The bringing of this Bill before the Dáil has been unnecessarily delayed by the bizarre attempt by the Minister for the Environment to gerrymander the Dáil constituencies by arbitrarily conferring on the Dáil constituency commission terms of reference in the summer of 1988 which prevented the commission from conducting a politically objective review of constituency boundaries. Those infamous terms of reference, cooked-up by a Minister who believed he was being politically cute, sought to diminish the effects of proportional representation and eliminate from all urban areas five seat constituencies. It was perceived by Fianna Fáil, and the Minister for the Environment in particular, that the elimination of five seat constituencies in Cork, Dublin, Galway and Limerick would be to the electoral advantage of the Fianna Fáil Party.
Subsequent to announcing the terms of reference of the 1988 commission the Minister denied he was trying to constrain the commission in their work, yet in the autumn of 1988 when the commission reported they proposed the elimination of all the five seat constituencies in the areas already referred to by me and proposed the retention of only five: Carlow-Kilkenny, Cavan-Monaghan, Laois-Offaly, Meath and Wexford.
The Fine Gael Party at that time made it clear that they would not support the implementation of the commission's 1988 report and would not be a party to Fianna Fáil's attempt to gerrymander the Dáil constituencies whilst that party hid under the coat-tails of a Dáil constituency commission circumscribed in their work by the politically partisan terms of reference given to them.
It is as a result of the scandalous behaviour of the Minister for the Environment in 1988 that this House has not until now been in a position to meet its constitutional obligations to revise constituencies in accordance with changes in population. The Minister was remarkably silent on this aspect of the matter in his speech this evening. This is the first occasion on which we have had an opportunity to address in detail, and to debate in this Chamber, the unacceptable behaviour at that time of the then and present Minister for the Environment — a Minister who on 28 July 1988, at a time when the Dáil was in recess, in the days immediately preceding the August bank holiday, took action based on a perceived political advantage for the Fianna Fáil Party and contemptuously ignored his ministerial constitutional duties. The Minister's action at that time was subsequently condemned by all parties on all sides of the House, including the Progressive Democrats with whom he now shares Government.
If the Minister for the Environment had properly complied with his obligations on that occasion and conferred proper terms of reference on the Dáil constituency commission that accorded with the terms of reference given to them by his predecessors — in his speech tonight he referred to the terms of reference given in 1980 and 1983 but remained strangely silent about the terms of reference he gave in 1988 — the Bill we are considering today would have come before the House over two years ago. The Bill we are considering tonight should have come before the House two years ago.
If the Minister had not attempted to engage in a typically Fianna Fáil piece of cute political management, the general election that took place in June of 1989 would have been based on Dáil constituencies that accorded with the changes in population as detailed in the 1986 census and which would have differed, some substantially, from the constituency arrangements under which that election was held.
It is fair to say that the Minister stands judged guilty before this House of deliberately engaging in activities which caused the election of 1989 to take place under a constitutional cloud that should never have arisen. It is the hope of the Fine Gael Party that no future Minister for the Environment will again behave in the despicable manner in which this Minister behaved in the summer of 1988. It is the hope of the Fine Gael Party that we will not see a repetition of such events. It will be a lasting political monument to the unacceptable political standards displayed by this Minister, that the Dáil constituency commission report of 1988 will go down in our history books as the only such report produced by a constituency commission recommending changes in electoral boundaries which was not implemented by statutory enactment.
The Electoral (Amendment) Bill before the House this evening is not based on the 1988 report but on the report of the Dáil constituency commission of 1990. The terms of reference given to that commission corresponded with the terms of reference given on the previous occasions up until the infamous terms of reference of 1988. The terms of reference required the commission in making their report to take into account the following: (a) the membership of Dáil Éireann to be not less than 164 and not more than 168; (b) geographical considerations, in that the breaching of county boundaries should be avoided, if possible, and that larger-seat constituencies should preferably be situated in areas of greater population density; (c) other well established characteristics in the formation of constituencies such as clearly-defined natural features; (d) the retention of the traditional pattern of three seat, four seat and five seat constituencies; and (e) the desirability of effecting the minimum changes.
The commission, as the Minister stated consisted of the Honourable Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton, President of the High Court, who was their chairman, Mr. Thomas Troy, Secretary to the Department of the Environment and Mr. Eamon Rayel, Clerk of the Dáil, all of whom were members of the commission which sat in 1988. To them were added Dr. T.K. Whitaker, former Governor of the Central Bank and Mr. Kieran Coughlan then Clerk of the Seanad, since appointed Clerk of the Dáil. I want to put on the record of this House the thanks of the Fine Gael Party to the members of the commission whose integrity and independence in the task undertaken by them cannot be questioned.
The Bill before us reflects the recommendations made by the commission in their report of 1990. The changes proposed by them, taking into account population changes, are substantially less dramatic than those proposed in the original report of 1988. The commission recommend the retention, with some adjustments, of the five seat constituencies in Cork, Dublin, Galway and Limerick that would have been abolished under the recommendations of the commission of 1988 who were given peculiar terms of reference.
Fifteen of the proposed constituencies recommended by the commission are identical in name, areas and representation with existing constituencies. One constituency is identical in name and area with an existing constituency but has an additional seat, that is, Dublin South West which has the fastest growing population not only in the entire country but within Western Europe. That constituency in particular substantially lost out in representation in Dáil Éireann in the last election due to the fact that a Bill such as this did not come before the Dáil prior to that election. On the basis of the constitutional criteria, and the court judgments referred to by the Minister, the constituency of Dublin South West should today have five Deputies representing it in this House. With all the difficulties that constituency has, the need for employment there, housing problems and the need for additional recreational facilities, it should have had those five Deputies to press its case on this Government.
The Commission in their report note that the terms of reference are "expressed generally" and "may be capable of more than one interpretation". The manner in which to apply the terms of reference with regard to changes in population is, of course, a matter for the judgment of the commission and it is, quite properly, the commission's recommendations which are being implemented in this Bill. However, the Fine Gael Party have serious reservations about the approach taken by the commission in applying their terms of reference with regard to some of the recommendations made by them which now form part and parcel of the Bill before the House.
It seems to us that some of the recommendations made by the commission are so substantially at variance with the terms of reference conferred on them as to be open to question. A classical illustration of this is in relation to the new proposed constituency of Longford-Roscommon. This proposed constituency defies rational explanation in the context of the terms of reference conferred on the commission.
I have already noted that the commission are required under their terms of reference to take into account "geographical considerations and clearly defined natural features". They are also required to avoid, where possible, the breaching of county boundaries. In this context the Longford-Westmeath constituency is an extremely strange form of political hybrid in that it does not simply breach county boundaries but breaches provincial boundaries, in that Longford forms part of Leinster while Roscommon is in Connaught. Even more extraordinary in the context of the geographical criteria that the commission must apply, the constituency is split by the river Shannon, the largest natural waterway to be found in the entire country. The only conclusion one can reach is that this particular proposal contained in the Bill, arising out of the commission's recommendations, derives from the perception on the part of the commission that Mayo should continue to retain two three-seat constituencies, regardless of the ripple impact on the rest of the country.
On the basis of the 1986 census, the retention of two three-seat constituencies in Mayo — Mayo East and Mayo West — is no longer justifiable. Relying on the relevant criteria, it is the view of the Fine Gael Party that the county of Mayo should have become a single five-seat constituency and that only a small change was required to bring the county of Mayo within the population tolerance levels for it to be a five seater. Instead of taking such an approach, however, the commission took the extraordinary step of recommending that the constituencies of Mayo East and Mayo West be kept in being as two separate three-seat constituencies. In order to preserve these constituencies within a constitutionally permissible population tolerance level, it transferred from the existing constituency of Galway East a population of 4,443 from the Milltown area into Mayo East and a population of 3,868 from the Headford area of Galway West into Mayo West. In making this proposal the commission not only breached county boundaries but failed to comply with the terms of reference which require them to take into account "the desirability of effecting minimum changes". In the political context, the Milltown and Headford areas of Galway are now losing their county identity and being subsumed within County Mayo.
Fine Gael also have reservations about the extent of the changes within Dublin proposed by the constituency commission. Some of the recommendations made in the context of the commission's own term of reference with regard to constituencies, such as Dublin West, Dublin South-East and Dublin Central, are open to serious question. It is also curious that at a time when the population of Dublin has increased, as documented in the census report of 1986, the overall effect of the commission's recommendations is to reduce the Dáil representation for the entire city and county area of Dublin, including Dún Laoghaire, from 48 to 47 seats.
There is, of course, one possible explanation for the approach taken by the commission to the Longford, Roscommon, Westmeath, Mayo and Galway areas. That explanation may be found in the commission's report of 1988 which first contains the recommendation that two three-seat constituencies in Mayo be preserved and that the new constiteuncy of Longford-Roscommon be established. While the Fine Gael Party have no doubts as to the integrity and independence of all the members of the commission, we are concerned that these recommendations, which originate in the 1988 report, may have influenced the deliberations of the commission members subconsciously, resulting in their reappearing in the 1990 report. We are further disturbed by a suggestion which has been made that the commission in their 1990 report were not unanimous in their recommendations. We believe some of the recommendations are based on a division of views on the part of members of the commission and we regret, if this is truly the case, that the report did not disclose a minority dissent from some of the recommendations made and the reasons for that dissent. If the commission divided in their deliberations and recommendations by 3:2 or 4:1, this House should be informed.
The Fine Gael Party believe that it is crucial that in a review of constituency boundaries upon population changes occurring, that a commission independent of politicians be asked to carry out the necessary revision on the basis of terms of reference that have general agreement from all the major parties represented in the Oireachtas and that such terms of reference be above suspicion. We wish to ensure that at no future date the scandalous events of 1988 are repeated.
We call on the Government, following the passage of this Bill, to agree to the introduction, if necessary, of legislation which will require in future the Minister for the Environment of the day, following the completion of a census and prior to the appointment of a constituency boundary commission, to bring before Dáil Éireann the proposed terms of reference to be given to such commission, with a requirement that such terms of reference, must, first be supported by a vote of 75 per cent of the Members of Dáil Éireann, prior to the commission being appointed and prior to terms of reference being conferred on them. It is possible that such an approach could be put into operation for the future without the necessity of legislation but simply by orders of this House. If that is the case, Fine Gael will be asking that the matter be examined by the committee which deals with the rules of the House.
This Bill affords the Fine Gael Party the first occasion by way of parliamentary vote to register our protest against the manner in which the Minister for the Environment had dealt with this issue over the past two and a half years. We believe that a Minister for the Environment with similar responsibilities in other member states of the European Community would, if he had behaved in the manner the Minister behaved in 1988, have faced no choice but resignation. It is indicative of the standards of political behaviour on the part of the Fianna Fáil Party that the issue did not even arise for discussion, despite that party's inability to implement the report of the 1988 commission and despite that party themselves finally having to acknowledge that matters should not have been approached in the manner the Minister approached them.
In addition to registering our protest at the behaviour of the Minister during 1988, we are also concerned that the history of the events which took place in 1988 has resulted in the commission not fully complying with the terms of reference given to them in the recommendations they made. By way of protest, Fine Gael will be voting against the Second Reading of this Bill. We do not, however, believe that members of this House should seek to involve themselves on a party political basis in the redrawing of constituency boundaries. Therefore, if this Bill passes at Second Stage, we shall not be tabling amendments to it in any way to vary the constituency revisions and changes provided for in the Bill.