Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Jun 1995

Vol. 454 No. 8

Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1995: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Deasy

I was referring to the electoral system and advocating that the multi-seat system be changed to a single seat system. It is a matter of opinion as to whether there should be a transferable vote or a single non-transferable vote. I was of the opinion for many years that the single transferable vote system would be preferable but I am open to conversion on the issue.

A single non-transferable vote system might give us a far stronger and healthier form of Government, which is most desirable. As individual Members of the Oireachtas we are inclined to think of ourselves and our own seats. That is perfectly normal and human but undesirable where the good of the country is concerned. We should be most concerned about a system which gives us the best type of Government.

The multi-seat system is counterproductive. It is wasteful, indecisive and at the end of the day is not for the betterment of the people. If we are to get a system which is for the betterment of the public and the country the single seat system should be introduced.

The multi-seat system means that the bulk of Deputies spend considerable time performing mundane tasks, competing with the other Deputies in their constituency. That is extremely wasteful. It gives rise to a parish pump type of politics which is highly undesirable. We are elected to Dáil Éireann by the people on the presumption that we will be parliamentarians and enact legislation which will make for a better way of life in the country. That does not happen because of the multi-seat system.

We are competing with each other to give the impression to our constituents that we are working on their behalf on an individual basis, whether it involves the allocation of moneys for houses, water schemes, roads or a multiplicity of items. That should not be the duty of a Member of Parliament. Our duty is to legislate and to run the country. That task will never be performed properly while the multi-seat system is in operation.

Politicians are often unaware that change is taking place. I will give a simple example. A by-election is taking place in Wicklow. When a by-election took place in Wicklow 30 or 40 years ago one could easily choose the likely winner; the chances are it would have been the Fianna Fáil or the Fine Gael candidate. Fine Gael history in by-elections in Wicklow is very good. Nowadays it is not so easy to choose the winner. The current by-election campaign is so fluid that any one of six or seven candidates could win. We all tell the public that our candidate will win but nobody is sure. I have never encountered such uncertainty in a by-election before. There is a number of strong candidates, or perhaps it would be more correct to say that none of the candidates is very strong. While the Fianna Fáil candidate, according to the bookies, has a 2:1 on chance, every day this week in Ascot odds-on favourites have been overturned. It could well be that we will have another upset. That is a sign of the change in political thinking here. The old political system is not as secure or as definite as it used to be.

The Green Party has a candidate in the by-election. I looked up the statistics for the 1992 general election in Wicklow. In that election the green candidate got 1,900 votes. Two years later, the same candidate stood for the European elections and was elected with a vote approaching 50,000. That was a dramatic change in two years. Nothing remains the same. Despite our reluctance to create change it may be wrought upon us. Some startling results may occur from time to time such as the successes of the Green Party in the last European elections. The result of the by-election will be known in about eight or nine days.

The electoral system is not in the best interests of the public or the country because of the parish pump politics to which I have referred. The most outstanding Member of the Dáil, during the period 1989-92, was the former Deputy Pat McCartan of Democratic Left, formerly of The Workers' Party, but in the 1992 general election he lost his seat. That is an indictment of the system we operate. He was, probably, the most competent speaker in this Chamber between 1989 and 1992 on social, legal and economic matters be it at Question Time, on the Adjournment or when dealing with legislation. He was an outstanding Member of Dáil Éireann. Others who had not spoken in the Chamber were re-elected. Although it was recorded in one of the national daily newspapers that a particular Senator had not uttered a word in the Seanad he headed the poll. I have been advising him since that he should not make any speeches as he will only lose votes.

The moral is that the Members should remain quiet, look after their constituents and do all the menial tasks and they will be here for life unless their constituency is carved up. That is what happened in the case of the Acting Chairman's constituency in the recent revision. He lost some of the juiciest voting areas in Wicklow. I sympathise with him but he is such an outstanding performer in the House that I have no doubt he will overcome any handicap and will again survive whenever the next general election is held.

The system we operate is not a good one. It is time the parties in this House did something about it but they are so protective of their seats they will not agree to make changes. Fianna Fáil was the first to recommend changes in the 1950s and 1960s but since it no longer possesses the ability to gain an overall majority it has not pursued the matter any further. This is a pity.

In the Wicklow by-election in which there are seven candidates I hope the Fine Geal candidate will be elected. A Bill should be introduced to ban election canvassing, the displaying of posters and the distribution of literature. In Sweden and other Scandinavian countries political parties conduct their campaigns in a civilised way through the media — radio, television and newspapers. The first small step in this direction was taken in recent years when it was decided that canvassers would have to remain a certain distance from the entrance to a polling station to prevent scuffles breaking out — this was barbaric — as canvassers tried to convince voters that their party's representative was the best candidate. Perhaps we will mature although I despair at times.

I compliment the commission whose decision is in accordance with its terms of reference. I am sorry that its findings do not find favour with the Acting Chairman — long may these commissions remain independent — but I hope in the future that we will have single seat constituencies and that commissions will revise constituencies on that basis.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Allen

After a period of 15 minutes during which no member of the Opposition was present a quorum was called. This is unprecedented.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Browne,

Carlow-Kilkenny): They are entitled to do so.

Mr. Deasy

Not only do they provide poor opposition, they are non-existent.

Dr. Upton

I welcome the Bill. The commission, whose report is in accordance with its terms of reference, has done a good job. The changes recommended are minimalist and unavoidable because of the demographic changes which took place between 1986 and 1991.

Provision is made in the Constitution for seven seat constituencies. Has any consideration been given to increasing the number of seats to this figure? This was the practice in the early part of the century. Why was it discontinued?

Mr. N. Ahern

The Deputy must be getting nervous.

Dr. Upton

This merits consideration in the case of some of the larger counties, including Tipperary and Cork. What is the rationale behind not having such constituencies?

Due to the decline in population it has been recommended that my constituency of Dublin South Central should be enlarged. I welcome the inclusion in that constituency of an area that was included in 1989. It forms part of the historic area of Dublin South Central, well represented for many years by the late Frank Cluskey. I look forward to working with the people in that area whom I first met as a politician in 1989.

The work of the earlier commissions has been very fair in that the number of Deputies in each party corresponds with the proportion of the vote obtained by those parties. The number of Dáil seats held by Fianna Fáil and Labour corresponds to the proportion of the vote they received nationally, but in this Dáil Fine Gael fared better in that regard. The Labour Party received 19.3 per cent of the vote at the last election and has 33 seats in the Dáil. In the case of the Fianna Fáil Party there is also a fair proportion of seats to the number of votes it received. Some of the smaller parties do not fare as well and even though they receive a number of votes they are not represented in the Dáil. Generally the system has been very fair and I have no doubt the present proposals will not change that position.

A number of speakers referred to the difficulties with the PR system and nobody will dispute that it contains many faults. The merits of the system only become fully apparent when it is compared to the alternatives. Despite the limitations of the system, it meets the wishes of the people. It gives the public and politicians a choice. For example, if politicians dissent from their party they have the opportunity to put their case to the public. There have been examples of Deputies who had disagreements with their parties, in some cases the public vindicated them while in others they voted against them.

Despite the many attractions of a list system I would be concerned at the level of power in parties' central offices. Those offices are not comprised of elected people and it would be undesirable if they became excessively influential in determining the people who would be elected. That is a matter for the public who are well able to make up their minds about whom they elect. One of the attractions of the political system, despite its great limitations, is that most people have a good idea of the characteristics, attitudes and mentality of the people for whom they vote. It is more desirable that the public find out that information personally than through the media and other organs. Despite the fact that this system may not meet the wishes of many people, in the longer term it has a lot to commend it and is much more attractive than many of the alternatives.

I am concerned at the portrayal of politics generally as much of it is negative and unfair, which is bad for democracy. The people responsible should be fairer in terms of the image they portray of politicians. Broadly speaking, politicians are honest and honourable and do the best they can. To portray them as low grade crooks is unfair and ignorant. I wonder whether people who portray politicians in such a way do so for opportunistic reasons. It is damaging in terms of its effect on public morale and the public's attitude towards politicians. Many criticisms may be made, and virtually everybody may be portrayed as a knave or a charlatan, but there is an obligation on the media to be fair.

I listened with great interest to Deputy Deasy's contribution but I do not agree with his remarks on electioneering. It is desirable that the public know politicians well, and that is the case. I would be concerned if the only contact the public had with politicians was via radio and television. What is the objective of those who control access to the media? They all have an objective or an agenda. I agree with Mr. John Waters of The Irish Times that there is no such thing as an unbiased media, virtually nobody is unbiased. It is not desirable that political assessments be made as a result of television and radio coverage. Matters are very often distorted on radio and television and the full picture is not presented. Fortunately for the most part people are shrewd and decide themselves for whom they wish to vote.

On the factors that influence people in voting. Deputy Deasy made interesting remarks that are worthy of considerable analysis. I sometimes wonder whether people vote for personalities or parties, whether they are influenced by who the Taoiseach may be, or perhaps they are influenced to some degree by all these factors.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Allen)

I thank all Deputies who made good points on the Bill. Many of them referred to the position 20 years ago when constituency revision was carried out by the Government of the day. We have dealt with that matter in detail and many constituency revisions were the subject of acrimonious debate here. The practice of appointing an independent commission to advise on constituency revision was universally welcomed. Clearly some Deputies are unhappy with aspects of the present proposals and it is significant that many of the speakers today are from areas affected by the findings of the commission. Some Deputies asked questions about the procedure adopted by the commission and how it set about framing its proposals. I cannot answer those questions because I do not have any information other than that contained in the report. The information I have is available to Deputies in the House.

In the case of Mayo which stands to lose a seat, the commission considered an association with each of the neighbouring counties before concluding that the appropriate arrangement is to make the county a five-seat constituency.

The decision regarding the constituencies in Tipperary is another that understandably has caused some anguish. The commission did much heart searching before making its recommendations in that regard. I doubt if any of the alternatives it listed would attract the support of the representatives of the areas concerned. We may not all be convinced that the areas proposed for transfer from Tipperary South to Tipperary North are the most ideal, but by spreading the pain at least the proposal has the virtue of impartiality. The outcry would be louder and more justified if the proposed transfer were from one side of the county to the other, say, the eastern area of Ballingarry, Mullinahone and Fethard, the central area of Cashel and its hinterland or the western area of Tipperary town.

Regarding Deputy Ferris's point, the Constitution does not permit two-seat constituencies. It also requires that there must be equality of representation between constituencies and that must be the basis of any constituency revision.

Deputy Browne referred to the commission's recommendations that will affect Carlow. The report details the considerations that led to those recommendations. Part of east Kildare is included in the five-seat Wicklow constituency. The balance of County Kildare is also a five-seat constituency. The commission proposes some worthwhile changes in Dublin from a community viewpoint, particularly in the Ballyfermot and Blanchardstown areas.

There has been much comment about Galway, but it will gain an extra seat and one would have thought that proposed change would have been well received by Deputies representing that area. However, they have clarified that they, too, have serious reservations. That illustrates the difficulty of the task that faced the commission.

The commission's report is a conscientious and impartial attempt to draw up a scheme of constituencies which will be generally acceptable within the constraints of constitutional requirements, its terms of reference and practicalities on the ground. The commission's report rightly points out that under the Constitution the revision of constituencies is a matter for the Oireachtas and that the commission's role is purely advisory. The Government accepted the commission's recommendations in full and it considers the recommendations constitute a package to be accepted or rejected by the Oireachtas. The Government's view is that the recommendations should be implemented without change. In taking that view the Government is following the established practice of implementing in full the recommendations of the independent commission. That has been the practice regarding reports of constituency commissions since the first one was established in 1977. There was only one noticeable exception in 1988 when the report of the commission did not come before the Oireachtas in the form of a Bill. The principle involved is whether we entrust the formation of constituencies to an independent impartial body or revert to the old unsatisfactory partisan arrangement. I am glad to hear such strong support for this former view from Deputy Molloy and others, including Deputy Gregory.

Time does not permit me to respond in full to the many excellent points made by speakers, but I presume I will have an opportunity to deal with those issues on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.