Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 Jun 1980

Vol. 322 No. 5

Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1980: Second stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Bill proposes to fix the total number of Members of Dáil Éireann and to revise the constituencies for the election of Members to the Dáil.

The Constitution requires that the number of Members of Dáil Éireann shall from time to time be fixed by law and that the Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once in every 12 years with due regard to changes in the distribution of the population. The obligation to revise the constituencies rests on the Oireachtas but, in order to assist the Oireachtas in their task and with a view to putting an end to charges of gerrymandering, the Government appointed an independent commission to advise on the formation of constituencies. The report of the commission was published in April last and the constituencies set out in the Schedule to this Bill are those recommended by the commission.

I think it would be appropriate for me to draw the attention of the House to two aspects of the revision now proposed. First, on the recommendation of the commission, the overall membership of the Dáil is being fixed at 166, that is, two less than the maximum number which would be justified, within the constitutional provisions, by the population as ascertained at the 1979 census. The House will be aware that, from 1947 onwards, the practice has been to fix the overall membership at the maximum number permissible within the constitutional limits. However, it will be noted that the new Dáil with 166 Members will be the largest since the foundation of the State.

The second aspect I should like to draw attention to is the question of the population-Deputy ratio in the individual constituencies. At each revision of constituencies since the High Court ruling in the O'Donovan case in 1961, the Budd judgement, the variation in the population-Deputy ratio from constituency to constituency was restricted to 1,000 persons—or about 5 per cent—above or below the national average. In the scheme of constituencies now before the House, the variation from the national average exceeds 5 per cent in the case of five consituencies. The variation ranges from +6.28 per cent in Carlow-Kilkenny to -6.42 per cent in Mayo east. Deputies will find a discussion of this matter in Chapter 3 of the commission's report. It will be noted that the commission came to the conclusion that there is no rigid tolerance level and that the test in every case must be the one referred to in the Supreme Court judgment in the case of the electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1961, namely, whether "failure to maintain the ratio between the number of members for each constituency involves such a divergence as to make it clear that the Oireachtas has not carried out the intention (of the relevant part of the Constitution)".

I do not think it is necessary for me to comment in any detail in relation to the individual constituencies specified in the Schedule to the Bill. The scheme of constituencies proposed is largely a county-based one involving only three breaches of county boundaries. I am sure Deputies will regard this aspect as particularly satisfactory. Details of the constituencies were published in April last in the report of the commission which was circulated to all Deputies. A set of maps illustrating the proposed constituencies has been lodged in the Oireachtas Library and I have also arranged to have a set of maps on a smaller scale provided for each Deputy and Senator. In regard to the sections of the Bill, these contain the standard provisions usual in a Bill of this kind including a specification of the constituency for which the Ceann Comhairle may be returned unopposed at the next general election.

This is an historic occasion in that for the first time the proposals for the revision of Dáil constituencies have been formulated by an independent commission. In entrusting the task to a commission we are following the precedent set in relation to the constituencies for the 1979 European Assembly elections and fulfilling the explicit undertaking given by my party before the last general election that an independent commission would be set up to deal with constituency boundaries.

In conclusion, I should like, on behalf of the Government, to express appreciation of the manner in which the commission have done their job and to place on the record of the House our thanks to the members of the commission, Mr. Justice Walsh; Mr. Healy, the distinguished Clerk of this House, and Mr. Meagher, the Secretary of my own Department. I am sure that the entire House will wish to be associated with this expression of appreciation.

I commend the Bill to the House.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Bill which has just been introduced represents the sixth revision of constituencies since the foundation of the State. The constituencies were drawn up in 1923 immediately after the State was founded. They were revised in 1935, 1947, 1961, 1969, 1974 and this year by this Bill.

The Bill is unique in that it is the first such Bill which has been influenced to a considerable extent by the work of an ad hoc independent commission presided over by a distinguished judge of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Walsh, the distinguished clerk of this House, Mr. Healy, and the man holding the very responsible position of Secretary of the Department of the Environment. I should like to join with the Minister in tendering the best thanks of this House and all parties in it to that very learned independent commission for the way they did their work within the terms of reference and guidelines entrusted to them. Their work was carried out in an expeditious manner and in a manner that should bring great credit to commissions. Sometimes we find that when a commission is appointed things drag on and on indefinitely. That did not happen here.

I shall make reference to the work of the commission and its terms of reference later. The Bill is also unique in that it is the first such Bill which has not been embroiled in a bitter controversy and spate of political charges and counter-charges from the very first day on which it was published. The fact that it has the blessing and benediction of an independent commission must play a big part in that. I said that the Bill was influenced to a considerable extent by the work of the commission. The commission's influence was limited because they had to work within the terms of reference and the guidelines given to them by the Government. These terms of reference and guidelines also influenced the terms of the Bill. That cannot be denied. The commission had to work within those terms of reference and make their report within them.

The learned commission had to have regard to the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Constitution which regulate elections to Dáil Éireann. The commission, in making their report, were directed to take account of the fact that the membership of Dáil Éireann should not be less than 146 or more than 168. They were also directed to have regard to geographical considerations in that the breaching of county boundaries should be avoided if possible and that larger-seat constituencies should preferably be situated in areas of greater population density. The commission were asked to take account of other well-established characteristics in the formation of constituencies such as clearly-defined natural features and the retention of the traditional patterns of three-seat, four-seat, and five-seat constituencies.

I should like to compliment the commission on the way they tackled those delicate terms of reference and the liberal interpretation applied to the relevant constitutional provisions relating to the drawing up of the constituencies and to the judicial decisions made on those constitutional provisions. The minimum number of Deputies, having regard to our population, is 164 and the maximum permitted is 168. The commission decided to recommend 166 Deputies and in doing so felt that that number would, among other things, preserve county boundaries better than any other number. The commission breached county boundaries in the minimum number of cases possible. From reading the report of the commission it is obvious that the members of it felt somewhat inhibited by the direction that larger-seat constituencies should preferably be situated in areas of greater population density. That fact was referred to on a number of occasions in the report. However, the commission, as can be seen from one or two decisions, did not feel firmly bound by that recommendation.

The commission showed a delicacy in dealing with the recommendation that larger-seat constituencies be in built-up areas and, by implication, that the three-seat constituencies should be in sparsely-populated areas. The commission also showed a liberal outlook in interpreting the Constitution and judicial decisions in relation to the population-Deputy ratio. Since the O'Donovan case went on appeal to the Supreme Court one school of thought held firmly that a tolerance of 5 per cent only was permitted and that the national average could not be departed from, upwards or downwards, by more than 5 per cent. Another school of thought held that the decision of the Supreme Court meant that a departure of 5 per cent from the national average was acceptable and that what was not acceptable had not been decided.

The commission took into consideration the following section of the judgment of the Supreme Court:

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.

As far as I can gather from the commission's report, it was held that the decision of the Supreme Court did not bind the commission to a 5 per cent tolerance. It appears that the commission was only bound by the extract from the Constitution which I quoted. In applying that interpretation the commission moved upwards from the national average to between 6 and 7 per cent and it moved downwards from the national average to between 6 and 7 per cent. The population-Deputy ratio in Carlow-Kilkenny is 6.28 per cent above the national average while the population-Deputy ratio in East Mayo is 6.27 per cent below the national average. In that case it can be said that the commission departed from the national average by as much as 12 per cent or more. In doing so the commission gave themselves great leeway to preserve county boundaries. There is a school of thought that, had the commission moved 1 per cent more, it might not have breached any county boundary. The change represents a big improvement.

I have laid great emphasis on the directive that larger-seat constituencies should preferably be situated in areas of greater population density. I make no apology for saying that that term of reference was given to the commission because Fianna Fáil thought that such a move would benefit them. That is clear. We know that a three-seat constituency is the most beneficial to a party where that party have a majority in the constituency, because it will give it two seats out of three. It is fortunate that this country is not divided on a sectarian basis or politically on a class basis but we know that for historic reasons, whether it goes back to the civil war or before it, or for some other reasons, there are parts of the country where one party gets a greater share of representation and of the vote than its national average. That applies to all parties. For example, on the eastern seaboard the Fianna Fáil Party normally get—it has become less of a certainty—a larger proportion of the vote than its national average. The contrary is the case in, say, the city of Dublin where the last Euro election and the local elections showed that the Fine Gael Party got the greater share of the votes in that area.

It would seem to me that this particular term of reference was drawn up bearing that in mind because a three-seat constituency benefits the party with the largest vote in the constituency because that party will get two out of three seats, and where a party is in danger of not getting more than 50 per cent of the vote or thereabouts, the best thing for it is to have a four-seater where the party will break even. The particular term of reference was drawn up bearing those elementary and fundamental facts in mind and to that extent the commission was not a free agent. No doubt this is a better method of drawing up constituencies than entrusting to the political head of the Department. Of the six revisions, including the present one, Fianna Fáil have been in charge on five occasions. I think a guideline should have been included in the terms of reference stipulating that no major area should have a uniform pattern of three-, four- or five-seat constituencies, in other words there should be a mixture. That is why I complimented the commission for its delicate handling of the terms of reference that I have been talking about.

It was very conscious of this because time and again it has come back to it in its report. In future cases the terms of reference should be drawn up with the direction that no area of the country should be confined to any given number of seats, that there should be a mix right across the board. That would make the commission's terms of reference much more meaningful and give more independence.

It is sometimes said that we have too many TDs and there has been some criticism of increasing the number of seats by 18 on this occasion. Unless the Constitution is changed the number of seats will have to be increased from 148 to 164, by 16 seats. Since the foundation of the State we have gone for the lower qualifying figure, one seat for each 20,000 of the population. That was the stipulation in the Constitution of Saorstát Éireann as well as in the 1937 Constitution. While the population was decreasing—and it was decreasing for most of that time—that presented no problem. Now, happily, the population is increasing and if the population continues to increase it may be necessary to re-examine that policy in the future.

As will be seen in this Bill the Commission and the Government have opted for two less than the maximum number and to that extent it is somewhat of a change. Until such time as we have a better ombudsman system it is better to err on the side of having too many TDs than not enough. We do not look like getting the ombudsman system needed in the near future, if we are to go on the Bill introduced by the Government which is really a non-event, an ombudsman Bill without any teeth. Until we have a proper ombudsman system and proper citizens' advice bureaux it is better to have too many TDs rather than not enough because TDs find themselves over the years and at present discharging ombudsman duties and citizens' advice bureaux duties. Until these requirements are otherwise met the higher number of Deputies can be well justified.

Further, in a situation where—this is no fault of this side of the House—the present Fianna Fáil Party for reasons best known to themselves have eaten into the number of private Deputies by creating 30 office holders, the number of Deputies left to do the work of a Deputy from a constituency point of review is reduced. Somebody might say I do not know what I am talking about and might ask whether Ministers of State do constituency work on a subsidised basis with State cars and so on, but I am giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that because they are appointed Ministers it must mean that in theory at least they are withdrawn to some extent from constituency work and that therefore there are fewer Deputies to serve the people.

The life of Dáil Éireann, according to the Constitution, is such term as may be regulated by law subject to a maximum term of seven years. Since the State was founded the Legislature have always opted for five years. That has been the time for which Dáil Éireann is elected. Unlike some other countries, notably Germany and the USA, Dáil Éireann may be dissolved at any time and a general election held by a Taoiseach who still enjoys the confidence of the Dáil, which means that he has not been defeated. I am not putting this forward as the view of my party. Is it a good thing to have uncertainty hanging over the Dáil and the country that there may be a general election at any time?

This Government were elected with a majority of 20 and now enjoy a majority of 18. They still have two years to go, but we are virtually in an election situation. The people throughout the country are speculating and the media are speculating. I do not wish to appear to want to prolong the life of the Government because, like all the other people throughout the country, particularly those who were hoodwinked by the manifesto, the sooner we get rid of them the better it will be for the country.

This is getting away from the Bill before the House.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Not very far.

The Deputy says "not very far" but it is a fair bit.

(Cavan-Monaghan): We do not often get an opportunity of being in order and discussing our election system.

It only deals with constituencies, as the Deputy knows.

(Cavan-Monaghan): It deals with constituencies, but the life of the Dáil is near enough to that to make it relevant. We should think whether it is better for the country to elect a Dáil for a certain period rather than an uncertain period. We do not call it election fever until an election is actually declared. I suppose we could call it an election bug which develops sometime before an election and that is not good for the country. An election could be called for other reasons. If a Government fall, which could have happened here before Christmas, an election is held immediately. Some people would argue that, if such a situation arises, it is better to clear the air rather than try to continue operating.

We have this Bill based, for the first time, on the report of an ad hoc commission. Their report was influenced to a large extent by the terms of reference they got and also, to some considerable extent, by the very solid and commonsense approach of the commission. We hear a lot of talk about amending the Constitution, scrapping it and having a new Constitution. We should think about making this commission a constitutional provision. That should only be done if the terms of reference agreed by all parties in the House are also written into the Constitution. If we are really anxious to have an absolutely fair and unimpeachable system of drawing up constituencies, that is the way to do it.

The biggest decision the commission took was that they would not be bound by a 5 per cent tolerance. They interpreted the Constitution in a liberal way and came up with this 6½ per cent above and 6½ per cent below. I congratulate them on that. The most regrettable feature about the commission was that their terms of reference were drawn up by the Fianna Fáil Government in a way which was bound to be favourable to Fianna Fáil if voting followed its previous pattern. As the former Deputy Paddy Burke used to say "great things are happening in our time". Most extraordinary things are happening in our time and I believe the manifesto on which the people were invited to vote in the last election was the most extraordinary thing of all. I believe that patterns I have been speaking about will not be as important in the future as they were in the past.

This Bill is acceptable to Fine Gael. That does not mean that the Bill will satisfy every Member of the House. I am sure it does not meet with the approval of every member of the Fianna Fáil Party. I hardly think it meets with the approval of every member of the Fine Gael Party. The same can probably be said about the Labour Party. I am sure, no matter how perfect the Bill was, it would be bound to be against the interests of some of the 148 outgoing Deputies. That would happen even if the Bill were drawn up on absolutely perfect guidelines. It is acceptable to the Fine Gael Party but that does not mean that members of the Fine Gael Party have not reservations about certain constituencies and certain areas in it. From the all-over party point of view the biggest and principal reservation that I have is this one about the direction of small constituencies in the west of Ireland and large constituencies in Dublin. We will have more to say about that when we reach Committee Stage.

As has been said already, this is an unique occasion. It is the first occasion on which a commission who were not motivated politically recommended to the House a constituency Bill which the Government have to bring before the House. We all understand that this House is entitled to change that constituency Bill if it so desires. However, I consider that the people who drew up this Bill did an excellent job. I would like to add my voice to those congratulating Mr. Justice Walsh, Mr. Healy and Mr. Meagher and I would add to those names the people who really had to do the spadework in the Minister's Department. The Minister must know of these and Mr. Turpin and Mr. Sexton would be two people who would have an extraordinary knowledge of constituencies and constituency drawing. I believe they helped to bring a very satisfactory Bill before this House, satisfactory in so far as we all believe that those who drew it up did a fair job. What the result will be and whether it will suit everybody are different matters entirely.

It is the job of this House to pass constituency Bills which when they become law will ensure that the most popular party or parties or groups in any area will be elected to this House. As the result of a Bill which I brought into this House, the last general election in 1977 did exactly that. I can never understand why there was so much dissatisfaction and complaint from people about it. It was not my intention to put Fianna Fáil into power but if the people wanted to put them in, then it was the job of the then Government to ensure that they got the opportunity of doing it. They got that opportunity and they put Fianna Fáil into power. I was amused particularly with the press who seemed to be terribly disappointed with what had been done and they felt that in some peculiar way I and the Government should have gerrymandered it in such a way that a different result would have been produced. That is not our job. I have grave suspicions that efforts to gerrymander in that way were made on previous occasions. Maybe I am being unfair to predecessors of mine. Maybe I am unfair to those who drew up previous constituency legislation.

One of the most thankless jobs a Minister can get is the drawing up of Constituency Bills, because not alone members of his own party but members of every party in the House and outside if they get the opportunity will attempt to prove that a point of view which they hold is very important and that the constituency Bill could not be prepared unless there is an input from them to it. I assure the House that I got a lot more representations from Fianna Fáil than I did from my own party or from Fine Gael the last time. Maybe that is why it turned out as it did and maybe I listened too much to them.

(Cavan-Monaghan): That shows that the Deputy was a thinking Minister.

We produced a Bill and it did get the results that we saw. This Bill before us is being drawn up, as Deputy Fitzpatrick said, under very tight terms of reference. The people who drew up the Bill invited the opinions of the general public and I am sure that they got opinions from people who were in a position to offer such opinions to them. They did not get an opinion from me because I did not think that it was any function of mine to give it. I felt that the experts who had advised me would also be in a position to advise those who were drawing it up now. They got a lot of advice as to what should be done from the list of people, from people who would have an input and a very good idea of what points of view to put, and from the usual quota of quare fellas. I saw the list of people who had made representations. Some of the names on the list gave me a good laugh because they were people who would have the idea that a constituency should be drawn up around their own back garden and the quota should be one, themselves, because some of them would find it extremely difficult to get anybody other than themselves to vote for them.

In a relatively short time the commission who were set up by the Government—and all credit to the Government for setting up the commission, at least it is one promise that they kept and they did not keep too many others—brought in a result in a relatively short time and the result was found in the main to be satisfactory. Of course everybody is not satisfied. No doubt people in this House and ambitious people outside will find some reason to point out that things have been done deliberately to keep them out of the House. I do not think that this was ever done, even when the politicians were themselves drawing up the constituencies. On one occasion it was alleged that I tried deliberately to exclude somebody by drawing a constituency boundary within a few doors of where he lived. I assure the House that I did not know that it happened. I did not know where the man lived, although I knew that he existed. It was not my intention to do that and I am glad to say that he was returned to the House either because of or in spite of what was done.

The number selected here to represent the people is the middle one. It could have been 164 or 168 and they took 166. Again I agree with Deputy Fitzpatrick. Despite those who claim that people returned to this House should confine themselves to legislation, all of the men and women coming in here, whether they are Ministers, Ministers of State or ordinary Deputies, are ombudsmen, and the Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle must do their fair share in that. They come in here and have to bring the grievances of constituents to people in authority and until there is somebody to substitute, somebody who can do that job well, this will continue and it is right that it should continue. I do not agree with those who say that it is wrong that they should spend their time here. It is a notable fact that it is not those who come into this House and spend hours and hours debating legislation who head the poll at the next election. It is those who write the most letters and make the most representations. I suppose there is a moral in that for all of us and we take notice of it.

The position about the drawing up of the constituencies is that the commission who were drawing up the constituencies had one recommendation with regard to county boundaries. I also was anxious to ensure that county boundaries where possible should not be breached.

Therefore, I know that it was not an easy job to do what they did. I give them great credit for having the courage to break with tradition on one or two fronts, one that has already been mentioned by Deputy Fitzpatrick with regard to the number above and below the national average, and the second with regard to the complete break with the general idea of how a constituency should be drawn up. It is possible that by making a couple of six-seaters instead of five-seaters they could have changed the whole face of the new Electoral Bill. Their terms of reference more or less told them that they were not to go for six-seaters, that they should stick to the traditional numbers, and they did so.

There is a school of thought which suggests that by introducing a higher number of Members per constituency there is a danger that people who should not be returned to Parliament will be returned. I do not hold with that, for two reasons. Firstly, I believe that if the public want to elect somebody to Parliament they are entitled to do so whether we think they are desirable people or not. Secondly, most people who come into that category are those who are only known and supported in a particularly small area. Even though the constituency is being made bigger and they are given a bigger chance because there is an extra seat or two, in fact it makes it more difficult for them to be elected. They have to get support over a very much wider area. Indeed, it is well known that somebody who wants to be elected to Dáil Éireann must have at least a quota of support in every ballot box, to put it very bluntly. If they have not that, they are wasting their time and their own or somebody else's money in attempting to come in here.

The general trend of support for political parties here is such that changing the size of a constituency in the rural areas does not matter so much. The whole kernel of the trouble—if trouble it is—is here in this city. If the party in power are able—as they were the last time—to get two out of three, it gives them a very substantial amount of support. The number of Deputies returned for a city of this size ensures that it is extremely difficult throughout the whole country to change the representation enough to alter the position. If, however, as has happened now, there is a five-seater, they would need to get three out of five. I do not think Fianna Fáil would be too happy looking for three out of five in Dublin at the present moment. Like some of the Fine Gael people and possibly some of the Labour people, there are I am quite sure, a number of Fianna Fáil people who would not be happy with five seats. Many of those who were returned in the last election—who were able, because of the programme which Fianna Fáil had put forward, to come in here and get that extra seat—feel that within the next year or, at most, the next two years they will be saying goodbye to this place and will only see it again from the top of a bus.

Those are the facts of life, but the decision to have a commission recommending to the Government the type of constituencies which should be set up was an excellent idea. Again, while I am speaking about buses, perhaps that is a bus which we missed, because it was also the decision of the previous Government. They had intended, if returned, to set up a commission for the purpose of drawing up the constituencies for the next election. Most certainly I should not look forward to the type of pressure which a Minister would have to suffer attempting to draw up constituency proposals which would please everybody. Indeed, there were times when I felt that it was possible to close one's eyes and see there every road, lane and house in the country marked out clearly. It was the usual practice before my time for a particular political party drawing up constituencies to consult the faithful in every area. Like an elimination contest in regard to football and hurling, they would bring in parishes and then the representatives of the groups together would come along at county level and then at provincial level and so on. I understand that something similar was done. It was claimed that one particular Minister for Local Government was able at any particular time to put his hand down on a parish and say that there were so many Fianna Fáil votes there, or that the percentage of Fianna Fáil votes was so much and therefore that must go one way or the other.

(Cavan-Monaghan): It would be very awkward if he had to do that this time.

It would be quite simple and a much easier job now. The Minister's hand would be going down very much less often than it was. Quite honestly, unless the man were a genius, he could not have done it and no effort may have been made to do it. It is very difficult to do things like that.

The drawing up of a constituency plan for the whole country depends on the expertise of civil servants who will count, not the people who are likely to vote one way or the other, but the actual number of people living in a particular constituency area. I thought that the Minister might have referred to it because it is a fact that is not too well known. It is not voters that affect the size of the constituency; it is, in fact, people. That is one of the reasons why Mr. Justice Budd's judgment might possibly not be as strong as it appears to be because there could be areas where the number of people without votes could be great. However, taking it all in all, a very commendable effort has been made by the people who drew up this recommendation, which has been converted by the Minister for the Environment into a Bill before the House. I cannot, for the life of me, see why there should be any delay about having the matter put to the House and to the Seanad, to clear the decks and give the Taoiseach the opportunity of finding out whether or not our people support him in the policies which he is at present attempting to operate, or lack of policies.

I shall be very brief in my expression of opinion on this constituency commission report and the Bill now before Dáil Éireann. Possibly, a little bit of history is being made here today in the sense that it appears that all parties are accepting this independent commission's report. Words of praise have been expressed to the three people in charge of this commission—Mr. Justice Walsh, Mr. Gerald Meagher and Mr. Michael J. Healy. As far as I am concerned, however, they will get no Christmas cards from me. Again, as far as I am concerned, they have made a total job of pulling asunder the constituency to which I have been elected since 1964, putting part of it into Roscommon and a larger slice in with West Galway. I find myself living in East Galway with neighbours in Roscommon and having to decide to stand for election in West Galway. I am not the only person to find myself in that position in that constituency. I could contend that what has been done is fair in the sense that the commission did not take into consideration the location of existing politicians. In an almost totally rural area, such as I represented in the past, I contend there should be three-seaters, particularly in rural areas thinly populated. Here one must be mindful that a TD's work entails much travelling and, as was expressed by Deputy Fitzpatrick, the lack of an ombudsman in this country means that a TD finds himself, as I have found since I was first elected in 1964, playing the role of endeavouring to get for his constituents their rightful entitlements. That is the system as it operates here, even more so under the present administration and particularly since the addition of the new Ministers of State, who are manipulating decisions made in Departments and channelling them out to a certain section of their own party.

I must refer to one aspect of this system, again pertaining to the role of the TD. The Minister present has two Ministers of State, one of whom is named Connolly. A cousin of mine who bought a house in Galway sought a grant and received a nice letter from the Minister for the Gaeltacht, Deputy Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn, informing her that the grant was being paid.

(Cavan-Monaghan): There is service for you.

But Deputy Molloy was not notified of the decision. Were it not for the fact that I put down a parliamentary question it never would have come out at all. That is the role of the TD under the present system. I never envisaged TDs in general in that particular role but it is our job to act and work on behalf of our constituents.

I am personally knifed in this division and, as far as anybody in Country Galway is concerned, it is a most unnatural division. It is not suitable to anybody geographically. The commission say in regard to Galway:

The 8 seats allocated to Galway could be arranged in two 4-seat constituencies or in a 3-seater and a 5-seater.

They decided in favour of the three-seater and five-seater taking in Galway city, a large rural area south-east of Galway and, of course, the Connemara area west of Galway, making it a five-seater. People who belonged in the Galway electoral area, as distinct from the new West Galway constituency, on the north-eastern side of Galway city—here I am talking about electors in general—expressed the opinion that they found it difficult to identify with a lot of people they did not know, that is, for council election purposes. Now a line has been drawn which reminds me of what Deputy Tully was saying a moment ago when he spoke about every village, crossroads, boreen and so on. Now a line has been drawn from Caherlistrane along by Claretuam, Corofin, up into Athenry. Everything west of that line, taking in Gort and that country, all that area that was formally part of East Galway, now forms part of the West Galway constituency. Indeed, there are people in that area who can readily identify with West Galway and others who cannot. Incidentally, in the area now taken in as part of West Galway there are on the register at present somewhere in the region of 13,000 to 14,000 voters. Then between 5,000 and 6,000 voters have been taken from Glenamaddy, Creggs, Williamstown and Ballymore areas and put in with County Roscommon. That affects me personally. Possibly there are other people who would like to express an opinion on that subject but who, possibly because of the positions they hold and so that it would appear there may be total silence from the Fianna Fáil Party on this Bill, are prevented from so doing.

The people in that area cannot identify with County Roscommon at all. The county boundary is something one associates more with the Gaelic Athletic Association. Traditionally one was Galway, Roscommon, Mayo, Clare or whatever, a very definite identification with one's country. In constituency revisions effected in the past a part of County Roscommon was brought in with West Galway to form a three-seater which was then known as North Galway while at the same time another part of County Roscommon near Ballinasloe was brought in with Clare/Galway. Now the reverse situation obtains. If they had taken the part of Roscommon that was in with Galway before and put it in again, electors would say: "It was there before anyway". Now a part of Galway that never looked to anybody other than Galway representatives is amalgamated with Roscommon. Those people find it very difficult to identify with Roscommon and Roscommon politicians. Indeed the part of Galway that has been included in Roscommon is too small to allow a representative of any party that might stand for election there any chance of political success. Their chances of a seat in this House are rather limited. Possibly nobody would be foolish enough to stand for election there. I suppose most of us are foolish anyway from time to time but whether or not we are, those who fail are an awful lot more foolish than the fellows who make it. I am not satisfied with the way these boundaries were revised because they hurt me a lot politically. The commission tried to be fair but they made a very big mistake, although maybe it was not really a mistake.

Members of the commission were independent and nobody can complain about that. When ex-Deputy Boland and Deputy Tully revised the boundaries they were the bosses and had to take a great deal of abuse from everybody. Everybody looked at their position geographically and decided if he or she had been adversely affected by this report. The members of the commission will not be getting any Christmas cards from me because as far as I am concerned they made a botch of Galway.

Deputies should express their opinions on this Bill. A few Deputies like myself will object to this legislation on a personal basis and others may say that it was a bad job, although I think they did a good job. Because of the change in population over the past few years we had to have the boundaries revised but if the population continues to increase, it will not be too long before we have another revision. Then new members will be appointed to the commission to do this job and it is possible they will make a botch of it. Therefore, it is necessary for Members of this House to express an opinion on this Bill and if necessary to put down amendments.

I am not putting down an amendment on this Bill but on future Bills it may be necessary to put down amendments because the commission members may not know their jobs as well as the members who drew up this report. If I put down an amendment and it were accepted, it would leave this legislation open to a great number of amendments, with the result that the boundaries drawn up by the independent commission would be tampered with so much that they could no longer be said to have been those decided by the commission.

I accept this Bill, although I am not happy with what has been done with the new constituency known as Galway-West. In 1964 I was elected in the Kinvara area and I now look forward to representing the people of Galway city and west of the city.

I will not necessarily follow the same pattern as the spokesman for my party. The commission's terms of reference were to advise and report on the formation of constituencies for the elected Members of Dáil Eireann. They were told to advise and report but the silence and the fear to speak on this legislation makes me afraid. This is very bad because it implies that when we set up a commission we will have a fear complex about challenging their recommendations. This is not the first of this type of commission although I hope it is the last. The report of such a commission should come before an all-party committee. I have been on all-party committees and they debated reports and if changes were necessary, they were made in an orderly way.

I am apprehensive at the way this Bill is being put through the House. I do not think it is good for democracy. In my view the House is washing its hands of its responsibility to legislate. When we come up against controversial or touchy legislation, or legislation that may be seen to give the Government of the day an advantage, do we say we cannot make a decision because it would be unfair, or do we say we should not be seen to do this but that we should give it to a commission? The commission are told to advise and report but when the report is submitted we are afraid to make our views known with the result that their recommendations in the form of legislation are presented to this House and passed.

Deputy Fitzpatrick spoke about the role of the TD as the general factotum in the constituency and taking from him his right to legislate. This is very serious. I hope this does not gain any great momentum because it is important that this House draws up legislation, discusses it and comes to decisions. If either side of this House brought the commission's report in the form of a Bill, the Opposition would be roaring across the floor about the unfair way this legislation was gerrymandered, or Sylvester-mandered or Barrett-mandered. The hypocrisy annoys me. If such a scheme were devised by the Government, there is no doubt that this debate would continue for weeks. Every constituency would be looked at, examined with a fine tooth comb and accusation after accusation hurled across the floor.

I am not casting aspersions on the commission. They were given a job and did it well. I am blaming the House for giving them the job because the principle is wrong. Whether jobs are thankless or otherwise we are elected to do them and if we in Parliament cannot trust ourselves to do these jobs, no wonder the general public would not have faith in us. We must have confidence and trust in one another in dealing with this type of legislation. Apparently we have not this trust in ourselves because we have given the job to a third party and their report is accepted because to reject or change it would be seen to reflect on the independence of the commission. I must hark back to the terms of reference of the commission and say that in my view it is the prerogative of this House to fine comb this legislation and make decisions on it. Our job is to examine proposed legislation and to put down amendments when necessary. No three people have the preponderance of knowledge about these matters. They carry out their task to the best of their ability in the fairest way but that does not mean that it is right. This House is failing miserably in its obligations.

There is nothing revolutionary or sensational in the Bill because most of the constituencies can be kept within the confines of a county and not many changes were necessary. The changes which were necessary mainly concerned areas in and around cities. Deputy Donnellan spoke about Galway and there certainly seemed to be problems for him and others. I have no doubt that had this Bill been approached by an all-party committee such matters could have been examined in an objective way. However, a paralysis of fear gripped Members of the House and they could not be seen to make changes or to do anything at all. That attitude does not bode well for the future.

Some weeks ago I travelled by train to Cork City with another Deputy and he pointed out several farmhouses miles from the city which were part of his constituency. It did not seem to make sense that an urban constituency should stretch so many miles into the country. The city areas will not suffer because they will be electing city Deputies but the rural area will suffer because these Deputies will not be au fait with rural problems.

We have heard much pious talk about the inner city area of Dublin. The south side of the inner city has been carved up three ways. The elected representatives will come from a far bigger area of the outer city and consequently the inner city will not be seen to be represented. People living there will not be able to exert the same pressure on public representatives. I make this point because I am concerned about the inner city. There has been talk about taking into account natural boundaries and communities and had this been a consideration in this case the inner city representation could have been preserved and Deputies could have been elected to work in the interests of these communities. I do not wholly blame the commission because they would not be aware of the tightness of the inter-related communities in these areas whose common bond is survival. These areas being fragmented, their chances of survival are lessened. This is very sad because all their lives these communities have been fighting uphill battles. It is only in the years since the Coalition came into power that we have seen a positive policy for the development of the inner city but that commitment seems to be on the wane. People living in this historic part of the city will have to struggle to find out who represents them. Will the representatives be as conscientious as they might be? Will they have a commitment to a small area they represent or will they always look towards the large part of the constituency? Human nature being what it is, I do not think there is much doubt about the answer.

I should like to give the House an example of what I have in mind. A block of flats in the James's Street area is divided down the middle. One half on the western side will be in the same area as Clonee on the Meath border while the other half of the block will be put in with St. Peter's Road in Walkinstown, the other end of the county. Perhaps it was felt that the terms of reference were for larger constituencies but other factors also had to be taken into account. All of these matters should be discussed in an all-party committee. We set up such committees to deal with other Bills and perhaps it is not too late for the Minister to consider an all-party committee for this Bill.

However, I do not think that suggestion will be adopted. There seems to be some kind of paralysis or fear about commenting on reports of committees. What I am saying here is my personal view, not the party's view. I think that criticism should be voiced about legislation before this House. If we are going to hand over our responsibilities to commissions and meekly accept their reports without comment it will be a sad day for democracy. I oppose commissions. I do not think they are a good idea. We are the elected representatives and if we have not the courage to do our job we should get out.

There has been talk about a gerrymander and a "Tullymander" but elections have disproved that myth. The last election proved it beyond all doubt because Fianna Fáil got their largest majority. The Irish people will make their own decision on the basis of what they think right. We should not be spineless when we are considering legislation that might be unpopular. I have no doubt that if the Government had thought about setting up a commission to deal with the question of contraception they would have done so. In that way they could have washed their hands of responsibility and could have put the blame on the commission.

We should not drift along in a lazy fashion. It is much easier to get somebody else to make a decision and if something goes wrong that person can be blamed. However, that is not a responsible attitude and it is not one that should be adopted by this House. We should not allow any erosion of the powers of this House but I am afraid that is happening. Whatever way the lines are drawn we cannot influence or change people's attitude. I do not know what all the fuss was about when discussing this independent commission. There was an attitude that it could be tinkered with to the advantage of a political party but that is not on.

The commission did a good job within their terms of reference and I have no criticism of them. I believe they acted in the way they were told to act and they used discretion with regard to the figure of 5 per cent. This was a breakthrough. The 5 per cent is a restrictive measure. Every time a census is taken we have to split up the constituencies. We should look at this area and we should arrange to have constituencies redrawn every ten years or so.

The redrawing of constituencies is not new to me and I have had to move house on at least three occasions because of the redrawing of the boundaries. I do not complain as that is one of the hazards of political life. I regret that we did not set up a special committee to look at the report of the commission and to come to agreement about whether or not it should be changed in the interests of the constituents. Perhaps it would not be changed but we should not set a precedent that will force us to abide by any commission's proposals, whether we feel they are in the interests of the people or not, without a debate. A commission's proposals are not unalterable and we should not be afraid to set up a special all party committee to look at such proposals in future.

I do not know if the Minister wants to have this Bill passed before the summer recess but if that is what the Minister wants, obviously there will not be time to set up an all-party committee to deal with this. However, I appeal to the Minister to consider that point. This would show that we are prepared to objectively examine reports and advice from commissions. I am not being personal about this because I am quite happy with my constituency but I earnestly appeal to the Minister to consider setting up an all-party committee because we should not give the impression that a commission when set up has the last word.

The Bill is necessary and, having regard to the increase in population, it is undoubtedly desirable. People in both urban and rural areas are entitled to full representation in this House. This House is the only medium through which the public can express their opinion through their elected representatives. I have been in this House during the passage of quite a number of electoral Bills which dealt with constituency boundaries. Looking back at the official reports it can be clearly seen that there has always been a very loud expression of opinion from both sides of the House about the right to fix constituency boundaries. When Deputy Boland was Minister for Local Government he introduced such legislation here and it found approval with some and disapproval with others. There were allegations and counter allegations that there were suspicious motives behind every line of that legislation. When Deputy Tully as Minister for Local Government redrew the constituencies, charges were made that Deputy Tully was fixing constituency boundaries to suit himself and his political party and the Government of which he was a member. In the light of the serious criticisms and charges made in this House in relation to fixing the boundaries and constituencies, what course was left open? The only course was to appoint an independent commission to make recommendations to the House.

This commission was set up. Most of us who are Members of the House have long knowledge of every member of that commission. They were asked to submit a report and recommendation in accordance with the evidence of population both urban and rural and what they thought would be an impartial and fair recommendation in relation to Dáil constituencies. Every single member of that commission can rightly be described as having no direct political interest and as a man of supreme integrity.

If I were asked to express an opinion I would favour a majority of three-seat constituencies in order to give the best possible type of representation to people in the smaller type constituency. I have been a member of a five-seat constituency and the one I have the honour to represent has not been changed one iota since the foundation of the State. Naturally enough, such an arrangement suits me ideally. As I have said on more than one occasion in this House, the best and proper type of representation is the smaller type constituency so that elected members can be easily reached by all constituents and, at a rate of 20,000 voters per member, a reasonably good service can be given. Each Deputy can be seen frequently in every part of a smaller constituency and can render a proper and loyal stewardship to those he represents.

The ideal solution would have been to have a single member constituency but this was rejected by a referendum some years ago. This type of constituency would lend itself to frequent changes of representation unless the elected member had his ear to the ground and was up and doing. Although I favour the single member and the single non-transferable vote it should have been possible to have proportional representation and have Members elected on the basis of a single Member constituency using the PR or transferable vote to return the elected Deputy. However, the people decided otherwise and when they do we must courageously accept their verdict as expressed in the ballot box. There is little we can do about altering that position because of the decision taken by the people.

If an all-party committee was set up to make recommendations on constituency boundaries I would not be envious of the responsibility the chairman of such a committee would have, because various Deputies could not under any circumstances agree on the proposals submitted by various Ministers for Local Government. Such an all-party committee could sit for at least 18 months and then submit a report giving the minority and majority view. No matter what type of constituency boundaries politicians would recommend they could not possibly meet with the favour of all politicians. The next best thing was to have an independent commission of men of sound integrity who were familiar with the election laws, the working of this House and the administration of the laws passed by this House from judicial benches. A more independent expression of opinion could not be had than the report to which we can rightly refer in the Bill.

I have one fault to find with the Bill. Section 5 deals with the re-election of the outgoing Ceann Comhairle. It is correct, and it is the procedure in practically every democratic parliament, that the outgoing Ceann Comhairle is automatically returned unopposed. The same provision should be included for a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I am glad to have one good friend in the House.

Flattery will get him nowhere.

There is little use in a pious expression of thanks for what may be considered as a favourable comment when it is not in the Bill. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle takes over the duties of the Ceann Comhairle in his absence and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle must always be in attendance at Parliament. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has his responsibilities to undertake in the House, it must occupy more than a fair share of the time he is away from his constituency. Those of us who have been abroad from time to time realise the handicap it is to be away from one's constituency. For that reason I have always felt—not just today—that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, who must be in attendance at every single sitting of the House, should have the same facilities available to him as the Ceann Comhairle has. I do not know if the commission were asked to make a comment on the electoral position of a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I am not referring to the present occupant of this very exalted position but I am considering the case of every Leas-Cheann Comhairle to come. We have a correct arrangement for the automatic re-election of a Ceann Comhairle and, because of the numerous handicaps experienced by any Leas-Cheann Comhairle in constituency work due to his commitments in this House, it is only right that he should be automatically returned as a Member. I should like to hear the views of other Members on this. It is our duty to consider a variety of legislation and put forward our options on such legislation. I feel I am in order in directing the attention of any future commission which may be engaged in the task of fixing constituency boundaries to the fact that the position of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle should be considered.

We should have heard something today about the problems that will have to be faced when the membership of the House is increased to 166. Will the Minister comment on the position that will prevail after the next general election with regard to accommodation? At present we have to work under the worst conditions possible. It is not possible for us to devote sufficient time to consideration of legislation or constituency work because of poor facilities. At present two and three Members must endeavour to work in what can only be described as an airtight bird cage. It is impossible to work under such conditions. Ministers of State have the poorest office facilities I have seen in any House of Parliament I have visited.

I have given the Deputy some latitude in relation to facilities in the House but I should like to remind him that is a matter for another Minister.

I agree but the Bill proposes to increase the number of Members.

I accept that and that is why I permitted the Deputy to mention facilities.

Because of the increase in the membership of the Dáil we will not enjoy the limited facilities we have at present. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle, an extremely sensible, intelligent and long-serving Member, must be aware of the fact that we do not have sufficient parking space for the existing number of Deputies and I should like to know what will happen when up to 20 extra Deputies arrive. We are all aware of what it is like to work in poor conditions.

The Chair should like to tell the Deputy that the Taoiseach gave an undertaking recently about accommodation and facilities in the House.

I am pleased to hear that, but irrespective of arrangements made for accommodation I do not think the present serious position will be improved. We will still have to work in substandard accommodation such as we have to cope with at present.

I should like to deal with the section concerning the register of electors. This Bill presents a Minister with an opportunity to improve the situation in relation to the compiling of the register of electors. In my view there should be a provision for the carrying out of frequent inspections by a senior official of the Department of the Environment of the Register of electors. Such an investigation should be carried out with the help of the local authority official responsible for the compling of the register. The present situation is most unsatisfactory. I cannot offer any explanation why many people when they go to the polling booths are informed that their names are not on the register of electors. Something should be done to improve that situation.

In the course of recent debates it has been stated that this House was handing over its authority and power to independent commissions. This House is the supreme authority and I do not think Members are handing over their power or authority. If any Member feels there is nothing to prevent him tabling amendments for consideration. If a difference of opinion arises in relation to any townland, or group of townlands, suitable amendments can be tabled and on such occasions it should be possible to permit a free vote. I can recall free votes being permitted in relation to the constituency of South Mayo and the constituency of Wexford. I am sure the Minister for the Environment would permit a free vote in relation to any controversial matter.

I should like to compliment the commission on the efforts it made, as far as possible, to avoid cutting across county boundaries. In rural constituencies the county boundary is the boundary that is readily recognised by the people and it can be a great inconvenience to the electorate, to candidates and to elected Deputies afterwards when county boundaries are disregarded. This is my first experience of an electoral Bill in which the greatest consideration has been given to retaining as far as is humanly possible county boundaries. This is most desirable and I hope the same will apply in the case of any other future legislation and that county boundaries will be adhered to.

What better system of fixing constituency boundaries could one have? On an issue of this kind political parties have not trusted each other in the past. Human nature being what it is, I do not think it is possible for them to trust each other on the creation of constituency boundaries. So, the only way in which it can be done is the way set out in this Bill. Dáil Éireann is the supreme authority on all occasions and no independent group can usurp its authority. Dáil Éireann is the supreme authority in this democracy. In the past we have handed over our powers, perhaps wrongly in some instances. We should cherish very carefully the power and authority we have here.

In the case of fixing Deputies' salaries, which is the responsibility of another Minister, I have always held that it was not right for Deputies to fix their own salaries and that an independent and if possible judicial report should be made in that regard having regard to incomes and rates of pay which in the opinion of such an independent body should apply to Dáil representatives. No matter on what occasion we tried to fix our own salaries one political party took advantage of another with the result that we lost a great deal of respect. If Parliament is to function properly every effort must be made in Bills of this kind in regard to constituency boundaries, facilities, rates of remuneration and so on to achieve the best possible result. So far as the Minister for the Environment is concerned the main object of any legislation should be to create renewed confidence in Dáil Éireann and maintain the highest standards of dignity. We cannot expect the public to respect the dignity of this House if we do not exercise our powers and authority in a fair and impartial way.

I have no objection to this Bill. It does not concern my constituency. I am quite happy with the administrative counties of Laois and Offaly which I have the honour to represent for so many years. Great and numerous problems will be created as a result of the influx of so many new Deputies into the House. I hope the Minister will immediately consult with his ministerial colleagues so as to achieve the best possible results in bringing about improved facilities in every respect.

I do not think a better job could be done as regards this Bill. When a report of this kind is introduced in the form of legislation it may not please all Deputies and may still be subject to a variety of criticisms. Yet, I do not see any other way of dealing with this kind of controversial problem and I convey my compliments to the commission and every member of it for what I sincerely feel is a fair, impartial and completely non-political report in which they consider the best possible representation for the people so that they would be democratically represented in Parliament by increased numbers in accordance with increased population.

The limited number of speakers, especially on the Government side, would certainly lead one to believe that this whole matter is a fait accompli and that no matter what suggestions or amendments are put forward it is most unlikely that they will be accepted. Anything I may say on this Bill is a personal opinion; I am not speaking on behalf of my party.

It is a pity that the Bill is so narrow in its context. It merely implements the findings of the Constituency Commission. While I fully support the ideals behind the setting up of that commission I thought that a somewhat more comprehensive Bill incorporating other reports issued in recent times might have been presented. I specifically refer to that section of the Devlin Report which dealt with the working of Dáil Éireann and the remuneration and working conditions of its Members together with much-needed revision of Dáil procedures such as published recently in a policy document initiated by our party.

I think that is a matter for another Minister.

I do not wish to make a political point on that score but I think we all accept that the time is long overdue for reform of the workings of the Dáil. I should like to see legislation introduced which would incorporate those changes as well as dealing with working conditions.

The more cynical members of the public look on this Bill and on the commission's report as a case of extending the number of "Jobs for the boys." I should like to dismiss here and now that version. I believe every Member of the Dáil would do likewise. It is the commission's intention to see that the public are properly represented under the terms of the Constitution. I am not very sure that the commission are correct in assuming that that is the best thing for the people. I know you ruled out previous speakers when they spoke about working conditions but it is very difficult to divorce the two matters.

I have allowed a passing reference to it, but it is really a matter for another Minister and another day.

It is important that the country be run in the most efficient manner possible. It is irrelevant whether that can be done with 168 Deputies or 112 Deputies as long as it is done well. I would prefer to see 112 Deputies in this House if they were allowed work under proper circumstances and were given the proper type of secretarial assistance and office accommodation, both of which are lacking at the moment. We have the intolerable situation where one secretary is supposed to do the secretarial work of six or seven Deputies. The most junior official in a Government Department or a local authority can have a secretary to himself or herself.

The Deputy should not pursue the matter. As I pointed out to the previous Deputy, something is being done about this matter.

The Constitution says in relation to Dáil Deputies that there should be at least one Deputy for every 20,000 of the population, or at most 30,000. Successive Governments, as well as this commission, have aimed at the higher rate of representation, one for every 20,000. That may not be the best solution. It would be more honest to face up to the fact that Deputies are unable, because of the restrictions I have mentioned, to do the type of legislative research which is necessary and take part in Dáil debates to an extent which justifies their existence to the fullest. It should be the aim of this House to see that every Deputy is fully briefed and has proper back-up service and secretarial service to carry out that function. It would be much better if the number of Deputies was reduced and facilities, secretarial and otherwise, were vastly improved. The ideal solution would be to have the maximum number of Deputies and the best possible facilities. We are getting almost the maximum number of Deputies but the facilities are at a standstill, which is not a satisfactory situation.

Previous speakers said they hope that in time to come the burden of Dáil Deputies will be reduced by the advent of the ombudsman and information services. I hope that alleviates the position. Oireachtas Committees are an excellent idea and have been a wonderful innovation in recent years on EEC legislation and the Joint Committee investigating the affairs of State and semi-State bodies. We are coming around to a rational system of parliamentary procedure, which is well in train in other countries but is comparatively new in this country. That type of operation would greatly enhance the work of the Dáil if the type of ancillary services to which I have referred are improved. It would give the Dáil a vastly improved function and would lead to a far better service to the public at large.

Reference has been made to the type of electoral system under which we operate. I agree that the multi-seat constituencies, which are referred to at some length in the Bill, are not a satisfactory answer to our problems. I do not believe that, because previous suggestions and previous amendments to the Constitution were defeated, we should abandon the idea of the type of constituency previously mooted. We should think again about the most satisfactory type of constituencies. I am not saying I am in favour of a single-seat constituency with a non-transferable vote. I believe that probably was a mistake in the referendum of 1959. I believe there would be public acclaim, and possibly strong backing from the bulk of politicians, for the idea of a single-seat constituences based on the transferrable vote.

At the moment there is a great duplication of effort by Members of the Dáil in that constituents, some with the highest motives and others not, go not only to one Deputy but to two, three and possible four Deputies of that particular constituency in an effort to pressurise a Government Department, a Minister or a local authority into getting some favour done. I do not think that is in the best interests of the working of Parliament or in the best interests of Dáil Deputies themselves. I have no time whatsoever for the constituent whose case is not justified who utilises such pressure to get something which he or she may not be fully entitled to.

This whole area might have been covered in this Bill. It is unfortunate that the Bill is so narrow that it is only an implementation of the report of the commission. I know the debate here this evening has to be restricted, but I hope the Minister will take the point that we would like to see legislation which is more broadly based and which would lead to a more intelligent and less time-consuming running of this House.

If I may get in on the commercial, I wish to refer to the changes envisaged in this Bill. As has been pointed out in the Minister's speech, there are only three breaches of county boundaries as the Bill stands at present. That is an excellent day's work on the part of the commission. In most matters they have struck rigidly to the guidelines proposed originally. They were rather confined in their work because of the Supreme Court decision in 1961 and their terms of reference accordingly were limited. I am going to suggest to the Minister that by a very slight amendment to the existing Bill before us those boundary breaches could be reduced from three to two, and the case I have in mind is that which takes half of County Waterford and puts it into South Tipperary. By extending the tolerence level slightly, by as little as 1 per cent, there need not be any breach of county boundaries at all in this case. I would like the Minister to have another look at it. I know that his own Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Fahey, feels just as strongly on this matter as I do and would be here today making his case except that he has been indisposed for some time past.

On page 18 of the commission's report it is stated: "Not only population should be taken into account but also the desirability so far as possible to adhere to well-known boundaries such as those of counties, townlands and electoral divisions and the existence of divisions created by such physical features as rivers, lakes and mountains." That quotation from the commission's report refers back to the Supreme Court case of 1961. Now I would like to refer to the factors as they relate to the present Waterford constituency.

Regarding average population per Deputy, if South Tipperary, without the addition of County Waterford, was allocated four seats, the ratio would be only 7.26 per cent below the national average. In view of the variations from the national average proposed by the commission in Carlow-Kilkenny, which is 6.28 per cent; Laois-Offaly, which is 5.74 per cent; Louth, which is 6.13 per cent; East Mayo, which is 6.42 per cent; and West Mayo, which is 6.27 per cent, the variation of 7.26 per cent is not unreasonable. It is less than .8 per cent if you compare it with East Mayo. On the other hand, South Tipperary, without the proposed addition from County Waterford, could thus be a four-seat constituency on population grounds alone, as an entity. Regarding the present Waterford constituency, the ratio would be 7.54 per cent above the national average, again not an excessive amount when compared with the other tolerance levels.

The commission decided that the factors other than population to be taken into account were the desirability so far as is possible to adhere to well-known boundaries such as county, townland, and electoral divisions and the existence of divisions such as rivers and mountains. Waterford at present is separated from South Tipperary by the well-known boundaries of the county line and the present constituency division.

There are two prominent and well-known boundaries which would be a major factor in any decision. I refer to the River Suir, which is the natural boundary between Waterford and Tipperary and which at present is being breached by bringing a portion of Waterford into South Tipperary, and I refer also to the mountain ranges of the Comeraghs and the Knockmealdowns, again being breached to bring part of Waterford into South Tipperary. Therefore, by increasing the tolerance level by a mere 1 per cent you would not have to breach two major boundaries, one a river and the other a mountain range. In those circumstances it would be justified to leave Waterford as an integral county and city, as one four-seat constituency and to do likewise with South Tipperary. Waterford is separated from Tipperary by the River Suir and the Comeragh mountain range, two very important physical features.

Taking the three factors of population, well-known boundaries and physical boundaries, the commission would have been quite justified in making the present South Tipperary constituency a four-seater and leaving Waterford as a four-seater. Therefore, I put it to the Minister that he can reduce the number of breaches of county boundaries mentioned in this Bill from three to two merely by increasing the tolerance level which he has in East Mayo of 6.4 to 7.5 at the maximum for County Waterford and South Tipperary. That would be in the spirit of the Supreme Court decision of 1961. The figure mentioned in that Supreme court decision was 5 per cent, but great play was put upon the factor of physical boundaries and county boundaries, and I have here today pointed out that all of those come into play between the two constituencies of Waterford and South Tipperary. Surely 7.5 per cent would not be an unfair tolerance level to ask for. It would not be an undue derogation from the limits which have been set down. In welcoming the Bill, I ask the Minister to examine closely the point in question and give serious consideration to retaining the existing county boundaries to coincide with the constituency boundaries.

First of all, I should like to thank the House for the manner in which it has dealt with the Bill. As pointed out by different speakers, it is refreshing at this time to be dealing with a constituency revision Bill in a calm and reasonable manner, as compared with past experiences when Bills of this nature were before this house, twice during my time, in 1969 and 1974. There was then a lot of disagreement and bitterness in some of those debates, which I am happy did not occur on this occasion. The reason for that is the change of atmosphere arising from the fact that the new constituencies have been recommended by an independent commission, following on a commitment given by the leader of my party just prior to the last general election. That is my recollection. I understand from those sitting in the House today that there was an intention to give a similar commitment if the result of the election had been different. There would appear to be general agreement among the parties that a commission was the best way of tackling this job because of accusations about gerrymandering on different occasions in the past, some of them, of course, ill-founded.

The voters and the people in general accept that the commission was the best way to do the job. We as a Government, accepted the recommendations in the report of the commission and this Bill implements these recommendations, as presented to us. It was a decision of the Government and the party to do so.

Deputy O'Brien expressed the opinion that we might not be doing our duty as Members of this House in handing over responsibility such as this to a commission. We did not hand over the responsibility to the commission. We asked them to make recommendations and to advise the Houses of the Oireachtas on this matter. This is exactly what they have done and nothing else. It is up to the House to accept or reject these recommendations or if they think fit, to attempt to amend them. In that way the House is the final arbiter of the new constituencies and has not got rid of its responsibilities in this respect at all.

Deputy Flanagan recommended that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle be automatically returned, in the same way as the Ceann Comhairle. We, unfortunately, cannot embody that in the Bill. The position of the Ceann Comhairle is set out very clearly in Article 16 of the Constitution, which does not include the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

That will not happen.

Unfortunately.

More than one speaker mentioned that the ideal type of constituency was a one-seat one. A lot of people in this House thought that in 1968 and supported it, but the electorate did not think so and the two issues were overwhelmingly defeated as I recall, in 1968, and the same thing happened in the fifties.

There was not a compromise. It was a single seat with a transferring vote.

I was not at that time very long in the House but I know that the proposals were well and truly defeated, even though they had majority support in this House.

The commission, having received the final census report, worked in all haste. There was no delay whatsoever in reporting back and presenting their report. They did an excellent job in a reasonably short time. The report was published around 21 April and there was a time, before the Bill came before the House, when the parties or individuals considered what was involved in it. Again, it is only a recommendation and advice being offered by the commission which has been accepted by the Government. We are now in this Bill implementing what was contained in that report of the commission.

I again thank the Deputies who contributed and who joined with me in complimenting the members of the commission. It is not for me to defend or criticise any part of what is contained in the commission's report.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 19 June 1980.
Top
Share