Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Dec 1990

Vol. 403 No. 10

Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Second Stage.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Flynn)

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

The purpose of the Bill is to fix the total number of members of Dáil Éireann in pursuance of subsection 2 of Article 16.2 of the Constitution and, in pursuance of subsection 4 of the same Article, to revise the constituencies in respect of which members are elected to the Dáil.

The constitutional requirements in relation to membership of the Dáil and in relation to constituency formation may be summarised as follows: the number of members must be fixed from time to time by law; there must be at least one member for every 30,000 of the population and not more than one for every 20,000, 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 throughout the country; the Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once in every 12 years with due regard to changes in distribution of the population; and the number of members to be returned for any constituency shall not be less than three.

These constitutional provisions were considered by the courts in two well known cases in 1961 — the High Court case of John O'Donovan versus the Attorney General and the Supreme Court reference case relating to the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1961. In neither of these cases did the courts quantify the precise degree of equality of representation which is required by the Constitution. However, in an obiter dictum, the judge in the O'Donovan case appeared to suggest that a departure of about 5 per cent from strict mathematical parity would be acceptable.

Dealing with the question of equality of representation, the Supreme Court stated that:

The sub-clause [of the Constitution] recognises that exact parity in the ratio between members and the population of each constituency is unlikely to be obtained and is not required. The decision as to what is practicable is within the jurisdiction of the Oireachtas. It may reasonably take into consideration a variety of factors, such as the desirability so far as possible to adhere to well-known boundaries such as those of counties, townlands and electoral divisions. The existence of divisions created by such physical features as rivers, lakes and mountains may also have to be reckoned with. The problem of what is practicable is primarily one for the Oireachtas, whose members have a knowledge of the problems and difficulties to be solved which this Court cannot have. Its decision should not be reviewed by this Court unless there is a manifest infringement of the Article. This Court cannot, as is suggested, lay down a figure above or below which a variation from what is called the national average is not permitted. This, of course, is not to say that a court cannot be informed of the difficulties and may not pronounce on whether there has been such a serious divergence from uniformity as to violate the requirments of the Constitution.

To justify the Court in holding that the sub-section has been infringed it must, however, be shown that the 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 Oireachtas has not carried out the intention of the sub-clause.

In each revision of constituencies effected between 1961 and 1980, the limit of 5 per cent, suggested in the O'Donovan case, was adhered to. It would seem that the Oireachtas was not prepared to risk the possibility of a revision being upset on these grounds.

In the revision of constituencies carried out in 1980, which was the first revision based on the recommendations of an independent commission, a more substantial departure from mathematical equality was adopted. The greatest departure from the national average in that revision was 6.4 per cent. In the revision effected in 1983, the greatest departure was 7.9 per cent. In the scheme of constituencies proposed by the present Bill, the average per member in the case of the individual constituencies ranges from 7 per cent below the national average to 7.6 per cent above.

In this connection I think it is appropriate to draw attention to the statement in regard to equality contained in the report of the Constituency Commission presented in October 1988. At page 28 of that report, it is stated that:

the Commission considered that a departure from the mathematical average of 8% or over would be unacceptable and, in all probability, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution relating to equality of representation.

While interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution is ultimately a matter for the Supreme Court, it would seem prudent to give due weight to this opinion expressed by a commission which was chaired by the President of the High Court and to act on the basis that the benchmark in relation to equality of representation should now be taken to be 8 per cent above or below the national population-Deputy ratio.

A second important question which was not dealt with by the courts in the 1961 cases was whether the Oireachtas is obliged to effect a fresh revision of constituencies once a completed census discloses substantial changes in distribution of the population although less than 12 years may have elapsed since the last revision. This matter was, however, refered to in the 1989 case of O'Malley and Hayes versus the Taoiseach and the Attorney General. In an obiter dictum on that occasion, the President of the High Court indicated that:

... the constitutional obligation placed on the Oireachtas is not discharged by revising the constituencies once in every twelve years.

Thus, the effective ground rules in relation to the revision of constituencies must now be taken to be that a revision must take place whenever a completed census shows substantial change in distribution of the population and that, in any revision, the departure from mathematical parity of representation in the case of any constituency must not exceed 8 per cent.

The present Bill proposes to implement the scheme of constituencies recommended by the commission established for this purpose in May last. The terms of reference given to the commission were, in essence, the same as those given to the first Dáil constituency commission which reported in 1980 and identical with these given to the commission which reported in 1983.

I would like to take this opportunity to express, on behalf of the Government, appreciation of the work done by the commission and to formally thank the members of the commission, Mr. Justice Hamilton, Dr. Whitaker, Mr. Troy, Mr. Rayel and Mr. Coughlan.

Mr. Connor

Well you might.

Mr. Flynn

The commission discharged the task assigned to them with exemplary thoroughness, impartiality and expedition. A debt of gratitude is owed to them by the Oireachtas for carrying out this job, a job for which they received no recompense whatsoever.

I do not think it is necessary for me to comment at any length in relation to the provisions of the Bill. The constituencies proposed in the Schedule are precisely those recommended by the commission. The report of the commission was published in full in September last and a copy was provided to each Member of the Oireachtas together with a set of maps. An explanatory memorandum has been circulated with the Bill and a set of maps illustrating the proposed constituencies has been deposited in the Oireachtas Library. I have also arranged to have a set of maps to a smaller scale circulated to each Member.

It seems sufficient to say that the Bill provides that the membership of the Dáil will remain at the present figure of 166 and that the number of constituencies will also remain at the present figure of 41. The boundaries of 16 of these constituencies will remain entirely unchanged. In, perhaps, a dozen other instances the boundary changes proposed could be described as insignificant. In the Dublin area, while there are boundary changes and some changes in seat allocation, the overall pattern of constituencies will remain very much as it is. In fact, the only area where the proposed changes could be described as substantial is the Longford-Roscommon and Westmeath area where two new constituencies are proposed. It will be noted that in the proposed scheme of constituencies the departures from strict equality of representation ranges from 7.6 per cent above to 7 per cent below.

The provisions of the Bill will come into effect on the dissolution of the Dáil which next occurs after the enactment of the Bill. The existing constituencies will continue in being until the next dissolution and would, for example, be used for the purposes of any by-election. The Bill fixes the total numbers of Dáil Members at 166, which is the same as at present, and which has in fact remained unchanged since 1980. In accordance with the relevant constitutional provision total membership could, on the basis of the 1986 census, be set at any number between 119 and 177.

The body of the Bill contains the normal mechanical sections found in a constituency revision Bill. It contains, for example, provisions for inserting the name of the new constituencies in the Register of Electors and for dealing with any polling districts which may be split by a new constituency boundary. It provides for the repeal as from the next dissolution of the Dáil of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1983, which sets out the existing constituencies.

The Bill will implement in full the recommendations made by the constituency commission who reported in July 1990. The constituencies set out in the Schedule to the Bill are identical to those set out in the first Appendix to the commission's report. The scheme provides for 12 three member constituencies, 15 four member costituencies and 14 five member constituencies. The new constituencies will involve breaching four county boundaries, those of counties Clare, Kildare, Galway and Waterford. Sixteen of the constituencies are identical in area with an existing constituency. There are two entirely new constituencies, Longford-Roscommon and Westmeath. The remaining constituencies are subject to boundary changes——

Mr. Connor

Will the Minister explain why?

Mr. Flynn

——to one degree or another and in some cases to changes in seat allocations.

In the Dublin area there are boundary changes in every constituency with the single exception of Dublin South-West. Dublin Central, Dublin South-Central and Dublin West will each lose one seat and Dublin North and Dublin South-West will gain one seat each. The overall pattern of constituencies in Dublin, however, will remain very much as it is.

A small area of County Clare, containing part of Limerick city suburbs, will be included in the Limerick East constituency. There will be boundary adjustments between four of the five constituencies in Cork. A part of County Galway will be added to each of the two Mayo constituencies but the part of the county at present contained in the constituency of Roscommon will be restored. Finally, an additional seat will be added to the Wicklow constituency which will be augmented by the addition of part of County Kildare.

I will conclude by stating that the obligation to revise the constituencies is placed by the Constitution on the Oireachtas. The constituency commission had no constitutional or statutory standing. Their role was to advise on the formation of constituencies within the terms of reference given to them. Decisions in relation to Dáil membership and constituency formation are, subject to the Constitution, entirely matters for the Oireachtas. The principle of having constituencies drawn up by an independent commission was introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government in 1977 and has, apparently, been accepted by the other parties. Inherent in this approach is the implication that the commission's recommendations would be implemented in their entirety. Thus, the Bill before the House is, in one sense, an ordinary Bill capable of amendment in any respect should the Oireachtas so think fit. However, to seek to change the scheme of constituencies recommended by the commission would be to depart from the principle I have referred to and introduce a new situation. I thank the Deputies for their attention and commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Shatter

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.

Mr. Stagg

The instinct to survive is the strongest instinct of all and the attendance at a Second Stage debate on a Thursday evening would indicate that it is just as strong in politicians. My constituency colleague, Deputy McCreevy, says that elections wonderfully concentrate the minds of politicians and I would suggest that constituency revisions also have that effect, more so in some places than in others. Probably Longford-Roscommon is the area of most concentration at the moment.

Given the recent history of revisions Fianna Fáil are not to be trusted in the matter of constituency revisions. The last report, on account of its restricted terms of reference, was consigned to limbo, not because of any danger of the Tallaght strategy breaking down — the agreement between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael supporting one another in the House — but because there was a danger that Fianna Fáil backbenchers would not vote for the Bill, would absent themselves. Indeed, it should be remembered that we were dealing with a minority Government at that time.

It is only fair to say that all politicians of whatever persuasion or hue, if allowed to draw up constituency boundaries, will do so to their advantage, whether they be Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour or others. That is simply the nature of the beast. That is why this House collectively decided there should be an independent commission to undertake this type of work for it, that the type of previous self-regulation was not acceptable or workable. Therefore, I put all politicians, no matter of what persuasion, in the same boat, as being incapable of being trusted when drawing up constituency boundaries. It is only fair to say that.

An independent commission was established in May 1990, with enhanced numbers over the previous one and with more acceptable terms of reference than the previous one. The purpose of this Bill is to put the recommendations of the report of that commission into practice. Of course, there will be criticism by those affected by the local geography of that report; that is to be expected. There is other criticism that I do not entirely accept. There are those in this House who believe that everything must start in Dublin, that Dublin is the centre of the universe and that we must work out from there. I do not believe that Dublin is the centre of the universe. As a Mayo man I would say that Mayo is as good a place for the commission to begin their work as anywhere else. I would contend it is just as important as any other part of the country. Indeed, I would give equal importance to Kildare which I now represent.

Had the commission's work begun in Mayo the proper decision for them to have taken concerning Mayo would have been that it was suitable for two three-seater constituencies. Since the county has a low density population and encompasses a huge geographical area, it would not be possible for any five people to endeavour to effectively represent that huge geographical area. Here I might criticise the Minister for the Environment in one respect, that he has not provided the infrastructures in Mayo that would render it possible for five Deputies to traverse that county from one end to the other. I can assure the Minister I am not seeking election in Mayo.

I also reject the innuendo, a serious and dangerous one in the last speech, that the Minister for the Environment in some way put pressure on this independent commission. I reject that as a slur on the commission and its members.

Mr. Flynn

I thank the Deputy.

Mr. Stagg

I want to record my thanks and congratulations to that commission for doing the job they set out to do.

Nearer home, in Kildare, a small change was required by the Constitution: 15 per cent of the fine people who have been transferred, temporarily I am sure, to Wicklow, voted for me in the last election and 85 per cent voted against me. I am sure that, in the capable hands of my colleague and comrade, Deputy Liam Kavanagh from Wicklow, they will continue to be well served up to and after the next general election. I would like to pose one relatively minor question to the Minister: is it possible to effect some changes in the Bill to deal with the problem I am about to enunciate? Outside polling booths on election days there is a farce and a circus.

Mr. Flynn

Hear, hear.

Mr. Stagg

This is a distinction that is not often drawn. It is not a contest between parties; it is a contest within parties, of party workers seeking advantage for their particular favourite within the party. That is what creates the problem. I ask the Minister to examine that internal party strife. Mind you, it is a symptom of multi-seat constituencies, about which I want to talk later. Perhaps he would ascertain whether he can ban or, at least limit, that circus that takes place outside polling stations, where people have to run the gauntlet of hordes of party workers in order to gain entry to vote. That is a continuing scandal that should be dealt with if at all possible within the terms of this Bill.

It has been argued regularly that large is beautiful for small parties. I am not too sure of the authenticity of that argument. We have many large constituencies, five-seaters, where small parties are not represented. In large constituencies small parties need large resources to mount a campaign. Large constituencies give rise to intense competition for votes from candidates of similar or identical politics. Competition within parties and between parties arises on this basis. This is not useful competition, is not healthy but rather is wasteful. The dreadful thing is that all of us must participate in this charade or perish and be banished from this House. Whether we be frontbenchers, backbenchers or Ministers all of us have to take part in what is effectively a charade. This mind-numbing, soul destroying, enforced, useless activity reduces, and sometimes excludes Members of this House from their real and principal purpose, which is to come here to legislate, to study, research and make informed decisions and arguments. Instead of that most of us are reduced to lobby fodder, to vote on legislation we regularly do not have time even to read but barely examine. That does not arise because of any lack of interest on the part of Members of this House, or through any lack of ability; it arises because of the pressure emanating from multi-seat constituencies and the lack of time available to us as a result. All of this arises as a direct result of multiple-seat constituencies. Practically every Deputy must be involved to survive.

Must we continue to be judged by the number of letters we write rather than by the politics, principles and policies emanating therefrom or must we continue to fulfil the role of untrained social workers? The answer is "yes" until such time as the nettle is grasped about the difficulty that arises for Deputies in such multi-seat constituencies.

I ask the Minister to examine — I am not certain if it can be done within the terms of this Bill — how that problem can be tackled. It has been, and can be, argued that the advice or clinic system instructs Deputies in the realities of the world. That is true to a point but I could not think of a more time-consuming, less efficient way of being instructed. In so saying I am not arguing for isolation, ivory towerism for Members or for insulation from the public. I am arguing for structures which would allow us do our job more efficiently and effectively. I am firmly of the belief that it is not possible to do so as long as there remain multi-seat constituencies. As long as they obtain it will not be possible to render the system effective and responsive. The time is now right for a frank, open debate on this issue, not necessarily on the floor of this House but probably, first, within all the political parties involved in this House and, in that, I include my party.

We have to look again at the merits of the single seat constituency with the single transferable vote pertaining to PR if we are to continue to be taken seriously. Such a system I believe was last proposed in this House by a predecessor of mine from Kildare. I believe it would give rise to real politics. People would then be judged on the basis of support for their policies rather than a basis of support for the number of letters they wrote. All of us who have to be involved in the letter writing business can predict with absolute certainty the type of replies we will get from the various Departments to the overwhelming majority of the representations we make to them. In fact, one could write them oneself before looking for the answer. Still this charade goes on.

The single seat constituency system will give rise to a manageable geographical area where people would relate directly and immediately to their representatives. Real politics would arise and give rise to fair and real representation, and the parties of the Left who have been marginalised by our present system of multi-seat constituencies and clienteleism have all to gain from this and often they seem to be the most in fear of change in that regard. The present system has allowed the Right to dominate Irish politics for the past 70 years. Everybody seems to want to be in the centre now but I regard as being on the right those who consider themselves to be in the centre.

Therefore, we must at least start the debate. Until we do so together we are condemned to a vicious cycle of repetitive and useless activity that changes nothing, we are reduced to the role of untrained social workers. Such a change would enhance our democracy and would return this House and its Members to real democracy and real politics.

We are supporting the Bill before us. I ask the Minister to look at the points I have made. I regret that when the nettle was presented — I am sure it is constantly there for any Minister — the Minister did not grasp it more firmly in regard to real reform of the constituency system.

Mr. Gilmore

The purpose of the Bill before us is to give effect to the report of the Dáil Constituency Commission. We all know that arising from the 1986 census there is a need to revise some constituency boundaries. Indeed, the failure to do so before now has given rise to some doubt about the constitutionality of the 1989 general election. The report presented by the Dáil Constituency Commission is the second attempt to revise constituency boundaries. The report of the first commission was widely and correctly rejected by most of the political parties in this House largely because the terms of reference given to that commission were prejudicial, would have greatly reduced the number of five seat constituencies and, to judge by the report itself, were somewhat resented by the commission.

The terms of reference given to the second commission were somewhat fairer. There are, no doubt, a number of curiosities in the report and I will return to these later. The issue facing the House is whether we adopt the recommendations of the independent commission even though there may be some unhappiness about them, or whether the Dáil itself wishes to become involved in the delineating of the constituencies from which the Members are elected. The Workers' Party believe that the principle of independence and impartiality must be maintained and that, therefore, it would not be correct for the Dáil to reject the report or the Bill based on it. Therefore, we will not oppose this Bill.

Before I deal in greater detail with the Bill itself and with the report I would like to express The Workers' Party's disappointment that this opportunity was not used to bring more comprehensive electoral legislation before the House. There is no good reason this amendment to the Electoral Acts should have been confined to the delineation of constituency boundaries especially as there are so many aspects of our electoral laws which need to be modernised.

The most obvious omission in this Bill is the failure to revise the constituencies for elections to the European Parliament. In reply to a Dáil question on 31 May last the Minister stated, as in the Official Report, column 1126: "Section 12 of the European Assembly Elections Act, 1977 requires the Minister to present to the Oireachtas proposals for the revision of the European constituencies within the period of 12 years from the enactment of that statute and at least once every 12 years thereafter." Although the Minister indicated that he intended to await the outcome of the 1991 census before presenting these proposals, he stated: "The proposal will be contained in an electoral Bill which I hope to introduce shortly." This, presumably, is the Electoral Bill and it is not in it.

Quite clearly, a revision of the European constituencies is now overdue. This is particularly evident in the case of the Dublin constituency which, while well represented by the quality of its MEPs, is under-represented numerically. Therefore, I ask the Minister to tell us when the European constituencies will be revised.

A second issue which has been raised in this House and about which the Minister promised reform in an electoral Bill concerns the unsatisfactory and degrading voting system which applies to disabled persons. As he knows, a disabled person is required to be certified as being sane before being eligible to participate in the special voting arrangements. No other citizens are required to fulfil that requirement. It is an insulting and discriminatory requirement and it should be abolished.

In his reply to Dáil questions from me earlier this year I understood the Minister was sympathetic to this reform——

Mr. Flynn

He is.

Mr. Gilmore

——but it is not in this Bill.

Mr. Flynn

It will be in the next one.

Mr. Gilmore

When are we going to see that one?

Mr. Flynn

This Bill is for a specific purpose.

Mr. Gilmore

The title indicates that it is a Bill to provide for the number of Members of Dáil Éireann and the revision of constituencies — which clearly it does — and to amend the law relating to the election of such Members.

Mr. Flynn

There will be another Electoral Bill dealing with all those items. I have full sympathy with the Deputy in that matter.

Mr. Gilmore

I am glad to hear that. Perhaps the Minister will indicate when replying when that Bill might be presented. I had also asked the Minister to consider favourably a submission from the Disabled Drivers Association that the same type of postal voting system should apply for disabled persons in Dáil, local and European elections as applies for university graduates in Seanad elections. The Minister was not quite so sympathetic to this idea, but I had hoped he might have reconsidered it. He claimed there was a danger of abuse. What leads the Minister to think university graduates are by definition more honest than disabled persons? Why must a disabled person be supervised while voting while a university graduate can return a ballot paper provided the voting has been witnessed? Disabled people feel strongly that their civil rights are restricted by the kind of limited special arrangements provided for them.

The third area which should have been addressed in electoral legislation concerns voter abstention. In most elections in this State 30 per cent or more of those on the electoral register do not vote at all. It would be wrong to attribute this high level of abstention entirely to voter apathy, disenchantment with politics or some conscientious objection to voting. The political right to vote has been a hard won victory for democracy both here and abroad. Such people as the Chartists and the suffragettes as well as those of us who campaigned for votes at 18 would not have wished that such a large proportion of the electorate should be either prevented from voting or unwilling to exercise the vote. We in this House must address this problem.

Let me now suggest a number of remedies which could be incorporated in an electoral legislation. First, the method of compiling and maintaining the electoral registers must be modernised. As recently as 1986 an ESRI survey showed there were 157,000 redundant names on electoral registers and the situation was particularly bad in Dublin. While there has been some improvement with the computerisation of the registers we are all aware of serious inaccuracies arising, of people turning up to polling stations to find they are not registered and therefore not entitled to vote. It seems that the annual revision of the register is done at the wrong time. People will not normally over the Christmas period go to their post office to check the register before 15 January. Let me suggest that the revision of the register should coincide with the change in the tax year in early April which is a time when people are accustomed to making documentary returns.

Let me also raise with the Minister the recent Supreme Court decision in relation to double registration on the Register of Electors. This was the decision arising in the case of a number of students who sought to be registered in their normal place of residence and in their place of study. I ask the Minister to address this issue when he is replying in the context of any possible distortion of the size of constituencies or of the level of representation in constituencies arising from that decision.

I agree with Deputy Stagg that the intensive, unnecessary and unproductive canvassing which takes place outside polling stations on polling day is intimidating voters. We all know that the ritual handing out of literature outside polling stations on the day of an election is a waste of time, yet no party will unilaterally discontinue it. It should simply be prohibited. It is a frightening experience for most voters to run the gauntlet of election workers from five or six different political parties.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt you. I do so merely to remind you that on Second Stage it is given to any Member to refer to what is proposed. This legislation deals specifically with the revision of constituencies. Obviously a reference could be made to regret that it does not provide for other matter, but the other matter that could be provided would be only that that would be appropriate to the raison d'etre of the Bill, which is to revise constituencies.

Mr. Gilmore

Let me mention the final regret I have in relation to the Bill before us, that is, that the opportunity was not taken to introduce Sunday voting. The times for polling, from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on a working weekday actually restricts the time available for voting for most people at work and for most people with domestic responsibilities. Most day workers will have gone to work before polling stations open at 9 a.m. and may not be home, have eaten or changed until nearly 7 p.m. so that in reality the time available for voting is no more than two hours. In my view this is contributing to the low polls especially in many urban areas.

The somewhat controversial process which led to this Bill should give rise to some more fundamental changes in the forming of constituencies than is provided here. Repeatedly the Irish people have shown their determination to defend the principles of fairness and proportionality in the electoral system. Attempts to drop PR or multi-seat constituencies have repeatedly been rejected. The "Tullymandering" of constituencies has backfired on those who attempted it and the last Government's attempt to reduce the number of five-seat constituencies produced a public and political outcry which led to the demise of the report of the first commission.

Let me say here in relation to what Deputy Stagg said that, quite apart from the possible consequences for smaller political parties of abandoning the multi-seat constituency system, there is a great danger that in a single seat constituency system large sections of the electorate are permanently disenfranchised. If Deputy Stagg would like to consult the average Labour voter in many of the constituencies in the south of England, he will learn they are in a state of permanent disenfranchisement because given the way in which constituencies are established there they never manage to elect somebody of their own political persuasion.

Mr. Flynn

I think he wanted something quite different to what the Deputy is suggesting.

Mr. Gilmore

Clearly what is needed is a statutorily established independent system for revising constituencies. The revision of constituencies should not be in the hands of politicians whose own political careers may be directly affected by any changes made. It is wrong, therefore, that the decision to establish a commission in the first place should be reserved for Government whose political composition will have a vested interest in whether there should be a commission, who the members will be, what their terms of reference will be, and then whether the recommendations would be brought before the Dáil. By extension, the Dáil itself, whose Members have a vested interest in the matter, should not be the forum where the specific delineation of constituency boundaries should be decided. What is needed is an electoral Bill which will establish on a statutory basis a commission whose composition and terms of reference will be defined in law and which, subject to an appeals system, will decide on constituency boundaries. This is the best way of ensuring a fair and, as far as is possible, impartial method of deciding this issue.

For that reason, therefore, The Workers' Party, although we have reservations about some of the recommendations contained in the report, will not be opposing this Bill. There is a principle involved here that, having had a report from an independent commission, the Dáil then should not seek to reject that report or to alter the specific recommendations contained in it. We have, however, a number of reservations about the report and, as a consequence, a number of reservations about the Bill. Our principal reservations about this Bill and about the report centre on the report's apparent failure to comply with three of their terms of reference — to avoid breaching county boundaries, to respect clearly defined natural features and to preferably situate larger seat constituencies in areas of greater population density. The curiosities which have arisen as a result of these departures centre mainly on the following constituencies: the Galway-Mayo county boundary is breached mainly in the cases of both Galway West and Galway East in order to preserve two three-seat constituencies in Mayo; Mayo East will now stretch into the town of Tuam while in Mayo West the red and green of Mayo will now fly over the Galway West towns of Cong and Headford. Perhaps, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, it is the Galwayman in me that makes me differ from the position taken by my colleague, Deputy Stagg, in relation to that matter because it seems to me that the need——

Mr. Flynn

Cong is in Mayo, you know.

Mr. Gilmore

But Cornamona is in Galway.

Mr. Connor

They were very angry with you there the last time.

Mr. Flynn

I am welcome there and more so every day.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Could we end the inter-county tussle?

Mr. Shatter

I think the Minister will be physically breaching county boundaries regularly.

Mr. Flynn

You did not trouble to venture outside the pale, Deputy Shatter. You would not know your way around out there.

Mr. Gilmore

It is understandable that the Minister's perception of where the Mayo/Galway border is is becoming increasingly blurred.

The need to protect Mayo has also resulted in the most bizarre of constituencies, Longford-Roscommon. In Dublin the most serious changes relate to Dublin West and Dublin Central. The natural boundary of the Liffey is breached. Integrated communities like Ballyfermot, Blanchardstown and Mulhuddart are split in two.

Finally, it is remarkable that, although the larger seat constituencies are supposed to be in the areas of highest population, there is not a single five-seat constituency north of the Liffey. Without doubt the curiosities in the report result from a determination to keep two three-seat constituencies in Mayo when all demographic logic suggested that Mayo county should become a single five-seat constituency.

Mr. Stafford

It is 100 miles.

Mr. Gilmore

How many miles is it from the south of Longford around by the north of Lough Ree and back around to the south or middle of County Roscommon?

Mr. Flynn

A nice walk on a summer day.

Mr. Stafford

Were you ever in Belmullet?

Mr. Gilmore

I was indeed. How many miles is it from East Kildare to the boundary of County Dublin at Little Bray? I am afraid, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, if mileage were to be the criterion it has not been applied very consistently in arriving at these conclusions.

Mr. Connor

Mileage has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Gilmore

We are asked to believe that the outcome which has arisen in the report is purely coincidental to the fact that the Minister who is responsible is himself from Mayo. I do not subscribe to the view that the commission set out to favour the Minister. I have far too much respect for the integrity and independence of the members of the commission to reach that conclusion; but I cannot help thinking that the commission was serviced by the Minister's own Department and that the draft maps and options which would have been laid before the commission would have been prepared in his Department; and in view of the outcome, I cannot escape the conclusion that the Minister's hand is to be seen in protecting Mayo and his own party's political advantage in this area. The Minister will no doubt claim that this is unfair to him and to his Department, but he has a way of clearing up the matter. He can make available to this House the Department's papers, suggestions, recommendations and options which were put before the commission, and we can then make up our own minds on whether he has used his position to influence a commission in the carrying out of its work.

The doubts which have arisen in what is otherwise a generally acceptable report in relation to Mayo need to be clarified by the Minister publicly in view of the concern that he may have been involved in some way in the commission arriving at that conclusion.

I would like to subscribe to the words of thanks that have been expressed and express the thanks of The Workers' Party to the commission. I would like to state on record our respect for their integrity and independence and, notwithstanding our surprise at some of the recommendations, to state that we will be accepting the report and the Bill which has been put before us.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am calling Deputy John Stafford. We will anticipate Deputy Stafford confining himself to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Stafford

Without doubt I will do that. Deputy Stagg spoke a great deal of sense.

Mr. Stagg

As usual.

Mr. Power

That is the effect his colleague has on him.

Mr. Stafford

Naturally, I do not agree with all the recommendations of the commission. The establishment of the constituency revision commission last May was widely welcomed, given the changes in population per TD which have emerged over the years. The commission established under the Joint Programme for Government indicated that under their terms of reference some fundamental changes would emerge. However, change means different things to different people and for me, as a Deputy from the Dublin Central constituency, the changes recommended by the commission are both fundamental and far-reaching. My future as a TD may be in jeopardy and the options available, while many, are not exactly attractive.

If I was paranoid — naturally I am not — I could easily interpret the report of the commission as being purely and simply an anti-Dublin document. Listening to some Deputies one would wonder if there was anyone representing the Dublin area. Overall Dublin will lose one seat in this whole process.

I would like to illustrate the effect of the report on my constitutncy of Dublin Central and outline my unease at supporting it but let us first look at the terms of reference of the commission. The fundamental objective of the commission was to advise and report on the formation of constituencies for election of members to Dáil Éireann. In compiling their report the commission were urged to take account of 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 larger seat constituencies should preferably be situated in areas of greater population density; (c) 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 change.

The above terms of reference are clear, concise and, to the layman, reasonably straightforward. However, I contend that not only were these terms of reference ignored when considering Dublin Central but it seems the commission decided that that constituency would be as the exception to prove the rule. In my time I have read many great works of fiction but this production by Mr. Justice Hamilton, Dr. Whitaker, Mr. Troy, Mr. Rayel and Mr. Coughlan must rank among the greatest, almost akin to the Fine Gael documents of the past few days.

Mr. Connor

Has the Deputy read the fiction of the Minister?

Mr. Stafford

The Minister did not write the report; it was compiled by the commission.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Stafford will appriciate that he should not even appear to be reflecting on the competence of the individual members of the commission.

Mr. McCormack

Or even the Minister.

Mr. Connor

That is a greater sin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The commission were invited to prepare a report and they did so. The legislation before us comes from the Government, not from the commission.

Mr. Stafford

I am talking about the way the report was compiled. While Dublin Central is the Dublin constituency most affected, I must take this opportunity to express sympathy with my friends and colleagues in Counties Clare, Kildare and Galway who now find themselves reclassified as Limerick men and women, Wicklow men and women and Mayo men and women respectively. Of course, this is not really an adverse reflection on the latter counties, they are probably put forward as a prospect of new constituencies. I understand the arguments of the Deputies who represent the Mayo constituencies. I agree there is a great distance from one end of the county to the other. It is the system that I object to. If we take the position of Longford and Roscommon, the Deputies there find themselves in neither Leinster or Connacht. Nobody really knows which province they are in. The only advantage to these two counties is that they will have two shots at the Sam Maguire Cup, they could either play in the Connacht championship or the Leinster championship.

Naturally, I am concerned about the plight of the Deputies in those constituencies and their treatment at the hands of the commission, who I am not criticising, but these areas fared a lot better than Dublin Central. It is generally acknowledged that the carve-up of Dublin Central is totally out of proportion. The saddest thing about this carve-up is that it will tear the heart out of communities and areas with long traditions and histories. I am privileged to represent many historic, well known areas of Dublin. I contend there is no area in any other part of the city so steeped in history and folklore than that which I represent.

Drumcondra, for example, was the site of an original settlement of an ancient Gaelic tribe, the Condraithe. In times past there was a ridge in the area, from where it derives its name, Drumcondra, or the ridge of Condraithe.

Mr. Stagg

They were all Labour voters.

Mr. Stafford

Three seats out of five would indicate what they are today.

Mr. Gilmore

That never happened in Michael O'Leary's day.

Mr. Stafford

It is amazing how two seats can disappear. I was raised in the North Strand the scene of the dreadful bombings of 1940 which resulted in many of the people in the area being rehoused in Cabra, also in the constituency. North Strand is beside Ballybough — I am outlining these matters to show how important an area is to a city. Ballybough, previously known as Mud Island, is famous in its own right. It was at Ballybough Bridge, now named after a famous man, Luke Kelly, that the ancient city limits terminated. The bridge at one time boasted a gallows.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy should stand in Dublin North Central.

Mr. Stafford

I am giving the history of the area. There is also a suicide burial plot in the area and it is said that spirits are still in the park beside the Luke Kelly Bridge.

From Ballybough we head towards the city to Summerhill. A look at the Irish name for Summerhill reveals its ancient origins. Crionán was an ancient Celtic god who roamed the area. Cnoc Crionán is a very old part of Dublin. Another part of this famous constituency is Marino with its famous Casino built by Lord Charlemont. No. 13 Marino Crescent was the birth place of Bram Stoker who also had a very colourful history. In Lord Charlemont's time there was a view of Dublin Bay from a house in Marino. He had a row with a man called Ffiliot because he decided to build houses at the end of Marino in a crescent shape cutting off the view of the bay. All these things are very important to people in Dublin Central.

Mr. Stagg

Did he get a section 4?

Mr. Stafford

In Dublin city we do not believe in that kind of thing. Also in that area they talk about the Battle of Clontarf but it actually took place in Marino, Ballybough, Drumcondra, Summerhill and probably on the shores of what is now the North Strand.

On the far side of the constituency we can see the remains of the Viking site settlement known as Oxmantown.

Dr. Lee

There will be another battle in Clontarf.

Mr. Stafford

Most people think that Oxmantown got its name from the famous cattle markets in the area, but it comes from the Vikings, Ostman, meaning men from the east. To this day, many of the streets in the Oxmantown area reflect its original Viking settlements like the Kings Sitric, Olaf and Harold. Stoneybatter is close by and it is steeped in a similar history. Stoneybatter comes from the Irish for "stoney road" which reflects the fact that one of the five great ancient roads, Slí Culann, went through the area.

Mr. McCormack

Are there any Mayo men there?

Mr. Stafford

I do not think so although there are Mayo men everywhere and people are always very proud to have them.

Phibsboro is another famous township set up by the Phibbs family over two centuries ago. East Wall is in the lower part of my constituency and it was once covered in sea and looked out at the mud island of Clontarf. I could go on but suffice to say it is clear that the areas making up Dublin Central are among the most historical in our city and it is a shame that a commission chose to ignore this background. I am not criticising the commission.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is perfectly entitled to comment on the findings of the commission. I thought earlier, when he proceeded to name the members, that he intended to criticise them. Having listened to his useful comments, it is accepted that he has a specific interest in the proposed legislation.

Mr. Stafford

I am like a man talking about his future which will not come and those around him always speak well of the dead. I am not dead yet.

To take an example of this carve up which is mirrored many times in the area, let us look at the township of Drumcondra. In addition to its Gaelic history, Drumcondra was, as you are no doubt aware, the first township established on the north side of the city. This occurred all of 111 years ago which seems to have held no sway with the commission who, for some reason, decided to carve up the area into three constituencies.

For some strange reason, the commission decided to ignore well established geographical, natural or other boundaries. Drumcondra is a small, close-knit community and you can imagine the surprise of the residents to find that their village has been split in three, some parts remaining in Dublin Central, the west going to Dublin North-West and across the road being part of Dublin North-Central. I very much doubt if a town like Arklow, for example, would be treated like this with so many people in the same area voting in three different constituencies.

Perhaps the most incredible breach of the commission's terms of reference is the recommendation that Dublin Central should now include part of the south side. Is there any more natural boundary in Dublin than the River Liffey? Yet, the commission have ignored the connection. As a northsider, born and bred, I find this potential change of most concern. Naturally I would never advocate or encourage a northside/southside divide, that is not my way. However, I find it difficult to understand the logic of the commission in taking this action unless, of course, their independence has been infringed and they were got at by southsiders. I say that with tongue in cheek.

Mr. Belton

They were got at by one of your own.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the Deputy should use an expression like "were got at".

Mr. Stafford

I did not——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think that Deputy Stafford could honestly enter that caveat in respect of the members of the commission, using the words "got at".

Mr. Stafford

I will withdraw the remark. Perhaps some people from the southside felt they would like to be closely associated with the north side of the city.

Mr. S. Barrett

Is the Deputy suggesting that Deputy Gilmore got in touch with the commission?

Mr. Stafford

I just noticed recently in the telephone directory that the Phoenix Park, Aras an Úachtaráin and the Zoo are listed as Dublin 8. Obviously, somebody is attempting to interfere with the constituencies.

If I were a cynic — which I am not — I would say that the northside is getting a 320 year old hospital, which no longer accepts patients and a 202 year old jail in Kilmainham, which no longer accepts prisoners, in return for sharing the magnificent northside landmarks such as the Customs House, the GPO and the Four Courts.

Mr. S. Barrett

They should have moved the Liffey.

Mr. Stafford

I would not say that. Naturally, I fully appreciate the great role which Kilmainham Jail has played in our republican history. I also commend and appreciate the superb restoration work on the Royal Hospital. By speaking on the Bill in this way I am trying to indicate the way I see the changes which do not altogether go along with the Minister's suggestions. In particular, I am talking about my own constituency.

The commission should have taken it upon themselves to look closely at population shifts in Dublin Central. The net total is a 4,168 reduction in population, and a one seat reduction in representation. That is perfectly acceptable in that the average population per Member was out of line with the national average. Within the net reduction individual shifts outwards heve been effected by 50,000 people, which flies in the face of the commission's terms of reference. To put this into context we should imagine a full house at Lansdowne Road cheering on the boys in green. Imagine taking all the west side out of it and moving them to Dalymount Park and moving those on the terraces in Croke Park to the other end of it. We are moving people from one area to the other without reason.

The terms of reference state the desirability of effecting minimal changes. If a population of 50,000 is minimal in the context of a four-seater, minimal has taken on a new meaning for me. No fewer than three constituencies are affected by these changes — Dublin Central, Dublin North-Central and Dublin West. A population of 17,287 has been shifted from Dublin Central to Dublin North-Central. A population of 11,389 from Dublin Central to Dublin North-West and most amazingly in an effort to undo the damage 24,508 people from Dublin West now find themselves in Dublin Central. The people in the west are definitely confused about this.

We always give a little and take a little. In my constituency we have given more than a little. I do not wish to take these recommendations personally but it is widely agreed among TDs in the Dublin areas that my constituency has been most affected, and my position will be most affected. I can consider options. I could stay in Dublin Central which becomes a four seater. I was elected fifth place the last time round, so I am sure the commission understood that no matter what, five into four just will not go. I could go up to Dublin North-Central where I was born and reared, lived and went to school.

Mr. Gilmore

And they all loved you.

Mr. Stafford

And they all loved me. There are already three Fianna Fáil TDs in that constituency. I could consider going to Dublin North-West considering that quite a large proportion of my constituents have gone over there. I am just thinking out loud here, A Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Mr. Gilmore

You are in danger of being ruled out of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy appreciates that he cannot involve the Chair, therefore, I assume he is speaking of the constituency of my colleague, Deputy Barrett.

Mr. Stafford

Absolutely. I see no room there. There is no doubt that Deputy Barrett will remember that even Zig and Zag's colleague in that constituency got three per cent in the presidential elections. That also makes it very difficult.

A Deputy

You might get his vote.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Stafford

This is very important legislation. There is no doubt but some people will say "Stafford is gone".

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Stafford

They might say that but I will be around and will continue to battle on. I will give some history about Dublin Central. There were two racecourses in Dublin Central. They will soon be gone if we do not save the Phoenix Park Races. Most people do not realise that many years ago there was a race track where Croke Park is today. I will be like the guy in the races. I might not be first but I will be in the winner's enclosure.

Mr. Connor

You will get the job of track keeper.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Stafford

These are major problems for me as a Deputy. Deputies appreciate the problems in constituencies, but when something like this happens and one does not have a say in what happens, one feels a little frustrated.

Mr. Stagg

Vote against it.

Mr. Stafford

Deputy Stagg said earlier that he would not accept that politicians should have a say in redrawing constituencies. If a person gets sick he calls a doctor, if a dog is sick one calls the vet, but when we are talking about constituencies——

A Deputy

Do not call on Pádraig Flynn.

Mr. Stafford

——why do we deny ourselves the right to contribute? As politicians we know where every street is and the effects of all changes. When the commission was set up, why did we not agree to have representation from politicians? What is wrong with that? Why do we always downgrade the integrity of politicians? I would go anywhere with most of the politicians I know. I know Deputy Stagg was being sensible about these deliberations. Often we say that we cannot allow politicians contribute. Deputy Rabbitte said that not only can we not allow politicians to intervene, but we cannot even allow the Government to guide how a commission should be set up.

Mr. Belton

They all have a bad reputation.

Mr. Stafford

I will not say anything about things that happened on the other side. I am just talking about the fact that this is what is happening. I have explained my problems. As a Government backbencher there is no doubt that I will do my duty and walk through the lobbies with them; that is what the Government are about. It is safe to say that by voting for this Bill it is like an undertaker moving his headquarters into Tír na nÓg.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Stafford, it is not given to the Chair to comment but, on the other hand in the mood prevailing the Chair could say you have convinced the House that there are reasons why you should not be happy with the legislation. As a northsider you will be aware of an athletic club, Clonliffe, whose slogan was nil desperandum, that is all I can say to you. Cé tá ag eirí?

Mr. Flynn

Níl éinne interested.

Dr. Lee

Having listened to Deputy Stafford it reminds me of the old adage "follow that if you can". It will be very difficult to follow Deputy Stafford's treatise on the history of Dublin Central which was excellent.

I thank you for giving me this too brief an opportunity, albeit it was all too brief to express my utter contempt for this Electoral (Amendment) Bill, my utter rejection of the findings of the electoral commission and my anger that they could meander outside their fixed parameters and so ignore their brief and terms of reference. The major terms of reference were the geographical considerations, 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 — here I suggest Mayo to the Minister. Other well established characteristics such as clearly defined natural features — a good example of this which Deputy Stafford gave us was the River Liffey which was there for centuries — were to be considered and the desirability of effecting the minimum change. If anyone suggests to me that the changes in Dublin Central are minimal I would disagree. How a High Court judge, a former Governor of the Central Bank, the Clerk of the Dáil, the Clerk of the Seanad, and the Secretary of the Department of the Environment, could so deviate from their guidelines and their terms of reference is grotesque and so unbelievable that one is led to the natural and justified conclusion, taking all the factors into account, that there must have been nefarious and sinister influences involved.

It is common knowledge — even the dogs in the street know — that there was disagreement within the commission and that they had to reach a majority decision to publish their findings. I am afraid there were nefarious and sinister influences. The hand and the influences of that anti-feminist himself, the Minister, who cynically and sarcastically described the future President of this country in a certain way and within two hours of those remarks issued an official apology——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Excuse me Deputy. There is no future President; There is a President, our esteemed President and it is not given to you or anybody here to make a comment on our President. That is a well-known tradition and rule of this House. I would ask you not to break that tradition which you can appreciate is highly desirable.

Dr. Lee

Far be it from me to endeavour to break the traditions of this House, which I shall not, but I would point out that this Electoral (Amendment) Bill has grave consequences for me, as for Deputy Stafford. I beg the liberty — I do not mean to insult anybody — to express my views as I am entitled within reason.

Hindsight is the most perfect political science known to man and the evidence in the Minister's case, to say the least of it, is damning. There is no doubt in my mind, or in the mind of many others, that he used the status and power of his office to influence the findings of this commission. It has been said that when he was asked by one of his Fianna Fáil councillors, at a major sporting event why Mayo was retained as two three-seaters the Minister replied in his typical fashion with his head in the air that, "a parent must christen its own child first". They were his exact words.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

True or false?

Dr. Lee

In this case we do not need any high tech diagnostic aids to establish the seeds and the parentage of this report. It is the Minister's and it is shaming. The jackboots of our other erstwhile colleague, the Minister for Justice, are evident throughout this report. That there are such major dislocations of population and such clearly defined natural boundaries ignored is clearly proof of this. Would the Minister not agree that the River Liffey is a natural boundary? Has there not been a major dislocating of population in Dublin Central? In my view there has.

The definition of minimal changes and natural features will now have to be changed and redefined in the Oxford Dictionary. Dublin Central, for those of us who do not know it — and most of us do — will now extend from the East Wall on the one hand to almost the County Kildare border on the other, from the north inner city to the green fields of Kildare.

The Government, in the fullness of time, will rue the day they introduced this Electoral (Amendment) Bill. The Irish people are much more intelligent and sophisticated voters than we politicians give them credit for, and especially politicians from the Government side of the House.

Mr. Stafford

How did the Deputy learn that?

Dr. Lee

I learned it the hard way — by experience. The Government, and the Fianna Fáil Party, in the fullness of time, will get their answer from the electorate.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy should be ashamed of himself but I will deal with him in my reply.

Mr. Power

First, I should like to place on record my disgust at the words of the last speaker; the slur he cast on our Minister was a disgrace. Earlier in the evening his colleague cast a slur on an independent commission which was set up to do a job and did the job well.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

What about your own colleague?

Mr. Power

The purpose of this Bill is to revise the Dáil constituencies as a result of the census which was taken up in 1986 and to implement the recommendations made by the Dáil constituency commission. I take this opportunity to thank those people who sat on the commission and gave of their time for free. Naturally, no matter how well the constituencies are redrawn there will always be those who will not be satisfied; that is the way the cookie crumbles and we will have to put up with it. A slight change has been proposed in my own constituency of Kildare where we will be giving 10,000 voters to Wicklow. We have always had that givish nature in Kildare and it will not be any different this time.

Mr. Dukes

Is the Deputy sorry he missed it?

Mr. Power

It is only a temporary arrangement in any event. With the change in population trends in north Kildare it will not be too long before we will have our two three-seater constituencies in Kildare. It will be difficult for people who were born and bred in Kildare to move into Wicklow but we will have to put up with it for the time being.

There are a couple of points I would like to make and which will prove very important in the near future. The Supreme Court judgment on 27 November last in the Waterford regional technical college case allows for multiple registration. Up to now a person was allowed to be registered only once, that being his or her residence wherever that was. The decision of the Supreme Court on 27 November will now allow students and people in a similar category, be they workers or people with holiday homes, or whatever, to register in different areas. As a result we are talking about thousands of people who will be able to register in different areas. I refer to my own constituency of Kildare where we have Maynooth College. Students at that college will be allowed register in Maynooth and also to be registered in their own constituencies. This could have very serious consequences and I urge the Minister to take immediate action to resolve that. I do not begrudge students their entitlement to vote, in fact, I welcome it very much, but it is something that must be resolved quickly.

Mr. Connor

The Deputy is hoping they will vote for Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Power

Deputies on my left, in their contribution, referred to a few points with which I agree, one of which was Sunday voting. This is a matter we will all have to face up to and it would be for the good of the country. It would reduce costs and produce a higher percentage poll. Although the polling stations are open for 12 hours it is not always suitable or possible for people who are working to vote. The Sunday vote will have to be brought in and the sooner this is done the better.

Reference was made by my colleague, Deputy Emmet Stagg, to the introduction of single seat constituencies. I do not agree with the Deputy too often but I agree with him on this occasion that multi-seat constituencies lead to gross inefficiency. Not alone is there competition between members of different parties but there is competition between members of the same party, if one is lucky enough to have a colleague in the same constituency——

Mr. Stafford

Or unlucky.

Mr. Power

I suppose it would be unfair of me not to thank my colleague, Deputy Stafford, for the wonderful history lesson he gave us on his constituency. I think it was Shakespeare who said in one of his plays, "your future is behind you." I hope this is not true in the case of Deputy Stafford.

Mr. Stafford

Thank you.

Mr. Power

Another measure I should like to see introduced is automated polling. When I was elected last year it took almost 48 hours to count the votes — I thought they were reluctant to let me in. Maybe they will make amends for it the next time, but I hope not. The counts at the last few elections have been far too slow. While people get a certain amount of pleasure out of this and the tallymen are able to predict the election from an early stage I believe it would be in all our interests to have quicker results. I hope this slow procedure will not continue for much longer.

Deputy Stagg referred to the distribution of literature outside polling stations. This is another problem which will have to be tackled. Many people are put off voting because they are intimidated by the number of people distributing literature outside the polling stations. One would need a box to carry it all. This did not happen to the same extent during the Presidential election — some of the parties were very thin on the ground on that occasion — but I am sure that when the next general election takes place we will be back to the same old story.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Power

We still managed to get the highest number of first preference votes and we are proud of that.

I want to refer to the farcical situation where approximately 10,000 people who worked in the polling booths at the time of the Presidential election were not allowed to vote. This is another problem which needs to be tackled. If we are really serious about democracy we should ensure that people are given an opportunity to cast their vote.

I welcome the Bill. As I said it will not be to everybody's liking. However, the Commission had a job to do and I believe we have a duty to accept the recommendations put forward by them.

Mr. Belton

I think a previous speaker referred to the recommendation in regard to counties Longford and Roscommon as bizarre. As a Deputy from County Longford I can only agree with that description. I know this recommendation was first made in 1988 and on that occasion the terms of reference of the commission were put forward by the Minister.

I want to refer to a significant event which has taken place since 1988. When the local radio licences were being given out it was widely expected that Longford-Westmeath would receive a licence for a local radio. In fact, some people in those two counties had collected money for a local radio station. However, the licence was given to the Longford-Roscommon area.

A Deputy

That is very interesting.

Mr. Belton

I do not know if that was done on account of the 1988 recommendations——

Mr. Carey

Political recommendations.

Mr. Belton

——or because of what would be contained in their next recommendations. Maybe it had no connection with the recommendations at all.

Mr. Carey

Albert wanted to get away from Mary.

Mr. Connor

Mary, Mary, quite contrary.

Mr. Belton

If one had a devious mind one could see a consistent line running through all of this. I wonder if all Members of the House are aware of how bizarre this recommendation is. These two counties are in two different provinces, two different Euro constituencies, two different health board areas and two different tourist board areas. Reference was made earlier to the River Liffey which to my mind is about 20 yards wide. Parts of Lough Ree are four miles wide——

Mr. Stafford

The Deputy would never swim it.

Mr. Belton

Yet this lake is in the one constituency. We are being asked not to criticise the advice given by the commission. I cannot stand up here and attack the members of the commission individually but as an elected Member of this House I have every right to question their advice and voice my surprise at their findings. As I said, the 1988 terms of reference are still lurking in the background and this can be seen from the recommendations made by the commission.

I know the Minister is happy enough with the recommendations in regard to County Mayo. That, of course, is a coincidence. The truth is that a Leinster county would not have to be put into Connaught if the 1988 terms of reference were forgotten about. If Dáil seats were given correctly in terms of population one seat in the west would definitely have to go. There is no question about that and, as was said earlier, it would have to go in County Mayo. It is a coincidence that that did not happen.

As was pointed out earlier, my colleague in County Longford happens to come from County Roscommon. As Deputy Stafford said it will be confusing to have one county in Leinster and the other county in Connaught. I can guarantee the Deputy that it will not be confusing to my colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Albert Reynolds, who was lucky enough to have been born in County Roscommon, to have spent half his life there and to be an elected representative now for County Longford. He will not be one bit annoyed about this recommendation. It may be a coincidence that this recommendation suits both the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Reynolds, but if we were to believe what we read in newspapers and magazines, though one cannot believe everything one reads, they were supposed to have had a row over this recommendation. I do not know whether that is true, I only read it.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

That is between Mary and Pádraic.

Mr. S. Barrett

She told Albert to go back across the Shannon.

Mr. Connor

She does not often use skinner's language.

A Deputy

It is not four miles wide.

Mr. Flynn

There is a bridge over it.

Mr. Barrett

The people on the other side tell many to go back.

Mr. Belton

One of the terms of reference was to preserve natural boundaries. This being so I was amazed when Longford and Roscommon were put together. While I would have no objection to representing the people of Longford and Roscommon — I hope I will — I should point out that the population of County Longford are amazed by this.

Debate adjourned.