Deputy is below the national average whereas the opposite is the case in the western area. If the city and county are to be kept separate there must be 11 seats in the county. This leaves 27 for the city but this would give a slightly too high average. There must therefore be a slight adjustment between the city and county and it is proposed to add the Baldoyle ward, which with a population of 2,097 is one of the least populous wards in the city, to the county. The population of the city north of the river Liffey is 287,846 and the population of the south side is 280,926. With 27 seats therefore it is clear that one constituency must cross the river. The population figures for Dublin city constituencies as indicated in the Explanatory Memorandum are provisional. In order to keep within the limits of ±1,000, a number of wards in the city had to be divided and the population of each of the divided portions is being checked by the Census Office.
The revision of constituencies must be based on the figures in the 1966 Census. Consequently, it is not permissible to take account of population changes that are known to have taken place since then and that are known to be imminent. For instance none of the dwellings in the National Building Agency housing scheme at Ballymun were occupied on 17th April, 1966, but before the next Census 3,600 families will be living in the locality. Similarly the continuing large scale local authority and private housing developments in places like Kilbarrack, Coolock/Kilmore, and Ballyboden or the developments planned in Tallaght, Ballybrack, Rathfarnham, Blanchardstown and Swords cannot be taken into consideration. It seems certain, therefore, that at least as far as the Dublin area is concerned it will be possible to make demands for a further revision of constituencies as soon as the next census to be taken in 1971 is published.
There is one final point I would like to make. The Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1959, which was supported by all Parties in this House, effected a virtually agreed revision of constituencies which involved no breach of county boundaries. This revision was challenged in the High Court by the then Fine Gael Senator, Dr. John O'Donovan. When the High Court held that the Act was unconstitutional, a new electoral Bill was prepared which involved widespread breaching of county boundaries. This was bitterly criticised in the Dáil, mainly on the grounds that the Government should have introduced an amendment of the Constitution to eliminate this defect. When the 1966 Census returns were published it was evident that an even less acceptable revision would have to be undertaken. The Government decided that the people should be given an opportunity of deciding whether the Constitution should be amended to remove the difficulty. The people have decided against an amendment and we must all accept their decision. The necessary revision could, of course, be made in very many different ways and while the Government believe that all adjustments between one county and another are undesirable it is considered that the proposals in the Bill are the least objectionable.