Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 May 1989

Vol. 389 No. 7

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dáil Constituency Boundaries.

5.

asked the Minister for the Environment the steps he intends taking to revise Dáil constituency boundaries.

12.

asked the Minister for the Environment if it is intended to make any alterations to any Dáil Éireann constituency boundaries prior to the holding of the next general election; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The report on the census of population taken in April, 1986 disclosed a considerable departure from the national average number of persons per Deputy in the case of certain Dáil constituencies. When the detailed census figures became available, the Government considered it appropriate to set about a revision and, to this end, set up an independent constituency commission under the chairmanship of the President of the High Court.

The commission reported on 28 October. The commission's report was published and circulated to Deputies with a view to giving the parties in the House, interested persons outside the House and the general public an opportunity of considering the report.

Since publication, it has become apparent that the Opposition parties and groups are opposed, in one degree or another, to the recommendations made by the commission.

The implications of the position now arising are being studied and the options available are being reviewed.

Would the Minister accept that the difficulties in this area were created of his own volition by distorting the terms of reference he gave the constituency commission. Would the Minister now agree to politically defuse this matter by referring back to the Constituency Commission the issue of a revision of constituencies on the basis of terms of reference agreed by all Members in this House, which terms of reference form part of the motion on the agenda of this House as tabled by the Fine Gael Party? Indeed in the interests of democracy would the Minister now accept the terms of that motion and let the Constituency Commission get on with the job on real, as opposed to artificial, terms of reference?

I reject the implied criticism of the independent Constituency Commission established by the Government.

The Minister said nothing about the independence of the commission.

The terms of reference were public, everybody knew exactly what was involved in them——

Publicly bent.

The independent commission carried out their work in a proper fashion. As requested they reported to the Minister, which report was published. I reject out of hand any implied suggestion that the Minister, the Government or anybody else sought in any way to lead the commission in one direction or another.

The terms of reference were bent.

I am calling Question No. 6. I want to dispose of some other questions. Deputy Shatter's supplementary must be very brief.

Would the Minister accept that he is now failing in his constitutional duties to revise Dáil constituencies and to ensure an equality of representation within each constituency in the country? Could the Minister indicate to the House the timescale within which he will conclude his deliberations with himself as to what action he intends taking next to tackle this problem?

The Minister rejects that point of view——

It is a self-imposed paralysis.

I note that Deputy McCartan is on his feet. I can envisage what the Deputy is going to bring to my notice.

I am concerned, a Cheann Comhairle, to this extent, that as Question No. 12 was taken with No. 5——

I was about to finish my response to Deputy Shatter's supplementary. If Deputy McCartan waits I shall endeavour to do so.

Deputy McCartan might rise later.

I might make a point in response to what Deputy Shatter said. The precise meaning of the constitutional requirement in relation to the circumstances in which a revision of Dáil constituencies must take place is not clear. Those requirements have never been interpreted by the courts. Anything I have done could in no way be interpreted as being unconstitutional.

I am calling Question No. 6.

What is the Minister going to do about it?

Would Deputies allow me to deal with Deputy Keating's question? I am fighting against time and time is of the essence.

I suppose it would be good parliamentary language to say wait and see.

Paranoid.

They are full of expectations.

I am concerned that the Minister has not addressed Question No. 12 at all although it has been taken with No. 5.

Supplementaries in relation to questions nominated for priority are confined to the Deputies who tabled those questions.

Could I ask that Question No. 12 stand in the order of sequence as it has not been addressed at all?

No, that is not usual, Deputy.

Top
Share