Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Dec 1983

Vol. 346 No. 5

Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1983: Second Stage.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Spring)

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

The Bill proposes to fix the total number of Members of the Dáil, to revise the constituencies for the election of Members to the Dáil and to prescribe the number of Members to be returned for each constituency.

In considering the background to the Bill it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Article 16.2 of the Constitution, in particular to the requirements that

(a) the ratio between the number of Members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same through the country, and

(b) the Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once in every twelve years with due regard to changes in distribution of the population.

Twenty-two years ago the constitutional provisions relating to the revision of constituencies came before the High Court and the Supreme Court in two well-known actions. In these cases, however, the courts did not lay down what variation from the national average population per Deputy would be regarded as permissible in the formation of constituencies nor did they rule on the question of whether a revision of constituencies must take place whenever a census discloses substantial changes in the pattern of population distribution since the preceding census.

As the House is aware, the constituencies were last revised in 1980 on the basis of the population as ascertained at the census taken in April 1979. A further census was taken in April 1981 and disclosed some considerable shifts in population, particularly within the greater Dublin area. The Government considered it appropriate to put a revision of constituencies in train and, for this purpose, appointed an independent commission. The terms of reference given to the commission were the same as those given to the commission which drew up the 1980 proposals, with the additional guideline that, in view of the short time which had elapsed since the last review of constituencies, they should take account of the desirability of effecting the minimum changes.

In their report, which was laid before both Houses, the commission recommended that there should be no change in the overall membership of the Dáil or in the allocation of seats to individual constituencies. They recommended that there should be no change in the definition of the constituencies apart from the transfer of an area with a population of 10,830 from Dublin South-West to Dublin South-Central and of an area with a population of 5,783 from Dublin West to Dublin Central. This Bill proposes to implement the commission's recommendations in full.

In this regard, there are two points in particular that I would wish to make. First, the obligation to revise the constituencies is placed by the Constitution on the Oireachtas. The power of decision rests with the Oireachtas: the commission are advisory only. Secondly, it will be noted that while only four constituencies are affected by the changes, all constituencies are defined anew in the schedule. This is to ensure that the Bill gives effect to a revision of constituencies within the meaning of Article 16.2 of the Constitution, which relates to constituencies generally.

Deputies will be interested to note that, in the scheme now before the House, the percentage variations in the population-Deputy ratio range from +6.68 per cent in Louth to -7.89 per cent in Mayo East. This compares with variations in the previous revision ranging from +6.28 per cent in Carlow-Kilkenny to -6.42 per cent in Mayo East. Deputies will find a discussion of population-Deputy ratios in chapters 6, 7 and 8 of the commission's report. As I have already indicated, the courts did not set limits beyond which variations from the national average population-Deputy ratio would not be permissible.

Deputies have already received copies of the commission's report and maps have been deposited in the Oireachtas Library indicating the changes proposed in the constituencies of Dublin South-West, Dublin South-Central, Dublin West and Dublin Central. I do not think it is necessary for me at this stage to comment further in relation to any of the individual constituencies.

I would 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 of the Supreme Court, Mr. Turpin, Secretary of my Department and the Clerk of the Dáil, Mr. Rayel. I am sure that the House will wish to be associated with this expression of appreciation.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Molloy

The Fianna Fáil Party accept the recommendations of the Dáil Constituency Commission as contained in their report and we accept that they have been faithful to the terms of reference given to them by the Government. We see no need to delay this House in considering the Bill which is merely giving legislative effect to the recommendations of the commission. Individual Deputies may have differing views as to where the boundaries might be drawn in each constituency. I am not sure that that is really the concern of the Dáil this morning at this stage in view of the fact that both sides of the House accepted the terms of reference as such and the commission have been faithful to those terms of reference in the proposals which they have brought forward.

In view of the fact that this revision has taken place so soon after the previous revision I suppose it was reasonable of the Government to include the new terms of reference which I quote as the Minister stated them:

in view of the short time which had elapsed since the last review of constituencies,...the desirability of effecting the minimum changes.

That was a very severe restriction on the members of the commission and I accept that that played a very big part in the decisions which they made finally.

On behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party I would like to join with the Minister in thanking the members of the commission — Mr. Justice Walsh, Mr. Turpin and Mr. Rayel — for their excellent work and I will, if I may, add our thanks to the secretary of that commission, Mr. Sexton, who I know would have done the bulk of the work in preparing the documentation and has given very great service in this area of electoral law over the years.

The Chair indicated that it would give an opportunity during the discussion here to mention the question of the local elections. Do I understand the Ceann Comhairle correctly in that?

An Ceann Comhairle

In reply to the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party I said that a discussion on the local elections would not be necessary but a passing reference might be permitted.

Mr. Spring

I hope the Deputy will have full respect for precedents in this area.

Mr. Molloy

I warn the Government against any attempt to deny the people the opportunity of expressing their democratic will in regard to the membership of local authorities by deciding to postpone the local elections. There are precedents for postponements. There were very good grounds on one occasion in which I was involved in 1972. I am not sure whether the grounds were as valid in 1973 when Deputy Tully, then Coalition Minister, postponed them. The people are entitled to express their view on the membership of these local authorities, and we feel that it is important that those elections would take place, that they would not be postponed. There are absolutely no valid reasons being promoted by this Government to justify any postponement at this stage. I want to state in regard to previous postponements——

An Ceann Comhairle

I have been lenient with the Deputy and I am sure he will agree with what I am going to say. This Bill deals——

Mr. Molloy

I will not delay long on it.

An Ceann Comhairle

I want to say one sentence. If it is proposed to postpone local elections — the Chair does not know if that is so — it would necessitate a discussion in this House and in the Seanad.

Mr. Molloy

I accept that and we will avail of that opportunity if the Government attempt to deny the people their right to change the membership of the local authorities in 1984. I think it would be seen as an act of political cowardice on the part of this Government if they were to attempt to postpone the elections. The only reason such a decision would be made would be that they fear the wrath of the electorate. Any other excuse brought forward would have no credibility with the public.

As I have said, it is not our intention on this side of the House to delay this Bill very long. In accepting the commission's recommendations we recognise that the Bill is merely implementing those recommendations and giving them legislative effect. We support the Bill in the form in which it has been brought forward.

Mr. Kelly

I wish to make a few points about the total membership of the Dáil which the commission considered itself obliged by the guidelines given to it to recommend should be left at the existing number of 166 Deputies. The total membership of the Dáil cannot be more than one per 20,000 of the population or fewer than one per 30,000 of the population under Article 16 of the Constitution. On the basis of the present population those two limits would have justified a House with a membership as large as 172 — six more than the number we have already — but at the other end of the scale it would have justified a House as small as 115 Deputies.

There are problems in heading towards the smaller number, and I shall say a word about that later. We are near the upper limit at the moment, and probably the commission would have considered itself not only entitled but obliged to avail of the upper limit and give us an extra six Deputies in addition to the number we have already, because of our tradition during the years of adhering as closely as possible to the upper limit. If one considers the total membership of the Dáil during the years one will see it has always adhered as closely as possible to the upper limit of one per 20,000 population.

In 1948, 1951, 1954 and 1957 Dála were returned with 146 Members. The population dropped somewhat in the late 1950s and in 1961 and 1965 Dála returned on the basis of the 1960 Electoral (Amendment) Act had only 144 Members. When I first stood for the Dáil in 1969 there were 148 Members and now we have an extra 16. We might now have 172 Members had we stuck to the existing practice.

The existing practice can be defended. If one were to say that for reasons of economy we should have stuck to the other limit and had as few Deputies as possible — we could have 115 Members without changing a line in the Constitution — we would run into a problem that Mr. Lynch when Taoiseach adverted to when replying to a question on a radio or television interview. It was put to him that there were too many Deputies, that a relatively small number contribute to debates on legislation, which is what they are there for, and we heard the usual insulting, and I suppose not wholly inaccurate, references to what popular opinion supposes Deputies to do until, of course, a member of the public requires the services of a Deputy and then there is no limit to what he is expected to do.

Mr. Lynch's reply, which was a good one, was that while it would be economical from the point of view of finance to reduce the number of Deputies to 110 — as it might have been in those day — there was a problem. If the Government and the Opposition are reasonably evenly balanced and the Government are supported by only a narrow majority in the House, as is usually the case here, with a Dáil of 110 Deputies one would have to suppose that only 55 or 57 would support the Government and from that number the Taoiseach would have to find a Cabinet of competent Ministers. Mr. Lynch expressed this view in the form habitual to him — fairly gentle, even if it was not unexceptionable in other respects. He said a certain minimum was needed — and he thought 55 was too small — from which one could draw to provide a Front Bench of Ministers and a few second row Parliamentary Secretaries. Mr. Lynch put it tactfully that a number of one's supporters would perhaps be unsuitable or not available for office. That is a serious point and I agree with it. A Taoiseach needs a certain number in order to give him a range of choice.

Many Deputies in this and other parliaments have no special ambition for office themselves. They do not enter politics with office in mind. They are quite happy and proud to spend their public careers as back bench Deputies working for their constituents and contributing as best they can on subjects where they feel they have something to offer. The point made by Mr. Lynch was fair enough, but I think it has been met and satisfied. He was speaking at a time when the Dáil had 148 Deputies, where the Government had an overall majority in the House and where they had more than 70 Deputies behind them. A Deputy could be elected Taoiseach if 70 Deputies supported him. Let us give a certain margin for a particularly unlucky election where many talented people might lose their seats, or not run again, and put the figure at 75. That would posit a Dáil of 150 or perhaps 152 or 153 Members.

I have stated that the point made by Mr. Lynch was valid, but it has been met; and when we go beyond that point we are being extravagant. I think 166 is a shade too many. I think this goes back to our side of the House; I think it was when Mr. Tully was Minister for Local Government that he put forward a Bill which raised the number. However, if he did, he was only doing what every other Minister had done before when producing such a Bill, namely, adhering to the upper limit.

As the population grows and as the upper limit implies a larger membership of the House we get further away from the valid justification which Mr. Lynch offered for a House of a certain minimum size. We do not necessarily want a House with the maximum number. The point is often made by people who write to the newspapers because it has suddenly dawned on them that, if other European countries were represented on the same ratio as we are, the Parliaments of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy would have assemblies of approximately 2,500 Deputies each. To put it another way, the constituency I have the honour to represent is about the same size as a German constituency or a British urban constituency. Whereas I have four valued colleagues, not all of my own persuasion, in that constituency, if I were a Deputy in Germany or Britain I would be there on my own. That will give an idea of the difference in range between the various countries.

We should tell the next commission there is no need for them to stick to what was formerly the position, to adhere strictly to the 20,000 guideline. Perhaps we should say we have 166 Deputies and we do not need any more. Even though the population may grow — I hope it will grow and that there will be jobs there for them — I think there is no alternative now, and we have reached a workable position in which the problem is not now visible. I am speaking now about Deputies who are junior to me on both sides of the House. I can see Deputies of various political persuasions who are sitting on the back benches but are perfectly well qualified for office. It does not seem to me that there is a large number of backbenchers junior to me here who are unfit or unavailable for office. On the contrary. In my own party certainly there seems to be a large number well fit for office and quite anxious to work and I feel the same is true of the other side as well. I would like to try to initiate a mood in the House which would lead us to accept that the House is now big enough and, even if the population does grow by another couple of hundred thousand, we should not enlarge it any further.

The reason I say that is because we enjoy a very low level of public esteem at the moment. The reasons for that are partly irrational, partly related to political decisions that were mistaken and partly related to behaviour which comes across to the people through the Press. The Press have a duty not to be unreasonable, and I accept that, and they have a duty to present what happens here. I do not mean in a way that should be laughable, though I do not fault them for that on occasion. But there comes a point where a certain mood can overtake all of us and it overtakes the Press as well and they get into the laugh mood irrespective of the context. Very often it has to be admitted we give them the opportunity of feeding on that disposition and, if it does not so much raise a laugh, it is trying to present the House as a sort of merry-go-round or farcical Punch and Judy show, which the House frequently becomes. All we have to do is look at the Order of Business here every day. I accept that we in Opposition may have been just as bad at times, but I honestly do not think we were except on very rare occasions. What is occurring here now on every sitting day is becoming the rule. I am not making any special point about this.

Mr. Molloy

You are a good man to raise a laugh yourself, John.

Mr. Kelly

I do not think I was one of the worst. At any rate I think what passes now for a serious enunciation on daily business here has become farcical and the Press are well entitled to make it a Punch and Judy Show and, if I were a member of the public sitting up there in the Public Gallery, that is exactly what I would make of it. Between that and paying ourselves increases which, however objectively justified they may be, the public do not perceive like that when they hear us appealing to them not to be seeking increases which keep pace with inflation and when they find the kind of political tomfoolery that went on here in regard to the abortion referendum—parties that should be working together trying to outdo one another with the people's money—naturally they form a low opinion of the political process. That is the reason why we should be looking seriously not just at public relations but seriously trying to show the people we do not need to be extravagant and we do not need to be as indulgent to ourselves and that we are willing to apply economies. The first thing we should do formally as a housekeeping exercise irrespective of party allegiance is decide there are enough seats here now and there is no serious excuse for enlarging the House even if the population passes the 4 million mark or the 4.5 million mark. Even then we will have a House which can be very thoroughly representive by European standards.

Mr. De Rossa

First of all, I would like to associate myself with the expressions of appreciation for the work that has been done by the commission. The reason there is very little contention with the recommendations is because the effect on the constitutencies concerned will be very marginal and no Deputy in the four constitutencies will feel in any way challenged or threatened by the recommendations. The commission was established to allay the fears of the public in regard to an alleged tendency to gerrymander. However, because of the way in which the commission was given its terms of reference by the Government of the day, I believe an alternative method of giving such terms of reference should be established. They should be given by the House rather than by the Government. That would ensure protection from the charge of gerrymandering. The Oireachtas has responsibility for establishing the constitutencies, deciding what shape they ought to be and how many seats ought to be in each constitutency. There are gaps in the present procedure even though it is an advance on previous methods but these gaps leave themselves open to the belief amongst the public that all may not be done fairly.

The question of the temptation which appears to be about at the moment to avoid, if possible, going before the electorate in 1984 should be resisted by the Government. Regardless of the reasons which may be put forward this will be seen by the electorate as the fear of losing seats and that can only add to the very strong feeling among the people that politicians generally are not very relevant to the problems of the community at large. There are various reasons put forward, the strongest at the moment being that reform is required in the area of local government. That is a need that has been there for some considerable time. The need to assure the electorate that the Government are not prepared to avoid an election is stronger than the need for reform at this time. There is nothing to prevent the Government initiating reforms at the same time as holding an election next year.

If this Government or any other Government for that matter—previous Administrations have postponed local government elections for various reasons —adopts this trend the question must be asked at what point should it stop. Will a stage be reached in five years' time or ten years' time when a Government decides a general election should be postponed?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not anticipate any possible debate here that may take place in the future. Earlier today the Chair said a passing reference would be permitted and that passing reference should be related to the Bill before the House. The Chair thinks the Deputy is now getting into a fully fledged debate on something which is not before the House.

Mr. De Rossa

I accept that. I did try to raise the matter on the Order of Business. I think I should make the point that, regardless of how honourable the present Government are or future Governments may be, the facts are that the public at large see politicians in general in a different light. If elections are postponed, for whatever reason, there is a risk of damaging even further the credibility of this House and the democratic process. I am concerned that this should not happen and I would urge the Minister to think seriously before taking such a step.

I reiterate my appreciation of the commission and their work.

Mr. Durkan

I congratulate the commission on the speedy manner in which they dealt with this subject. This appears to be a fair and equitable way of revising constituency boundaries and gets us away from the kind of charges to which other speakers have referred. Deputy Kelly dealt at some length with the total membership of the Dáil and the public perception of how we behave in this House, whether people believe we are doing what we should be doing and giving good value for money or whether we are wasting time and money.

I will advert briefly to the shifts in population which have necessitated boundary revisions. During the past 25 years there has been a considerable shift in population from rural areas, particularly the west and north west, to the capital city and its environs. If revisions had not taken place to accommodate that population we would have been seriously in breach of the Constitution. I can foresee a time when because of the sparse population in rural areas Deputies representing them will find themselves at full stretch, working extremely hard in trying to make themselves as available to their constituents as do their colleagues in the newer urban areas.

Comparisons have been made with other parliaments and the numbers they would need if the same population ratio were applied. I mean no disrespect to the members of other parliaments but I do not think their representatives give the same high standard of service as do the Members of this House. While I have not been very long a Member of this House, I have been a public representative in another capacity for some years. From my experience I have formed the belief that no population in Europe get the same degree of service from their elected representatives as our population. Many of us travel throughout our constituencies week after week attending clinics and meeting the people who need to have recourse to a public representative. If we were not making ourselves available in that way those unfortunate people might have to travel up to 50 miles to see their public representative. That would not happen in the large towns and cities but it would happen in rural constituencies.

Unless and until some remedy is found for the problems we have to deal with — perhaps the Ombudsman will be able to deal with those matters in future — we require at least the numbers we have in this House at present. A reduction in numbers without revisions would mean that we would have to work harder. While the public may not always think so, we work extremely hard and the average Deputy is committed to his job for seven days a week, 18 hours a day, almost 365 days a year. Even on Christmas Day I have had to go out and do something on behalf of a constituent in need. There is no sense in the public complaining that we are not doing our duty. We do an extremely difficult job under very difficult circumstances and we get a great deal of criticism and very little recognition, except at the polls, and sometimes we do not get it there.

Listening to the Order of Business this morning and every other morning, the media may see us in a particular light. Perhaps our standard of behaviour is not as high as it might be. As I travel from meeting to meeting at night I listen to radio broadcasts from the House of Commons and I believe our standard of behaviour here is at least as high as in that parliament and probably compares very favourably with many others. We do a reasonably good job and the fact that the public do not necessarily think so is a matter for themselves. They should compare us with others. Sometimes we deviate from the subject and perhaps I am one of the offenders from time to time.

The question of multi-seat constituencies has often been discussed. I would love to be the only Deputy in my constituency but under the single seat system I might not be here. As a politician and dealing with people in the course of my business I have always been suspicious of small groups. To get a democratic decision I would far prefer to go into an arena where there was a large representative group of people and feel I had the viewpoint of a broad spectrum rather than going to a meeting with a small group. I have often found that when one deals with a small group of people, whether they are representatives of a residents association or community council, there is a great danger of not getting the true feedback of what the people they purport to represent want. It is possible that democracy does not work well that way. I am not making a case for an increase in the membership of the Dáil, but we should remember that the more representative we are the greater the opportunity of achieving true democracy.

I should like to refer to the single seat constituency issue in another context. It would be possible to operate such a system with the present membership of the Dáil but in the final analysis under such a system the public would not get as good a service as they are getting now. Competition is the life of trade in any business and under the single seat constituency system there would not be the same degree of competition. It is possible that we would not have so many politicans throwing themselves on the public as at present but there is no doubt that constituents would not get the same attention. If a decision is taken to change the system in the future I hope those matters are taken into consideration.

I should like to commend the commission for producing their report so speedily. I hope that in the next few years the public will recognise that politicians do not put themselves on pedestals. They are elected to public office to do a job but they are not supermen or superwomen. Politicians are human beings elected to represent in Parliament the ordinary everyday views of their constituents and they have the same fears, liabilities and financial worries as other people. They are entitled to be treated with a little bit of respect just as any worker deserves recognition for his or her efforts.

Mr. Wilson

I should like to commend the commission on the speed with which they produced their report. The brief given to the commission, to make the minimum distrubances possible in constituencies, was a good one. I should like to call attention to the increase in population in rural Ireland which was dealt with by the commission. This change is welcome. Hitherto the problem that came to the attention of the Minister in charge was connected with an increasing urban population and decreasing rural one. For that reason it is a great pleasure for the House, and benefit for the country, to know that the rural population is increasing. Our constituencies will have to be looked at more often because of that change.

A number of constituencies should be considered for three-seaters. I instance my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan where the population is increasing in both counties. Cavan and Monaghan could revert to single constituencies with three seats each. I should like to endorse the remarks of Deputy Durkan who said how important it was to be able to keep in contact with constituents. The worst possible construction is sometimes put on this by commentators. My experience has been that whatever documentation comes before the House in regard to social matters, agriculture or the construction industry — they are three main concerns of the people I met — it is what affects constituents that is important rather than the documentation. By making contact with constituents Members have an added dimension when debating affairs in the House. I reject the criticism that is often made of this type of activity. It is not confined to Ireland, although the service given by representatives here is better than the service given in most other countries.

When I took possession of a room here which had been occupied by our spokesman on the Environment I found a photograph and I had to investigate the background of it. The photograph showed that Deputy in conversation with a consitituent from one of the islands off the west coast. The picture was taken by a Scandinavian who was making a film in the area and his caption for it was indicative of what he thought of the exercise of keeping in touch with constituents. The photographer described it as a unique exercise in democracy, and that is precisely what it is. The feedback from constituents is important. Admittedly, the fact that a number of people represent one constituency makes for exaggeration. I do not know if it would be better to have single-seat constituencies or if we would tend to get lazy if that system was adopted. I made some inquiries about the New Zealand and UK systems some years ago. In the case of the UK I asked a Tory MP what would happen if he received a letter from a citizen who did not belong to his constituency but belonged to one represented by a Labour MP. That MP informed me that he would send such a letter to the MP for the area although he did not belong to the same political party. I do not know if that obtains under the present leader of the Tory Party but it has obtained for many years. That MP also assured me that a Labour MP would do the same thing. Future commission should be asked to look carefully at the areas which are almost self sufficient for a three-seater such as Cavan and Monaghan. The minimum of change has been advocated by the commission and that is a correct practice considering that we had a census in 1981. It should be remembered that Fianna Fáil were responsible for carrying out the census in 1979.

Mr. Dowling

I should like to welcome the Bill and extend my appreciation to the commission for the speed they carried out their work. My constituency, Carlow-Kilkenny, was very much in the news when the commission was established and I am pleased that it has been decided to leave it intact for a while longer. Reference has been made to the constituency scene in general, particularly in relation to representation and whether it should be on a multi-seat or single-seat basis. Listening to the advice of constituents across the national scene it appears that their perception is that there are too many TDs representing them at national level. There are reasons put forward to justify that claim. As Deputy Kelly pointed out this morning, our numbers were increased from 144 some years ago to 166 without a significant increase in population to so justify. Sometimes I feel there has been an extension of the old system under which various Ministers for Local Government had tremendous powers in examining constituencies, re-arranging them, changing them, even gerrymandering them, which was the main claim. Had the Minister for the Environment of the day been doing this work now, had he set out to rearrange constituency boundaries then I am certain there would be far more Deputies in this Chamber now and a greater level of input in matters affecting them and their respective constituencies.

At least the appointment of an independent commission took the heat out of the matter. They have done a reasonably good job even though I feel in time it will lead to instability of Government. This is particularly true of the multi-seat arrangement. There is such growing cynicism about the level of input and general work of the politician that people see themselves agitating for minority representation which in the long term is bad for the country and for all of us.

There has been reference also to the postponement of local government elections. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, while you might contend that this does not relate to this Bill, nonetheless I should like to make this point——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In passing, Deputy.

Mr. Dowling

Purely in passing. Arising from the tactics of politicians over the years — and this applies to the level of their input with regard to legislation initiated and put through this House — we have now reached a stage at which local government has been reduced to a talking shop; its representatives no longer have any power. The time has come to set up a commission to examine the whole system of local government, to ascertain how it could be rendered more meaningful and appropriate to the needs of our people. We cannot delay such an assessment because it must be remembered that local government constitutes real government in which there is real participation by local communities. I suggest to the Minister for the Environment present that he consider setting up such a commission with appropriate terms of reference to report within, say, the next year and a half to two years and then let us hold meaningful local government elections. I see no point in proceeding with local government elections unless there is seen to be real power in the authorities to be elected. Their financial autonomy has been taken from them by legislation passed through this House and, without such financial autonomy, they have no power.

Mr. Molloy

It was this year that the legislation was passed that did that.

Mr. Dowling

Deputy Molloy knows full well, as a former Minister for Local Government who performed adequately in that capacity, that there is need for reform and restructuring in this area. It is up to all politicians on both sides of the House to act responsibly in this respect.

With regard to constituency redivision and the number of Deputies representing the people, I do not think population should be the sole criterion in establishing the number of representatives. Representing people of an urban constituency—where the mass of people are closer together—is much easier than endeavouring to serve and represent a rural constituency. With due respect to Deputies who represent rural constituencies I would hate to think that the people of west, south-east, south-west or wherever, where in some counties there tends to be a dwindling population, would see themselves losing representation because their population was declining. We and all future commissions should bear that fact in mind. I hope the system of independent commissions will continue. But perhaps their terms of reference should be debated in this House rather than being decided by any individual Minister for the Environment or by the Cabinet of the day.

For future reference it might not be a bad idea to consider the single seat transferable vote, which was mooted way back in the late fifties or some time in the sixties. It was known as the Norton amendment but was rejected by the Government of the day. As we move into a period of economic instability and the difficulties experienced by Governments endeavouring to reshape and change what has been part and parcel of a scene, we are also moving into a period of greater instability of government. Perhaps the single rather than the multi-seat would be preferable in this respect because there is a real element of messengerism with regard to public representatives' duties.

I am a new Deputy in this House. I am beginning to realise that the amount of time one has to spend on the nitty-gritty of constituency work prevents one from properly informing oneself on legislation. Neither does it permit us to have the input we would like to have in legislation passing through this House. The single seat transferable vote situation might not necessarily achieve that goal. Nonetheless it would afford a Deputy an opportunity of dealing with constituency work, knowing that there were not two or three others endeavouring to deal with the same problem.

I welcome the Bill. At least I hope I shall have the opportunity of facing another general election in four years' time in a constituency that will be unchanged. I am not making any predictions as to whether or not I shall be successful but I should prefer to fight my seat on that basis rather than in a reformed constituency.

Mr. L.T. Cosgrave

Basically this Bill is a rubber-stamping exercise apart from one minor change in respect of proposals for the various constituencies throughout the country.

We now have a stable Government with a working majority in this House. However, we might cast our minds back for a moment to the situation which arose both in June 1981, after that general election and again after the 1982 February general election when this country was left in the most unsatisfactory position of having no clear party or parties who could form a majority Government in their own right. At those times we had the spectacle of the various leaders, in order to try and form a Government, seeking the support of various other Members of the House who were either aligned to smaller parties or were not aligned to any party. This is something to be avoided as far as possible at any time in the future. The situation that arose on both those occasions did not do this country any good and its results are still felt by the public and by the politicians. The instability which arose at that time is only now beginning to be overcome.

With respect to the individuals who seemingly held the balance of power, they were able to get for their constituencies and possibly for themselves and others, benefits which they were undoubtedly entitled to seek. However, the elections at those times did not produce the best for the electorate or for the country. When the people were voting I do not think they were recording their preference for a situation in which they did not know how long the Government would be able to carry on.

During a general election the people must have confidence that the Government whom they will elect will be able to carry on for a substantial period. I do not think any man or woman in the country wants to throw the nation back into an election once every six or eight months, with all Deputies running around their constituencies trying to ensure that they will get re-elected.

My one reservation about the Bill is that I do not know whether it will avoid a recurrence of that situation. Everyone is entitled to go forward for election and to be elected, but I hope we can avoid the situation that arose on those two occasions. On those occasions people did not vote for an unstable period of government, particularly when it is so necessary that a Government would have a clear working majority to be able to carry their policies through. One may not agree with all the actions of a Government or with all the legislation they introduce and get enacted, but we do not need to have too frequent elections. We do not want to have a situation when we have our people wondering if the Government will get through a division that night with the possibility of the nation being thrown back into another general election. What happened on the two occassion I have been speaking about caused damage to the country at a time when firm, stable government was needed. We were left with the position that neither of the major groupings in the House could command a majority. A Government should be able to govern for a specified term and not be at the mercy of people who may change overnight like the wind. Such a situation is to be deplored.

In regard to multi-seat constituencies, Deputies, particularly those from rural Ireland, have the onerous task of driving for miles and miles at weekends to meet their constituents and to provide clinics. People may be more concerned because they have not received something they are entitled to than with what is happening in this House. The reforms the Minister has in hand will mean that instead of people having to go to TDs to try to get what they are entitled to, instead of the needless telephone calls and letter writing, the system will be improved. When people apply for what they are entitled to it will come to them automatically and Deputies will be able to devote more time to consideration of legislation and to the sorting out of other difficulties. Five Deputies in a multi-seat constituency at the moment may write to the Department about a particular case and delays occur. I must say that from the Coalition point of view my constituency can be regarded as No. 1 in the country and I hope it will remain like that. The Minister should bear in mind that we should be given some kind of assurance that in future we will not be left in an unstable political position.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Spring)

This is the second occasion on which a Bill to revise Dáil constituencies has been based on the recommendations of an independent commission. It could be said to mark the final break with the previous system when preparation of a scheme of constituencies rested with a Government Minister. While that system prevailed, debates on constituency revision Bills were marked by a certain rancour and bitterness and by charges of gerrymandering and malpractices. Whether these charges were justified in every case is, to a great extent, immaterial. What should concern us is that these debates were disedifying and tended to damage the standing of this Assembly in the eyes of the people. I think we can rejoice in the fact that all this is now part of history and that we are tackling the delicate job of constituency revision in a more sensible and dignified manner.

The terms of reference given to the commission are identical with those given to the commission which advised on the constituencies in 1980, with the addition of a guideline that, in view of the short time since the last revision, they should take account of the desirability of effecting minimum changes. I think it would be generally agreed that this guideline is a very appropriate one.

I was glad to hear Deputy Wilson welcoming the increase in the rural population. I fully agree with him because for years there was a sad decline in that population. I am sure Deputy Molloy will agree that we were all concerned about that decline and that we welcome the increase in the rural population.

Continuity of representation is an important one in a democratic system. It is proper that an elected representative at the end of his term of office, should be required to give an account of his stewardship to the people who originally elected him. We may all have our own views as to what other conditions might have been included and how the existing guidelines might be strengthened or varied. It seems to me that present guidelines have achieved a high level of acceptance and, above all they have stood up to the test. The constituencies recommended in 1980 have given fair representation to the various strands of opinion and, despite misgivings expressed in certain quarters, have enabled Governments to be elected and to function.

In my opening statement, I drew attention to the fact that in this revision the percentage variation from the national average of population per Deputy, the "tolerance" as it has been called, is somewhat wider than in recent revisions. The commission discuss this aspect in chapter 4 of their report. They point out that no tolerance level has been laid down by the courts and they quote from the Supreme Court decision in 1961 which indicated that the test of constitutionality must be whether "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 Oireachas has not carried out the intention of the relevant sub-clause." I doubt if anybody could maintain that the intentions of the Constitution are not being given effect to in the present instance.

Deputy Kelly mentioned that Deputy Tully raised the membership to the present figure of 166. This is not correct. Membership was not raised to 166 until the 1980 revision brought in by the then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Barrett. Deputy Tully's Bill fixed 148 to be the maximum allowed. There seems to be an acceptance in the terms of the total membership of the House that its present numbers are adequate to represent the people and that we could even accept a higher tolerance level to maintain the numbers at their present figures.

Deputy Durkan mentioned that Deputies are much maligned and that there does not seem to be an appreciation of the work and hours which public representatives put in serving their constituents, contributing and preparing for debates in this House. I agree with the Deputy, and the people must know at this stage and they have their own methods of ensuring that Deputies work hard on their behalf. I do not know any public representative in this House who would be re-elected unless he was able to account for his stewardship at election time and can stand before the people on the basis of his record. The Welsh have an expression: never forget from whence you came. If you do that in politics the people will allow you very quickly to forget from where you came. There is a serious responsibility on all politicians to work on behalf of their constituents and in this House.

A number of Deputies mentioned the desirability of having single member constituencies with a single transferable vote system. I wish to remind them that our Constitution requires that no constituency shall have less than three seats and the House will recall that on two previous occasions, when there was an attempt to change this provision, it was rejected by the people in referenda. I do not think there is any evidence that there is a majority in favour of this move at present and my party feel it would not be a desirable step.

Certain references have been made within the rules laid down by the Ceann Comhairle at the opening of this debate to the question of local elections. I am conscious of a need for reorganisation of the local government system so that local authorities will be able to respond more fully to the challenges presented by the social and economic changes of recent decades. This reform of the existing system is desirable, especially in Dublin, where the development of the city and surrounding areas has taken place without corresponding development in local government structures. My aim is to identify ways of increasing efficiency in the provision of public services and encouraging a degree of public participation in local government. I am having the various options for reorganisation examined at present and I can assure the House that there will be no avoidable delay in bringing forward proposals in this area. In reply to Deputy Dowling, who suggested a commission on local government reform, the time is long overdue for action rather than commissions or inquiries because I have all the evidence needed in Green and White Papers on local government reform in the Custom House. All the research has been done in relation to what is necessary.

Mr. Molloy

It is ten years old.

Mr. Spring

Yes, and what did the Deputy do about it in all those years? On the overall membership of the Dáil, the population as ascertained at the 1981 Census would justify a Dáil membership of up to 172 Deputies. In setting up the commission, the Government considered that the total figure should be set at a somewhat lower level and specified 168 as the maximum number the Commission could recommend. In fact, the commission recommended 166 which is the same as the existing number. At previous revision the Oireachtas tended to go for the maximum number permitted by the Constitution. This approach was understandable in a situation of declining population but a rather different attitude would now be appropriate in the light of a substantial and continuing increase in population. In this we must aim at the golden mean and keep a reasonable limit on the total number of Deputies while ensuring that the number is sufficient to provide an effective Government and Opposition. On the Government side there must be a wide choice of talent to fill posts of Ministers and Ministers of State with an adequate reserve on the backbenches; on the other side, the numbers on the front and back benches must be sufficient to provide effective opposition.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, this Bill constitutes a revision of constituencies within the meaning of Article 16.2 of the Constitution and is intended to fulfil the constitutional obligation on the Oireachtas to revise the constituencies at least once in every 12 years. By means of the Bill the Oireachtas is being asked not just to accept the changes proposed but to approve the entire scheme of constituencies. The view of this side of the House is that we should accept in full the recommendations of the Commission and I recommend accordingly.

I thank the House for their reception of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.