On section 3 dealing with constituencies, I would like to make one or two very brief comments as the matter was given some airing during the course of Second Stage debate as to how constituencies should be devised. A number of speakers including Deputy Stagg, followed by a number of speakers from the Fianna Fáil side, expressed a preference for single seat constituencies. Deputy Stagg may yet be found to have scored the most famous own goal politically of 1990 by suggesting the establishment of single seat constituencies. If he for a moment thinks that the establishment of single seat constituencies is going to solve the problem of the scourge of clientelist politics, what does he think is going to happen in a small single seat constituency which, given the number of seats that we have in the House at the moment, would be smaller than most local electoral areas? We will have precisely the same kind of clientelist politics that he has already criticised, except in this case the competition will not necessarily be with fellow Members of this House but perhaps with aspiring Members of this House serving on local authorities or politically active in one way or another. Anybody who has read Denis Healy's autobiography — he has served for many years in a single seat constituency in Britain with a safe majority — can see that he shows clearly the extent to which, even in that political culture, service of constituents has been a very prominent part of political life.
Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Committee and Final Stages.
The Deputy is not entitled on Committee Stage to take issue with a point made which was not in accordance with the legislation. He cannot theorise about any form of constituency except that proposed in the Bill.
Given the welcome for Deputy Stagg's comments on the Fianna Fáil side of the House where, quite clearly, there is a desire to see how one can get over 50 per cent of the seats with 44 per cent of the vote, there is a necessity for the Labour Party to state whether Deputy Stagg was speaking on his own behalf or expressing the point of view of his party when he spoke yesterday.
Deputy Gilmore's invitation to the Labour Party to explain it on Committee Stage of this Bill will not be accepted.
On Second Stage I did not get an opportunity to deal with the issue of multi-seats and I do not want to transgress in this regard. However, we have an electoral system — this is specifically relevant to section 3 — which has shown a distinct preference for a very large number of very large constituencies, which has a very profound effect on political life. Clientelism is directly related to the number of seats in multi-seat constituencies. There is a good body of academic work and I humbly suggest that my own work in this area shows there is a distinct correlation between the most objectionable aspects of Irish politics. Clearly, this is not the Bill in which to do this, although clearly I support it because it is the product of an independent commission.
When we examine our electoral system in the form of a general election Bill we should have some time to reflect maturely on this matter because Irish politics are scourged by clientelism and the same applies to public administration.
The Deputy may not stray beyond the areas in section 3.
I stand corrected. My most profound apologies. There will be another day to return to that point. In regard to the specific constituencies while, like the other Deputies in Wicklow, I am delighted to welcome additional constituents from Kildare, I have doubts as to how a commission could, so extraordinarily, reverse the thinking of the previous commission. However, we must accept what the commission said in this regard. Like the other three Deputies in Wicklow, I will welcome representing people from Kildare. I accept that they have been excellently represented to date by Deputies McCreevy and Power and I guarantee to continue that very good practice.
What about me.
The Deputy has also done a good job, as I know from the health board.
I am concerned about that part of section 3 (2) which states that "if any doubt arises as to the constituency in which any townland or part thereof, any road or street or part thereof, or any part of a ward, is included, the doubt shall, subject to section 1 (2) (b) of this Act, be determined by the Minister." The Minister in question is the Minister for the Environment and, while innuendoes were made in relation to him, I accept his reply in regard to the section. I should not like the Minister to be criticised because he has to determine a townland. I know that the six polling booths in the areas I mentioned are now gone from west Galway to the Minister's own constituency. I wish them the very best of luck and I know that he already well represents them. I wish to assure the people in those areas that I will continue to represent them to the best of my ability at Galway County Council level. They will get the same representation from me as they got over the last 14 years, even though they are now in west Mayo.
It is very tricky along the Corrib where an island could be in Connemara or on the Headford side of the river. In that case the Minister would have to determine to which constituency those places would belong. The Minister went out of his way, when replying to Second Stage, to indicate that he would not have any bearing on the end result. I accept his word in that regard.
Moving statues.
I wish to refer to the constituency boundaries in the Schedule as I did not have much opportunity to comment on the matter on Second Stage. I specifically want to comment on the effects in Dublin West, particularly on the town of Ballyfermot. A line is drawn right through the middle of Kylemore Road which separates the integrated town of Ballyfermot which is totally cut off from the remainder by the railway on one side and the division between it and Palmerstown on the other. Not only is it cut in two, the parish is also cut in two.
In looking at areas, the boundaries commission understand even a large town in a rural area, how it is integrated and that it is a community. They understand parishes and wards in those areas but, in a city in an urban area, these things mean nothing. Ballyfermot is cut in two, the church is on one side and the schools are in another constituency. The whole effect will, in time, be separate development in both areas of the same community. For this reason, I was very interested in Deputy Gilmore's suggestion for an appeals system where one could appeal to the commission on a particular issue regarding a relatively small area, the effect it has and to see if an alternative boundary could be made. I know that you can make a submission to the commission beforehand but you have no idea if it will be taken into account. There should be room for an appeal with an agreed solution. When one divides a parish, or a ward, a ward will be represented by councillors and in some cases the councillor will be the TD for the whole constituency of Dublin West and he will represent one part of Ballyfermot in the City Council and the remainder in the Dáil. It is bad to divide communities. It is resented in the Ballyfermot area that Ballyfermot is not seen as one community but that they can be divided up in whatever way the commission wish.
There is not any point in a few people voting against this Bill. I would not vote against it because I am in favour of the idea of the independent commission. If we voted this Bill down we would be leaving it back to the Government and Ministers to make decisions. The preservation of the independence of the commission is vitally important but we should have a system whereby one can appeal decisions of the commission because the commission cannot be expected to understand every community and the effect of their decisions on them. I appeal particularly for the Ballyfermot area.
This problem also arises with the growing new town of Blanchardstown. The town centre there has just been constructed and it will have a great effect on the integration of the community there. The Ladyswell area had already been cut off and now another 10,000 people will be cut off from the Castleknock and Corduff areas, from Blanchardstown. Those areas will be represented by Deputies with different considerations. Tallaght has remained intact but the communities of both Clondalkin and Blanchardstown have been split. The fact that Tallaght has not been split up and is represented by the same Deputies is seen by the people as very important for the development of the whole area. In the other areas the Deputies may not even meet together as Deputies from the same constituency frequently do to discuss problems. I do not agree with the idea of splitting Ballyfermot and Blanchardstown. It is something that would not happen in the longer established towns around the country. Natural geographic boundaries might have been breached but the people in towns would not have been split in other constituencies.
Deputies will understand that agreement has been reached that we conclude Committee Stage by 1 o'clock. Accordingly, I would ask Deputies when making their contributions to note that we are only now at section 3, and many people are indicating that they wish to come in.
I welcome to an extent the decision to keep Mayo as two three-seat constituencies. I would not be honest if I did not acknowledge that. We on this side of the House do not in any way impugn the independence or integrity of the commission. That has been made perfectly clear by Deputy Shatter. Any implication, innuendo or attempt to draw us down that road is an attempt to construe in a false fashion anything we may have said on this side of the House. We absolutely accept the independence and integrity of the commission.
What we question is the adherence, in some cases, of the members of the commission in their final report to the recommendation in respect of the breach of county boundaries. There have been clear examples of that breach specified. While I naturally welcome the retention of two three-seat constituencies in Mayo, it is nonetheless a camouflage for the true situation in Mayo. In the forties and fifties Mayo had eight seats. Up to 1969 Mayo had seven seats and from 1969 to now Mayo has six seats. To now have two three-seat constituencies in Mayo and call them Mayo East and Mayo West is a misnomer. Looking at the population structure, Mayo is literally dying on its feet. That is what this report acknowledges. The population is not there to sustain two three-seat constituencies. The title is a misnomer and therefore on the Schedule, I will be moving an amendment and Deputy Kenny in conjunction with me will be moving a second amendment in relation to the titles for Mayo East and Mayo West. A proposed reduction in seats for Mayo or rural constituencies fails to recognise the huge geographical area that rural Deputies have to service. If it were constitutionally possible this should be looked at, although we would not advocate going back to the situation of rotten boroughs. Certainly rural TDs covering a huge geographical spread have an enormous task serving our constituents. That is something not generally recognised within the ambit of what I would regard as "Pale" politicians. One of our major problems is that there is early exodus of people in terms of emigration. In this city we have a huge number of Mayo and Galway emigrés, people who come here to third level colleges or to work. Often, these people are not part of the social ambience in Dublin. They do not empathise with it and they often have little interest in participating in the political process. They are registered voters in Mayo East and Mayo West and in Galway East and Galway West. The Minister should seriously look at the possibility of Sunday voting to enable these people to participate in the political process.
I will be moving amendments with regard to the title and definitions of the two constituencies when we come to that section. It was a great pity and, indeed, was onesided on his part that while he referred to Deputies by name on this side of the House, he did not refer by name to his own colleague, Deputy John Stafford, who last night used the term that the constituency commission had been "got at". That was the most pointed reference made by any Deputy in this House, that the Minister had some influence over the deliberations of the commission. I am not making any such allegation but I find it strange that the Minister could single out Deputies on this side of the House while he was not able to deal with the most specific allegation made in that direction by his own colleague.
It is regrettable that the time allocated for discussion of this Bill has been so limited I was one of those people who waited here to contribute on Second Stage. It is regrettable to find in the newspapers this morning a contribution attributed to a certain Deputy though that contribution was not delivered in this House. Perhaps it resulted from the laziness of the press.
It was bilocation.
It is strange that a speech should appear in the public press, printed and presented to the readers of the newspaper concerned as a contribution which was made here, when, in fact, that was not the case. I compliment the Minister for referring to that but I would have liked if he referred to the Deputy in question because his reference was a broad sweeping reference as if other people, including people on this side of the House, made such references, and had had their references published but had not in fact, delivered them on the Floor of the House.
The quill is mightier than the word.
In relation to section 3 (2) can the Minister explain what liberty subsection (2) gives him? As stated by Deputy Mac Giolla, apart from urban areas the same parallel occurs in rural areas, for example, Luimnagh and Corrandulla — because they voted in Cloughanover — are now in Mayo West. Does subsection (2) give the Minister liberty in that regard in relation to townlands? Now that Second Stage is passed and we have a fait accomplit— I will deal only with my own end of County Galway, west Galway and east Galway which has been transferred into Mayo West and Mayo East — some recognition should be given in the titles of those constituencies. As Deputy Higgins said there is no point in calling them Mayo West and Mayo East. A reminder that part of Galway is making up those constituencies should be included in the title. Whatever proposal is made in regard to what they are to be known as, there should be a constant reminder of the fact that Galway is making up a portion of those constituencies. As the Minister for Finance said on a famous occasion this is only a temporary little arrangement and some day these areas can come back to their rightful place in County Galway.
Like Deputy Connor, I too, was astonished, as someone who had sat in here from the beginning of this debate until the end, to read what was presented as a contribution from a Progressive Democrats representative whose party were not represented here at any level during the debate. The Progressive Democrats were represented for a brief period this morning by one of their Deputies and by the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, when he voted Headford into Mayo. I regret that was the only time the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, was present. I know the people of Headford will not be pleased with that. I would support the idea of including a reference to Galway now that the bad work has been done.
I seek your guidance here. Is it in order for me to move the amendments to the Schedule at this stage?
We have to wait until we get to the Schedule to the Bill. I have to get through the other sections which have to be agreed first.
I would like to refer to them briefly. No matter what report was brought out by the independent commission, and one has to accept their independence, we would always find fault with it. It is interesting to note, given the terms of reference of the committee, that there are still four double counties, as it were, which conform with that criteria: Carlow-Kilkenny, Laoighis-Offaly, Cavan-Monaghan and Sligo-Leitrim. That is an important factor to be borne in mind. One could make an arrangement in regard to the constituencies being discussed that might be more appropriate but then one can never be right in all these issues. As Tip O'Neill said on one occasion "All politics is local". I formally welcome the people of Galway into the additional areas of County Mayo.
I hope they will be safe.
It is very important that one bears in mind the traditional belief and pride people have in their own areas. By means of this amendment we will be asking the Minister, in the Schedule, to give recognition in their new homeland to the people who have traditionally been represented in a part of Galway by Galway representatives. I guarantee them they will get a level of representation that is as good, if not better, from their Mayo representatives. It is important to bear in mind, having regard to the tradition of the province of Connacht and the way people view rivalries within counties, that the people living in the section of County Galway to be added to Mayo East, that is the area including Addergoole, Belclare, Doonbally, Foxhall, Kilbennan, Killeen, Kilshanvy and Milltown, in the former rural district of Tuam, deserve to have their section of the new constituency recognised for what it is and that the new constituency should be called Mayo East-Galway North East. Similarly, people living in the townlands to be added to Mayo West — Ballinduff, Beagmore, Donaghpatrick, Headford, Kilcoola, Killeany, Killursa in the former rural district of Tuam deserve to have their area recognised. Therefore that should be called Mayo West-Galway North West. I support Deputy Higgins' sentiments in that regard. I know the Minister for the Environment, Mr. Flynn, a kind and considerate gentleman, in this regard, will give due recognition to his new Galway constituents and recognise them for what they are.
I do not accept that.
I know Deputy McCormack will be interested to find, on examination of the Department figures so far as County Mayo is concerned, that if anything proportionate to the kind of representation and delivery of the Minister is churned into the Galway North West section, people in the Headford area may be very happy. That, of course, depends on how long this Government lasts so it may well be a temporary arrangement. I would like to be in a position to move on the schedule that the new constituencies be called Mayo East-Galway North East, Mayo West-Galway North West. In view of the traditions, beliefs and pride that these people have in their townlands and villages they deserve to be recognised.
There is one small matter I would like to refer to and that was remarks made by the Minister when replying to Second Stage in which he alleged that, in the course of my contribution, I had claimed that identifiable officers of his Department had performed their duties in an improper way. I re-read my contribution and I cannot see how he could have come to that conclusion. If that doubt exists I would like to clarify that under no circumstances would I claim or did I claim or did I intend to claim that an officer of his Department acted in an improper way. I would like to clarify that point since he seems to imply that I was using the privilege of the House to make those allegations.
I will be very brief. I strongly support the approach taken by my two colleagues from County Mayo, Deputies Enda Kenny and Jim Higgins, who have suggested, in the context of section 3 and the Schedule, that the two new three-seat constituencies should be called Mayo East-Galway North-East and Mayo West-Galway North-West. The people from Galway who will be transferred into what is a reconstituted constituency are entitled to retain their sense of political identity. The incongruities of one or two of the commission's recommendations we are now implementing have been dealt with at some length. I do not intend to deal with them any further other than to say that people who live in Galway are entitled when voting to elect members to a constituency which recognises their local identity.
I urge the Minister in the spirit of co-operation which exists across the House to seriously consider accepting this amendment. It will not affect the boundaries as listed by the commission. We said very firmly that we would not table any amendments in that regard. The amendment deals with the title of the constituency and no more. I believe the amendments proposed by my two colleagues would be welcomed by the people in those constituencies, in particular, by those people living in the areas in Galway who are being transferred to Mayo.
Finally, I do not know whether the reportage of the non-speech of Deputy Quill should be greeted with a sense of amazement, amusement or outrage. As I remarked a few minutes ago, I suppose the non-speech, as reported today, at least proves that the quill is mightier than the word in the context of this debate.
And the Deputy should never forget it.
I would warn the Minister to beware of quills in the back.
As a Deputy who will be affected by this revision, I should first like to acknowledge the concept of an independent commission. All Members agree regardless of which political party are in power there is a certain amount of odium associated with any decisions in which a Minister is involved. I should like to acknowledge fully the independence of the commission.
It would appear that with the enactment of the Bill I will be bidding adieu to some of my very good supporters and friends in places like Rathmore, Kilcullen, Castledermot and elsewhere. The commission had difficulty with their terms of reference because of the contradiction in them. It was very difficult for them to observe the tradition of four or five seat constituencies while at the same time have regard to natural county boundaries.
I was somewhat amazed at the Minister's self-righteous indignation and the scurrilous remarks he made about Members on this side of the House for allegedly impugning officials and others. I would like to point out that this is the second report issued by the commission in the past few years. The 1988 report did not come before the House as it was rejected by a person or persons unknown. While I accept the independence of the commission in carrying out their work Members also have a right to comment on their findings. If it was considered that the commission's previous report was not fit to see the light of day for some reason I do not understand for one moment why we should be precluded from commenting on the present report. Having said that, I acknowledge the rights of any commission.
The Minister and a number of other speakers — I fully agree with Deputy Gilmore's remarks in this regard — referred to the fact that politicians love to seek Utopia once they are in office. Obviously, Utopia for politicians would be a single seat constituency with a non-transferrable vote and, hopefully, a revolving and self-perpetuating seat. For some reason or other the concept of a single seat constituency is only proposed by politicians when they are in office; when they are seeking election to this House very few of them put forward the proposal of a single seat constituency with or without a transferrable vote.
I can assure the Minister that we on this side of the House would be pleased to fully support the future electoral reforms to which he referred.
I do not think we will have the opportunity to deal with many more sections of the Bill as the time is nearly up. I had hoped the Minister would avail of this opportunity to amend the 1923 Act which debars presiding officers and polling clerks from casting votes in elections because they are not in their own polling stations. During the recent Presidential election between 8,000 and 10,000 people were unable to vote because they were not in their own polling stations. The Minister could have availed of the opportunity to correct that anomaly in this Bill. Perhaps he can amend it when the Bill is being debated in the Seanad.
I can assure Deputy Durkan that the areas he is losing from County Kildare will be looked after with the same efficiency as they have been in the past for as long as they remain in Wicklow.
Thank you, Deputy.
We are not demanding that the constituency be called Wicklow-Kildare but if there are changes in other constituencies it would be appropriate to call it the Wicklow-East Kildare constituency.
Miss Quill rose.
Acting Chairman
I should like to remind Deputy Quill that there are very few minutes left in which the Minister can respond.
While my party fully support the principle of an independent commission, I should like to remind the House that the package which emerged on this occasion is greatly at variance with the one put forward in 1988. This is evidence of the benefit of having two parties in Government, Coalition Government——
The Deputy should tell us what she said about the Minister. She should clarify it now.
Spell it out.
A number of Deputies over there have good reason to be grateful to the Progressive Democrats. We have managed to retain 14 five seat constituencies and protect the rights of our citizens. That is fundamental to all electoral reform.
Would the Minister not have done so?
The lesson we can learn from the recommendations of the commission is that if a commission are to be fully independent they will have to be given independent resources, an independent secretariat and be enabled in all their workings and deliberations to carry out their work fully removed, distanced and divorced from existing Government Departments.
Hear, hear.
That is the lesson we must learn and apply.
The Minister does not agree with divorce.
That is the lesson I would like to see learnt and applied. The principle of an independent commission is an excellent one. We all have woes, all our constituencies are affected. Like some of the bleeding hearted men who have spoken, I too could bemoan the sections of voters I will lose. The principle of an independent commission is a good one. I welcome the retention of 14 five seat constituencies. I want to pay tribute to the members of the commission who did a fairly good job in all the circumstances. It is most unfortunate that only some of their decisions will be highlighted to the exclusion of the good elements in this Bill.
That is an interesting comment.
Will the Minister reply to Deputy Quill first?
There are a number of items which should be dealt with at greater length. In reply to Deputy Kavanagh, the votes for presiding officers and poll clerks are enshrined in the legislation dealing with local and general elections. No votes are enshrined so far as the presidential election is concerned but this will be rectified long before another presidential election is held. That matter will not arise in connection with any elections held under this legislation.
I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. The temperature has dropped considerably and I particularly liked Deputy Higgins's contribution. I take it he was speaking on behalf of many of his fellow colleagues and it will be taken in the spirit it was offered. I should quickly point out to Deputy Gilmore that his contribution did cause some distress. However, I accept that he did not intend to cause any hurt to the staff. I accept that——
Only to yourself.
——and feel the staff will take it in the spirit in which it was offered.
Please deal with Deputy Stafford.
If any Deputy from any side of the House seeks to impugn the reputation of any member of my staff or the reputations of the members of the commission then my condemnation applies equally to both sides of the House.
It is a pity he did not stick to that principle on the radio.
Will the Minister take the amendment on board?
The Minister cannot make any reference to any individual constituency. That was a matter for the commission and they dealt with it in the way they saw fit. The amendment put forward by my colleague, Deputy Kenny, and by Deputy Higgins, proposed that we change the name of the constituency of Mayo East to Mayo East — Galway North-East and the name of the constituency of Mayo West to Mayo West — Galway North-West. It has been the tradition to name constituencies by referring to the county or part of the county in which they are located. Where a small part of one county is grouped with a neighbouring county the name of the county is normally used when naming the constituency. For example, the existing constituency of Meath consists of the county of Meath with a part of Westmeath. Similarly, the constituency of Tipperary South contains part of Waterford county while the constituency of Roscommon consists of the county of Roscommon with part of north-east Galway. That is the way the matter has been treated over the years.
The constituency commission in recommending these constituencies saw fit to recommend the names of the constituencies as used in the Schedule to the Bill. There is no change in the traditional pattern. For this reason I ask the Deputies to agree that we carry on in the same fashion. I do not propose to accept the amendment. I wish to join with my colleagues in stating that we would welcome the people from Galway and hope we will be able to give them a service as good as that being given by the existing Deputies.