asked the Minister for the Environment the reason the Constituency Boundary Commission appointed in July of 1988 was given different terms of reference to those given to its predecessors in 1979 and 1983.
37.
Ceisteanna — Questions Oral Answers. - Constituency Boundary Commission.
61.
asked the Minister for the Environment the reason the terms of reference given to the Constituency Review Commission specified that five seat constituencies should only be retained where it was necessary to do so to avoid breaching county boundaries; if his attention has been drawn to the views of a wide range of people and parties that such a move would diminish the effectiveness of proportional representation; if the report of the commission has yet been received by the Government; when it is planned to publish the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Priority Question No. 61 and Question No. 37 together.
I would remind the House that the obligation to revise the constituencies is placed by the Constitution on the Oireachtas. Having regard to the changes in population revealed by the 1986 census, a revision is now necessary. Irrespective of terms of reference, the population changes alone require that virtually all the constituencies in the Dublin area must be changed and that some changes elsewhere are also unavoidable. Of the 41 existing constituencies 14 are now outside the widest tolerance allowed in the 1983 revision.
I expect shortly to bring proposals for a revision before the House. Following the practice at recent revisions, the proposals will be based on the recommendations of the commission set up for this purpose. As at previous revisions, the terms of reference for the commission were drawn up by the Government.
The commission are under the chairmanship of the President of the High Court. The other members of the commission are the Secretary of the Department of the Environment and the Clerk of the Dáil. Subject only to the constitutional requirements and the terms of reference, the commission are entirely independent in their operation.
In regard to the terms of reference, these are essentially similar to those given to the two previous constituency commissions but the Government considered it desirable, in the interests of clarity, to include more specific guidelines in relation to constituency size.
The guideline in this regard given to the previous commissions referred to the "retention of the traditional pattern of three-seat, four-seat and five-seat constituencies". The precise meaning of this guideline is very difficult to determine. Prior to 1980 there was, in fact, no fixed pattern of three-seat, four-seat and five-seat constituencies. Throughout all the revisions of constituencies carried out from the foundation of the State up to 1980, the one common trend was a continuing shift from larger to smaller constituencies. This trend applied not only in revisions prepared when this party were in Government: it applied also in relation to the revision prepared by the Coalition Government in 1974.
It may be of interest to the House to recall that the 1974 revision made provision for a total of 26 three-seat constituencies. In common with the immediately preceding revision which had taken place in 1969, this was the highest ever number of three-seaters. In view of the comment from various sources over recent weeks, it seems appropriate to recall that the 1974 revision did not provide for even one solitary fiveseater in the whole Dublin area.
In this connection, Deputies will also recall the debate initiated by the previous Government on the possible reform of the constitutional provisions relating to the electoral system. Statements by the then Taoiseach and members of his Government at that time would indicate that they favoured the introduction of single member constituencies with or without some form of list system.
As I have said the meaning of the guidelines given to the previous commissions about the retention of the "traditional pattern" is obscure. It is clear that my predecessor as Minister for the Environment had problems about the meaning of this expression. In the terms of reference given to the commission which he purported to set up, prematurely, in January, 1987 he substituted a guideline which required that "the report of the Commission should provide for three-seat, four-seat and five-seat constituencies".
What is certain is that there is no evidence that either the Government or the Oireachtas took a formal decision in principle to reverse the trend towards smaller constituencies. The very high number of five-seat constituencies now in existence simply emerged from the report of the first commission.
The other change in the terms of reference, which has attracted rather less attention, is that the requirement that "larger seat constituencies should preferably be situated in areas of greater population density" has been omitted. The purpose of doing so was to allow the commission greater discretion in regard to the location of the different sizes of constituencies.
I have not received the commission's report. I have not seen a draft of it or a summary of it or any part of it or any interim report.
(Limerick East): Have they told you what is in it?
I do not know what recommendations may be contained in it. The commission are entirely independent in their procedures and operations and are themselves responsible for security arrangements for their documents. I have no doubt but they have taken wise and adequate precautions but I am not privy to their arrangements.
What we have been hearing and reading up to now is nothing other than pure speculation. I have, however, noted the contradictory nature of many of the claims made in relation to the alleged content of the draft of the report.
When the report of the commission is received the question of publication and the preparation of a Bill to revise the constituencies will be considered by the Government. I would suggest that Deputies should reserve their position until there are actual concrete proposals before the House.
Would the Minister acknowledge that the terms of reference given to a boundary commission both in 1979 by the former Taoiseach, Mr. Jack Lynch and by his successor, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, in 1983 did not give rise to any public controversy? Would the Minister agree that it was perceived that the commissions who produced reports pursuant to those terms of reference produced fair reports, reports which did not give rise to any political unease or to any possibility that the Government of the day were trying to gerrymander the constituencies? As the Minister has not yet done so, would he now explain why this commission was not given terms of reference identical to the terms given to its predecessor?
I have answered most of those points. There would not be half the controversy about the issue if certain Deputies had reserved their position until such time as the report was published and considered by the Government.
How do you know?
I have to say that I resent very much the use of the word "gerrymander" as it casts reflection on the independence of the commission. They are responsible for the recommendations as to the constituency boundaries and it is entirely at their discretion.
The terms of reference were not at their discretion.
I have to say as well that I do not know where the so-called leaks and reports have come from but I suspect that some interested parties are flying kites and, like the quotation from Hamlet "By indirection to find directions out."
That is very interesting.
Polonius had it solved. That is exactly what is going on here.
Would the Minister not acknowledge that the independence the commission can exercise is constrained by the terms of reference they are given? Would the Minister acknowledge that the terms of reference have been so contrived or so designed within his perspective as to give Fianna Fáil an unfair electoral advantage over all other parties in this House and to try to obtain for the Fianna Fáil Party a greater number of seats in this House than the Irish people have been prepared to give them at successive elections during the eighties?
I am a great believer that the electorate decide who governs this country. Previous Ministers undertook revisions on their own account and having done so made certain inflammatory statements in this House but they were proved wrong.
I suggest to Deputies that the commission are independent. They have neither been spoken to or at by this Minister or by members of the Government.
The Minister is not answering the question.
I regard as unfortunate some of the comments that have been made in the past couple of weeks. I think that view was shared——
The Minister is evading the question.
——by a certain very senior and honourable Member from your side of the House this morning. If the Deputy had taken some notice of that he might have reserved some of his comments until it was time to comment.
The Minister is evading the question.
It is slightly undemocratic that statements are issuing from certain parties in advance of the commission's report. Some of the statements are bordering on threats to the commission to do things or not do certain things.
The Minister is evading the question. He fixed the terms of reference and will not come clean on it.
Would Deputy Shatter please behave himself?
(Interruptions.)
For people outside this House to suggest that they are casting no reflection on the credibility of the commission while at the same time making suggestions——
The Minister is trying to set them up.
——to them as to what they should or should not do and what is or is not acceptable is as far as I am concerned a despicable attempt to illegally influence the commission. They should be ashamed of themselves.
On a point of order——
What is the point of order?
The Minister is casting aspersions on other Members of this House; these should be withdrawn. This commission advertised for submissions and every Member of this House was entitled to make them.
But for the last four weeks——
The Deputy should not try to camouflage his own ——
Nílim ach ag rá rud amháin don Teachta Shatter. Tá sé thar am dó cúpla ceachtanna reachtála na Dála a thógáil ó cheannaire a pháirtí agus cúpla ceachtanna dea-bhéasanna a thógáil freisin.
When the Minister does not have a rational answer he descends to abuse.
I had a Private Notice Question regarding the flooding in Cork city and requesting a grant to help the local authorities to deal with it. The Ceann Comhairle has disallowed it but I had hoped to ask your permission, Sir, to raise it on the Adjournment though I understand that since I put down the question the Minister has indicated he will be going to Cork tomorrow. He will certainly be very welcome, but without any offence to the man in question, it would be far more appreciated in Cork if he sent the cheque and stayed at home.
Deputy Barry is out of order.
I had also put down a question. I am glad to hear that the Minister is going to Cork. However, I want to make sure that the Minister will meet with officials from Cork County Council and Cork Corporation and that he will produce a cheque of over £1 million in compensation for the damage that has been done.
If you are very good you might see it next year.
I wish to add my support. I hope the Minister will take in south west Cork in his itinerary. This morning I tried to get his attention but he ignored my question. However, I am delighted he has had a change of heart and that he is now coming to Cork. Let us hope he will not come empty handed.
(Interruptions.)
Might I crave your indulgence a Leas-Cheann Comhairle? This is a very important matter and indeed I would have wished to have gone earlier but I would certainly like to think that I will meet the people who have an interest in these matters and who can advise me well on them. In so far as the cheque is concerned, Deputy Barry knows well that since I became Minister I have been more than generous to his constituency and to the south west region.
A rescue package of £40 million.
In that case there will be a lot of photographs but no cheques.
Deputy Barry I am sure will arrange that his side of the House will allow us now to proceed with the ordered business.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy's John the Baptistry, I am sure, will do well down in Cork.
(Interruptions.)