Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Dec 1980

Vol. 325 No. 4

Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1980: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Fahey)

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

The purpose of this Bill is to provide a permanent formula for determining the constituency for which the outgoing Ceann Comhairle may be deemed to be re-elected as a member of the Dáil at a general election. Article 16.6 of the Constitution requires that provision be made by law for such re-election and the statutory provision to give effect to this requirement is contained in section 14 of the Electoral Act, 1963. Under the terms of this section as it stands at present the Chairman is deemed to be re-elected for the constituency for which he was a member before the dissolution or, if a revision of constituencies takes effect on the dissolution, for the constituency declared on the revision to correspond to that constituency.

For this purpose it has been the practice at each revision of constituencies since 1963, to include in the relevant Bill a statement indicating which of the new constituencies corresponded to the constituency represented by the Deputy who was Chairman of the Dáil at the time of the revision. Earlier this year the Oireachtas passed a constituency revision Bill, entitled the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1980, and this measure identified the new constituency of Donegal South-West as the constituency for which the Ceann Comhairle could be deemed to be elected without a contest. The death of the former Ceann Comhairle, our esteemed colleague, the late Deputy Joseph Brennan, has meant that this provision has become ineffective.

It would be possible to resolve the immediate difficulty by way of a short Bill simply naming the constituency for which our new Ceann Comhairle may be deemed to be re-elected. However, I think the House will agree that it is preferable to deal with the matter in general terms and this Bill makes a permanent provision under which it will be possible to identify the appropriate constituency in relation to any Deputy who may be elected to the office of Ceann Comhairle, without the necessity for further legislation. The Bill amends section 14 of the Electoral Act, 1963, so as to provide that where a revision of constituencies takes effect on the dissolution of the Dáil, the Chairman shall be deemed to be re-elected for the constituency which is identical with or contains all the constituency for which he was a member immediately before the dissolution. If, however, his present constituency is divided between two or more new constituencies, he would be deemed to be re-elected for a revised constituency selected by him which contains part of the constituency for which he is at present a member. The Bill provides that the selection of a constituency by the Chairman shall be made by means of a declaration in writing addressed to the Clerk of the Dáil. The Chairman will be required to notify the members of the Dáil of the declaration. The precise manner of notification will be such as the Chairman considers appropriate in the particular circumstances, but it may be expected that in the normal course he would make an appropriate announcement to the House.

The Bill also provides that any such declaration shall cease to have effect in the event of the person who made it having ceased to be Chairman of the Dáil. This ensures that there can be only one such declaration in force at any time.

The proposals contained in the Bill constitute a small but worthwhile improvement in the electoral law and will remove the necessity for fresh legislation whenever a change takes place in the office of Ceann Comhairle after a revision of constituencies. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister of State has said this Bill is necessary because of the lamented death of the former Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Joe Brennan, and the appointment of his successor, Deputy Padraig Faulkner. Section 14 of the Electoral Act of 1963 provided that if a Ceann Comhairle did not notify the Dáil before its dissolution that he did not intend to stand again he was deemed to be automatically elected for the constituency which he represented at the time of the dissolution, or if there was a revision of constituencies he would be deemed to be elected automatically to the constituency which was declared, in the Bill giving rise to the revision, as the constituency which corresponded to the constituency for which he had been last elected and that was the provision made in the Electoral Act of 1963. When the Electoral (Amendment) Act of 1980 was going through the Dáil it was provided in section 5 that for the purposes of section 14 (1) (b) of the Electoral Act of 1963 the constituency of Donegal South-West, specified in the Schedule to the Electoral (Amendment) Bill of 1980, was declared to correspond to the constituency of Donegal specified in the Schedule of the Electoral (Amendment) Act of 1974 and if the late Ceann Comhairle had been spared until the next general election he would have been deemed to be re-elected to the constituency of Donegal South-West. But regrettably he was not. It is in those circumstances that this Amendment Bill is necessary.

But, strange as it may appear, when the Amendment Bill of 1980 was going through the House and when it was being discussed, a number of Deputies asked on Committee Stage what would happen if Deputy Brennan resigned before the next general election and Deputy Barrett, the Minister dealing with the Bill at the time, stated that it would have to be dealt with by a short amending Bill. It was pointed out that this seemed a clumsy way of doing things and that, in the words of Deputy Tully, there must be a better way than that. But the easy way was tabling and the amendment Bill of 1980 followed section 14 of the Act of 1963 and declared Donegal South-West as the constituency corresponding with the former constituency of Donegal. As events turned out it was regrettable that the advice given from this side of the house was not taken on that occasion and that the procedure now being adopted was not adopted then. At any rate it does show that Committee Stage debate is good and that it alerts Ministers and Departments to the desirability for improvement.

The present Bill, without the Act of 1963, would not make sense at all. But at any rate what is being proposed to be done now is to delete subsection (1) (b) of the 1963 Act and substitute another paragraph (b), and I will have something to say about that on Committee Stage. In certain circumstances the Ceann Comhairle is returned for the constituency which he represented if it is identical, and if there is a change in certain other circumstances he is returned automatically for the constituency which is substantially the same as the one he represented. If neither of these eventualities is appropriate he must make a declaration declaring what constituency he wants to be elected for and the only condition is that part of the old constituency must be in the constituency for which he declares. It is provided also that he shall make this declaration as soon as may be after the Act is passed if he is Ceann Comhairle when the Act is passed and, if he is not, that he will make it as soon as may be after he is appointed Ceann Comhairle. I do not see anything wrong here. I think that this is an improvement on the 1963 Act and it will avoid the necessity for amending Bills like this in the future. To that extent it is an improvement on the 1963 Act which did not foresee the human happenings and the eventualities we are dealing with now.

I accept the Bill. One thing that strikes me that I would like to raise on Committee is in connection with the new section 1 (b).

Mr. Boland

Much of what I wanted to say about this Bill has been said already by Deputy Fitzpatrick. One of the most telling points he made is the merit of the Committee Stage debate, which, unfortunately, is very seldom listened to by the people at whom it is directed. The earlier Committee Stage of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, in regard to which the Minister seeks to mend his hand, was debated on 19 June 1980. On section 5 of that Bill the point was raised by Deputies Fitzpatrick, White, Tully and myself that the provision naming the constituency for which the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil would be returned was not a very enlightening section and that a far better way of dealing with the matter would have been to instal a section saying that the Ceann Comhairle shall be elected for whatever constituency he happened to represent when the general election might come about. Nonetheless at that time the Minister of the day was adamant that he was obliged to introduce the provision naming the constituency of Donegal South-West as being the constituency that this is applied to. At that time I asked what the situation would be if the Ceann Comhairle at the time represented the constituency of Dublin-Finglas who then could find himself faced with the option of standing in any of the new constituencies of Dublin North-Central, Dublin North-West or Dublin Central. I said that I understood there were Deputies in the existing Dublin-Finglas area who at the moment were in a quandary to know which of these Dublin constituencies they might represent now. I am still not satisfied that this Bill mends the hand of the Minister entirely in this regard. This seems to be going from one extreme to another. In the earlier extreme, which unfortunately proved to be unworkable, the Minister insisted on naming the constituency of Donegal South-West as being the constituency for which the Ceann Comhairle of this Dáil was to be returned. As we all know, the tragic death of the Ceann Comhairle at the time means that that provision cannot apply now. I think it was Deputy Fitzpatrick who asked what might happen if the Ceann Comhairle were to resign——

Mr. Tully

It was I, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Boland

——or die. I am sorry; it was Deputy Tully who raised this. He envisaged a situation where the Leas-Cheann Comhairle might become Ceann Comhairle. The scenario that he spelled out did not come to pass but he suggested that that might mean that Deputy Browne from Wexford would end up being returned as one of the Deputies for Donegal South-West.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I assure the Deputy that it is bad enough in Wexford without trying to represent Donegal.

Mr. Boland

I was about to point out to the Chair that on 19 June the main occupant of the Chair——

Mr. Tully

There is one thing about them in Donegal, they are not hard to please.

Mr. Boland

On the aspect of consistency, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I would like to put your remarks of a moment ago in juxtaposition with your remark as recorded at column 1204, volume 322 of the Official Report. When Deputy Tully asked what might be the position if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle were left representing Donegal, you said:

In those circumstances he might not mind.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure that the Chair should not be involved anywhere, but what harm?

Mr. Boland

None of that came to pass. Now we have a Bill providing that the Ceann Comhairle, whoever he might be, is to be returned by the constituency that he happens to represent at that time, assuming that there is no revision. If there is a revision he is to opt for either the constituency that represents a majority of his initial constituency or for a new constituency which contains a minority share, section or division of his existing constituency. On the face of it that may appear fair enough, but that could still leave us having the result of the election pre-determined to some extent. Suppose the constituency for which the Ceann Comhairle is one of the Deputies happens to have a minute section, say one parish, taken out of it and put into another constituency for the purpose of the revision. I will take the example of the present Ceann Comhairle. If one parish in, say, south-west Louth was removed and put into Meath, the Ceann Comhairle who represented the constituency of Louth would then discover that one parish had been added into the new constituency of Meath and could opt to declare that he was to be the Ceann Comhairle elected for the constituency of Meath and absorb like a sponge, remove from the electoral processes one of the three seats from Meath. I am not suggesting for a moment that the existing Ceann Comhairle would do this.

In the example that I have given of Louth the same could apply to the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan. If one parish or even one townland of County Louth were to be added to the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan the Ceann Comhairle could announce that he wished to be returned as a Deputy representing not Louth but Cavan-Monaghan. If it were not for the narrow neck of County Meath that Deputy Tully represents he could announce that he wanted to be returned representing my own constituency of North County Dublin because he is no more than four or five miles away from the borders of my constituency as it stands. Therefore, I am not sure that the new section 1 (b) by which section 14 of the former Act is to be amended is a provision with which I would agree lightly. It is not inconceivable that a constituency can split into four or five different parts.

Under the present revision my constituency has been divided into four different parts. The majority part still remains the constituency of North County Dublin but three other sections along its southern boundary, each of sizeable proportions, are being added to three of what are basically the Dublin City North constituencies. A Ceann Comhairle in North County Dublin would have the option of announcing that he would represent any one of four different constituencies. He would want to be a man of the highest principle to come off a Government bench or from the Cabinet and not be tempted in the scenario which is envisaged here, where a Ceann Comhairle has to be elected half way, two-thirds of the way or, perhaps as we are now, seven-eights of the way through the life of a Dáil, to say, looking at four different constituencies, that he will represent a constituency which would do most harm to the Opposition and put his own party in the most beneficial position.

There should have been some safeguard contained in the Bill that a Ceann Comhairle may only opt for whatever happens to be the majority portion of his present constituency or lest that might be unfair to him if the minority section was the area in which he lived himself, the area in which he is domiciled. That might be a fairer way of dealing with it.

Deputy Murphy made a very interesting contribution to the debate on 19 June. He said that Donegal South-West, which was to declare and elect three Deputies who would act as political representatives on behalf of that constituency, would be deprived to some extent because the Ceann Comhairle of the day is not entitled to become involved in political activities with his political organisation and must maintain impartiality; he is at one remove from the political mainstream of the constituency. Deputy Murphy made the point that perhaps the constituency revisions ought to be done on the basis, assuming a 148 seat Dáil, of 147 seats being allocated to constituencies and that a seat without constituency should be allocated to the Ceann Comhairle so that the outgoing Ceann Comhairle would know that he was returned elected but not for a specific constituency. I imagine that would involve constitutional difficulties but if there is ever another attempt to revise the constituencies this is one of the more useful ways to do so rather than the abortive ways of the recent past.

It is a pity that Committee Stage is not acted upon more often because if the Committee Stage on 19 June last had been listened to it would have obviated the necessity for this Bill. This Bill does not make the situation perfect. It is placing temptation before a Ceann Comhairle to disrupt the process by choosing a small section of his existing constituency which is being lumped in with an adjoining constituency and thereby upset the balance of power in that constituency and perhaps change the result of the entire election.

Far be it from me to suggest it, but it could be represented as placing temptation before those who are compiling the constituency revision to so divide and fragment a Ceann Comhairle's constituency in their report as to leave the House with little option but to accept the report and leave the Ceann Comhairle with a multitude of options as to which constituency he wants to represent. For that reason the House should be slow to accept Committee Stage.

Mr. Tully

I can guess the urgency for this Bill. With a long pile of legislation before the House which was listed earlier in the year and has not yet been produced I was a little surprised at first, and then not so much so, when I heard the Bill was being introduced this evening. I know every effort will be made to try and get it through as quickly as possible. Without its being passed a general election cannot be held, unless one intends to appoint somebody in Donegal South-West as Ceann Comhairle.

Last June I pointed out that it was rather foolish to put in the section as it was. I asked the question what would happen in the lamentable event — which subsequently turned out to be true — of the Ceann Comhairle not being there. I was told by the then Minister that he would introduce a new Bill, which I thought a waste of time and effort. It should not have been done.

I am not happy about the wording of the section. As Deputy Boland clearly explained, it gives too big an option to a political Ceann Comhairle. Do not let us cod ourselves about this. The one argument against Deputy Murphy's reasoned arguments last June was the fact that such a Ceann Comhairle who would be appointed odd man out would have no constituency. In the event of his not being re-elected — it has been known for a Ceann Comhairle not to be re-elected when a new Dáil is formed — it would mean he would have no constituency.

It is amazing how quickly a Ceann Comhairle who has been in the Chair for a period of years picks up the threads and becomes a politician although during his term as Ceann Comhairle he is not supposed to take part in politics. The only examples I know of were two Labour men. Deputy Paddy Hogan and Deputy Seán Treacy, and the latter would not go to his own victory celebration because people would say he was taking part in a political function. There should be some way to regulate it so that a Ceann Comhairle can be re-elected for the constituency he represents. To say he can select either the constituency he represents or any portion of it is wrong. It is far too wide. They are ex-politicians and become politicians again very quickly. We should have Committee Stage at a later date on this Bill where we can have the matter properly teased out and submit amendments.

The Minister might consider such an amendment. I am sure he can see the strength of the argument. His party will not always be in power, thank God, and this could work to the advantage of his party as well as anyone else's. In the interest of fair play the wording should be changed to ensure that if a Ceann Comhairle wants to opt for a constituency it should be one or a large portion of one he has represented but not a little corner that would give him the out in the Bill as now proposed.

A big mistake was made last June. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that another bad mistake does not occur now. I am perhaps more anxious than he is that every opportunity should be given to the Taoiseach to take his trip to the Park when he wants to. Despite that I am also anxious to see sensible legislation passed through the House. I was surprised at the wording included the last time and I am surprised at it now. The parliamentary draftsman and people who decide what way it should be put in know and it would appear to me — perhaps I am over-suspicious — that this is a political input which we could very well do without. It is wrong that it should be worded in this way and, having made a mistake before, let us not make one again and if the Minister is prepared to have it changed on Committee Stage I would be happy with that and we shall see what the outcome will be.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Fahey)

I thank the Deputies who have spoken in the debate and I am glad that there is general acceptance of the Bill. As regards points made by Deputy Fitzpatrick about when the Bill was previously before the House and was being dealt with by the Minister for the Environment at that time, I do not accept that any error was made then. I am sure that if I say it was rather difficult at that stage it will be understood because it was then known that the former Ceann Comhairle, the late Deputy Brennan was ill at that time and it was not the time to discuss future changes and the appointment of a successor as Ceann Comhairle. It was felt better to leave things as they were——

Mr. Tully

But you did not.

Mr. Fahey

——and I take it that the Minister was sincere when he said that a short amending Bill would put the situation in order. Deputy Boland and Deputy Tully mentioned the choice given to the Ceann Comhairle as regards the selection of a constituency. No doubt there is merit in their arguments and there would be no great problem about putting in the words "but would represent the greater part of the former constituency." I can also see that this would lead to difficulties and it would be very foolish of us to close our eyes to them. We do not want to make any mistakes or do anything that would tie anybody's hands unduly. However, it occurred to me that if it were my own constituency, which has been revised many times between Waterford and South Tipperary, and if I happened to be in the position of Ceann Comhairle at that time and say west Waterford on a revision came back into south Tipperary and the Bill were narrowed down to say that I would have to accept and be deemed to be re-elected for what contained the greater portion of my former constituency, that would mean it would be the part of the constituency from Dungarvan down to Waterford city which at that stage might even be taking in a portion of Kilkenny in a revision. I am being realistic about this. If one supposes there was that revision and that was the situation I would have to be deemed to be re-elected for a constituency which would not represent the area in which I lived or the area in which I got the great bulk of my support when elected in the previous general election.

In the case of the former Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Brennan, I think the same situation would apply. His constituency had been revised. If you took the greater part of his constituency in that case it would mean that he would be deemed elected for a constituency in which he would not be residing and from which the greater part of his support had not come. I say this only so that Deputies may realise that there is another side to the story and it is a matter that requires much thought. I do not think the flexibility allowed to a Ceann Comhairle in this Bill is too great. A Ceann Comhairle should have this flexibility. I think any Deputy or Ceann Comhairle would object if he were denied the right to be deemed to be elected for the part of the constituency in which he lived and the part from which he got most of his support.

The same argument could be made when Deputy Tully mentioned Deputy Treacy, a former Ceann Comhairle. If the part of South Tipperary in which he lived during his term of office had come into County Waterford in a revision I think it would be entirely wrong to say that Deputy Treacy should be deemed to be elected for the remainder of South Tipperary containing Cashel, Fethard and so on and exclude perhaps the town of Clonmel which could happen, on a revision, to come into County Waterford. There is a case for and against a narrowing down of the options open to a Ceann Comhairle and the matter deserves more thought. I again thank Deputies who participated in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday 18 December 1980, subject to discussion by the Whips.