(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.