I reiterate that the allegations made by several Deputies opposite are groundless and I invite them, individually or collectively, to take an early opportuntity to express themselves in similar language outside the House and then those who have been seriously maligned will get the opportunity available to them to settle matters.
While on the matter, I wish to put on record clearly and finally that at no time did I seek, directly or indirectly, personally or through any other person, to influence the work of the commission. Subject only to the constitutional requirements and terms of reference, the commission were entirely independent and no attempt whatsoever was made by me, or by any person acting on my behalf or on behalf of the Government, to influence their deliberations.
I do not see it as part of my remit to defend the individual constituencies defined in the Schedule to the Bill. The basis on which I am recommending the Bill to the House is that it proposes to implement in full the recommendations of an independent commission charged with the drawing up of a scheme on constituencies.
The principle of entrusting the job of drawing up constituencies to an independent commission was established by a Fianna Fáil Government in 1977 and I understand this principle has since been accepted by all parties in this House. I understand also that the terms of reference given to the commission were fully acceptable to all parties. What I am presenting to the House is a scheme of constituencies which is the product of an agreed process operating in accordance with the acceptable rules and with acceptable and honourable personnel. Why the commission recommended this layout of constituencies rather than any other possible arrangement is simply a matter for the commission. I have no information over and above that contained in the commission's report. I do not see it as part of my function to defend any individual constituency. However, I feel I must comment on the hypocrisy of some of the observations that have been made here.
The constituency of Longford-Roscommon has been criticised on the grounds that it straddles the River Shannon. It may have escaped the notice of the Deputies concerned that no fewer than four constituencies straddle the Shannon. The constituency has been criticised on the grounds that it breaches the boundary of the European constituency and of the planning region. I remind Deputies that the terms of reference contained no prohibition and no guidance whatsoever on this point. The proposed constituency of Dublin Central has been criticised on the grounds of size, taking that constituency as an example. I can only say that from the Point Depot on the eastern extremity of the constituency to Kylemore Road on the west is a distance of about six miles.
There have been quite a number of references to my own constituency of Mayo West. As Deputy McCormack would know, my constituency at present runs from the bridge of Shrule to the pier at Blacksod, and Deputy McCormack knows how many miles that is. It is not far off the distance driving from Dublin city to Galway city, yet Deputies have no difficulty in suggesting that the constituency should be doubled in size to take in all of the third largest county in the country. They are, apparently, prepared to accept with unanimity the fact that this would also involve a departure from the 8 per cent of the national average, despite the statement by the 1988 commission that a departure of 8 per cent or over from the national average would be unacceptable and, in all probability, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.
I recommend to some Deputies that more detail is printed in the report of the 1980 commission. I respectfully suggest to Deputies that they might have a casual glance at chapter 7 of that report where set down in clear detail by the commision are the reasons for their decision and recommendation in regard to Mayo at that time. That has not been altered. There is something to be learned from a quick perusal of that report. I can only conclude that a different set of principles, and different criteria of measurement, apply once one crosses the Liffey. I regret that.
There was a question about the 1988 commission. I might make a few comments to draw aside some of the misrepresentations, innuendo and trivialities with which certain people have tried to invest it. The terms of reference given to the first Dáil constituency commission, who were appointed in 1979, included a provision regarding the retention of the traditional pattern of three seat, four seat and five seat constituencies. In retrospect it is difficult to see what meaning could be assigned to this provision. In fact, there never was a traditional pattern of three, four and five seat constituencies.
The one consistent feature in all previous provisions was the continuing shift away from the larger constituencies towards smaller ones. Thus in 1935, eight and nine seat constituencies disappeared and in 1947 the seven seaters were phased out. Prior to 1980 the highest ever number of five seaters was nine. By 1969 the number had been reduced to two and in the same period the number of three seat constituencies had increased from six to 26. The same general tendency was continued in the revision prepared by a Labour Party Minister in 1974 and the number of three seaters remained at 26. The number of five seaters was increased to six with a corresponding reduction in the number of four seaters. Interesting enough, not a single five seat constituency was created in the Dublin area, and those five seaters created consisted generally of rural counties such as Carlow-Kilkenny, Cavan-Monaghan, Laois-Offaly and Donegal.
In this connection it must be stressed that the responsibility for revising constituencies is placed by the Constitution on the Oireachtas and it cannot divest itself of this responsibility. Proposals for revision are introduced as Government Bills, and I can find no evidence that any Government or the Oireachtas at any time took a positive decision to reverse the traditional tendency towards smaller constituencies. It would appear that there had been broad acceptance of this tendency and it was certainly welcomed by individual Deputies, no matter what their party.
Finally, when the question of revising the constituencies following the 1986 census arose, this matter had to be addressed and firm guidelines in one direction or another given to any future commission. When the outgoing Government, in January 1987, purported to set up a commission they obviously recognised the problem in this regard and, in the proposed terms of reference, they dropped the reference to the traditional pattern and simply required the proposed commission to recommend three, four and five seat constituencies. While this wording was a definite improvement it still left a large area of uncertainty so far as the commission might be concerned.
Several Deputies referred to the need for an amendment of certain aspects of electoral law, and I was pleased to hear that. I have already informed the House that I am preparing a comprehensive general election Bill which I hope to be in a position to bring in soon. While I am not promising that all the matters mentioned by Deputies in the course of the debate will be dealt with in the Bill, or that the Bill will provide exactly what individual Deputies might wish, it will be comprehensive and it will give the House an opportunity to have an objective and thorough review of all aspects of general electoral law, and it will in fact deal with many of the matters raised here.
I thank those Deputies who spoke in such a constructive way on matters that need to be addressed, and they will be addressed. Other Deputies made comments, I note, and they have already appeared in print even though they did not speak here at all, and I will be taking note of how that happens, too.
