Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 1998

Vol. 492 No. 2

Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1998 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage.

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Dempsey)

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

This is a short but important Bill. It is important to existing and prospective TDs and to the electorate they serve. The proposed constituencies will be effective from the next dissolution of the Dáil until the next review, which will take place after the next census. Under Article 16 of the Constitution a revision of constituencies must be carried out at least once every 12 years. That Article also provides that the ratio between the number of Members to be elected at any time for each constituency must, as far as is practicable, be the same throughout the country. The practice is that constituencies are revised whenever a census of population shows significant change in the total population or in its distribution. In the past 30 years a revision has taken place after each census. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government is required, under section 5 of the Electoral Act, 1997, to establish a constituency commission upon publication by the Central Statistics Office of a census report setting out the population of the country classified by area.

The census taken in 1996 showed an increase of more than 100,000 in the population since the previous census in 1991. In some constituencies the number of persons represented by each Dáil Member was considerably above the national average while in others it was well below the average.

An independent statutory commission was set up last September to report on Dáil and European constituencies. Its statutory terms of reference were essentially the same as the terms given to previous commissions. In accordance with the provisions of the 1997 Act, Mr. Justice Richard Johnson, judge of the High Court, was appointed chairperson of the commission on the nomination of the Chief Justice. The other members of the commission were the Ombudsman, the Secretary General of the Department of the Environment and Local Government, the Clerk of the Dáil and the Clerk of the Seanad. The commission was entirely independent in carrying out the task given to it, constrained only by the Constitution and the terms of reference. I am glad to have this opportunity to thank the members of the commission for the conscientious and even-handed way in which they completed their task.

The purpose of the Bill is to fix the total number of Members of Dáil Éireann and to revise the constituencies to bring them into line with the provisions of the Constitution regarding equality of representation. The Bill proposes to implement in full the recommendations made in the commission's report. Section 2 provides that the total number of Members of Dáil Éireann after the next dissolution will be 166, the same number as at present and the number recommended by the commission. Section 3 provides that the Members of Dáil Éireann will represent the constituencies specified in the Schedule. The total number of constituencies will increase by one to 42. The proposed new constituencies set out in the Schedule will come into force on the next dissolution of the Dáil.

While there is no change in the existing representation in the Dublin area of 47 seats, the major constituency changes in the Bill relate to Dublin. Apart from the establishment of a new constituency, the boundaries of existing constituencies are altered to varying degrees. More than 97,000 of the population are transferred from one constituency to another.

The following are the major features of the scheme in Dublin as identified by the commission. Communities in west Dublin are united in three constituencies, an arrangement which should be capable of ready adaptation to future population trends in the area. The central constituency reverts to representing the north inner city. The river Liffey is effectively used as a constituency boundary for most of its length in Dublin city and county. The use of the M50 as a constituency boundary is increased substantially. Outside Dublin minor territorial changes are proposed to ten constituencies. In pursuance of the statutory provision to avoid breaching county boundaries as far as practicable, the commission recommended no new breaches of county boundaries. The scheme of constituencies in the Bill, however, retains the existing breaches of counties Carlow, Clare, Tipperary South Riding and Waterford.

Under the 1997 Act the commission also had the task of reporting on European constituencies. The 1998 commission recommended no change in the present formation of the four European constituencies, and the Government accepted that recommendation. I am sure this will be of immediate interest to prospective candidates for the European Parliament elections to be held on Friday, 11 June next year. Local elections to all local authorities will be held on the same day. There are no constitutional provisions relating to the formation of European constituencies, but the commission's terms of reference require that there should be reasonable equality of representation as between constituencies. In addition, there is a statutory duty on the Minister, having considered the report of the constituency commission, to submit to the Oireachtas proposals for a review of European constituencies by 1 December 2003 at the latest and subsequently at least once every ten years.

The 1996 census showed the variances from national average representation in the four existing European constituencies ranged from — 10.4 per cent in the Leinster constituency to +9.44 per cent in the Dublin constituency. In its report, the commission indicated that most submissions made to it recommended no change in the existing constituencies. The commission examined alternative arrangements but concluded that "no reasonable redrawing of the constituencies would reduce the existing variances and result in coherent constituencies with which communities could identify".

I do not propose to comment in detail on the scheme of the Dáil constituencies proposed in the Bill. The commission provided a very full report, in several instances spelling out the different options in particular areas. Apart from what is contained in the report, no further information is available to me on the work or decision-making process of the commission. The commission's role is purely advisory. Under the Constitution ultimate responsibility rests with the Oireachtas. The practice of appointing an independent commission to advise on constituency revision has been universally welcomed and is now the accepted procedure. The scheme of constituencies in the Bill is the product of an agreed process operated in accordance with acceptable rules by an independent and impartial body.

In the Government's view, the commission's recommendations constitute a package which should be accepted in its entirety without change. The Bill proposes to implement the commission's recommendations in full and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Howlin

This may be quickly enacted legislation, although it impacts in a personal way on every elected Member of the House. By tradition, it is legislation which, on its publication, merits careful scrutiny by every individual in the House. There is a constitutional requirement for equality of representation or a strong degree of proportionality in regard to membership of this House and each constituency that sends Members to this House. In summary, the constitutional requirement is that there will be at least one representative for every 30,000 of the population and not more than one for every 20,000 of the population. Arrangements will, therefore, have to be made by people drawing up constituencies.

Two high profile High Court cases addressed this issue. While the High Court decision in those cases is not precisely prescriptive, in general terms there is a legal requirement and a constitutional imperative that there would be general proportionality. As a result, there is a requirement to reconsider constituencies, normally after every census. This is the first time, however, the matter was considered by a commission established on a statutory basis — it was established under Part II of the Electoral Act, 1997, which I had the honour of bringing before the House. I also acknowledge the very difficult work done by Mr. Justice Johnson, the Ombudsman, the Secretary General of the Department of the Environment and the Clerks of both Houses. The Minister was not very keen on having the Secretary General of the Department of the Environment as a member of the Commission, but I hope his sojourn over the past year made him realise it was correct to resist the temptation to remove him from the commission when the l997 Bill was going through the Oireachtas. By and large a good job has been done.

The changes are as minimal as possible to reflect the requirement for proportionality. The next Dáil will have the same numerical membership as the current one. Even though there has been a net increase in the population, I am sure the public would be reluctant to have more Members elected. The new constituency of Dublin mid-west will increase the number of west Dublin constituencies and is recognition of the population growth in that part of the country. There will be more three seater constituencies than four or five seater ones. I have always held the view that the larger the constituency the better the single transferable vote system works to give perfect proportionality. The distribution of seats will work better in a five seater than in a three seater. It is interesting to note the commission decided to have 16 three seater, 12 four seater and 14 five seater constituencies to make up the 42 constituencies that will form the next Dáil. That is one more than in the current Dáil.

As the Minister stated, predominantly the changes will occur in the Dublin area, with 97,000 people being displaced within their constituencies. The Dublin electorate is fairly used to moving constituency boundaries. I hope that will not be onerous for those involved because we certainly do not want to discourage people from participating in the next election.

I want to facilitate the early passage of the Bill because we do not know when it might be required. The way things are progressing at present it might be imperative to revise the constituency boundaries. From our perspective, I want to ensure the increase in population is reflected in the redistribution of seats and that there is a reasonable degree of proportionality. However, there will still be a degree of variation. The table at the end of the Bill shows that there will be under representation in Waterford constituency, which will have 6.66 per cent under the mean average, whereas the constituency of SligoLeitrim will be relatively over represented to the degree of 7.44 per cent over the mean average. However, I genuinely accept everything possible has been done in that regard.

As every Member would probably have a different view on how to draw up constituency boundaries, we must accept the impartial view of the commission we have tasked with this important job. Even when there is cross-party agreement on change, it is the tradition of the House to accept the view of the commission concerned. I note from the debate on the electoral Bill in June l995, there was cross-party agreement on changes that seemed anomalous, but the principle of accepting in total the impartial recommendation of an independent commission was upheld and its recommendations were accepted in total. I note the Minister proposes to follow that precedent in this case. Regardless of what Deputies say about constituencies, such as Mayo, being too big or the need for slight adjustments to others, he proposes to enact into legislation the recommendations of the commission. I do not disagree with that logic, it is the correct thing to do. If we appoint a commission to do an impartial job, we should accept its recommendations on that basis. For that reason, I have tabled only one amendment and I am advised for legal reasons that it is appropriate. Therefore, I invite the Minister to reflect on it. If we do not have time to deal with it on Committee Stage, perhaps the Minister might indicate his attitude to it in reply to Second Stage.

I do not propose going through the Schedule to talk about the merits or demerits of every constituency. The job was given to an independent commission and its recommendations are being enshrined in statute. That tradition has been supported by Members and I will give fair wind and safe passage to this Bill.

Mr. N. Ahern

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter. I am surprised the Bill is being rushed through the House; one would think it was urgently required.

Mr. Howlin

It might be.

Mr. N. Ahern

I would prefer if it were not rushed through. I had hoped it might be forgotten about for a couple of years. If a general election were to take place I would prefer the position to remain as it is. I am not making an urgent call for this legislation.

I accept that matters such as this have been dealt with by independent commissions for the past 20 years or more. However, the Bill should not be passed without amendment merely because of the independent commission. There is no point in claiming the Oireachtas has the final say or that it is the supreme authority if it is afraid to change any aspect of a commission's recommendations. When we were discussing a previous report on this matter, five or six Deputies from North and South Tipperary did not agree with the recommendations and were prepared to do some trading on the matter. However, the parties, in their wisdom, felt the Oireachtas could not be seen to make any change to the recommendations. That is idiotic. If the Oireachtas is the supreme authority it should not be tied to the recommendations of independent commissions. If that were the case, we should let the commission deal entirely with this matter and not bother with the legislation.

I am sure the commission has examined everything in a cold clinical mathematical manner, but if people feel hard done by they would probably prefer it were by politicians because they could at least wait in the long grass for an opportunity to get even with them.

Mr. Howlin

The Minister will not like to hear that.

Mr. N. Ahern

If it is done in such a bland, fair, balanced and even way and it does not work out in one's favour, one almost feels there is no point in criticising them because nobody will listen and one cannot get one's message through.

I am somewhat concerned about this matter and we should obtain advice on it from an independent commission. I am nervous that we will go to independent commissions on every matter every day of the week as if, somehow, politicians of all parties are incompetent and incapable of doing something for themselves; as if they need — or are willing — to hand over everything to an electoral, referendum or ethics commission. I agree with the independent commission but I reserve the right to hold on to our independence from time to time.

I will deal with some aspects of the 1998 report of the Constituency Commission. I do not agree with some speakers, including Deputy Howlin, who say that, overall, there is nothing terribly drastic in the report and that any change it contains is minimal.

The report's summary of recommendations, on page 7, mentions "minor changes". The summary outlines where very little change was made but then suddenly goes on to talk about Dublin where astronomical changes are proposed, involving all 11 constituencies. That seems to run contrary to what the report said earlier about rural constituencies. When it comes to dealing with Dublin somebody ran riot because the proposed changes there are enormous.

I thought the commission had breached one of its own regulations on breaching county boundaries, but when I read further I found it had not. I am not complaining about this matter, but a few years ago the Department of the Environment and Local Government prepared legislation for the Oireachtas turning County Dublin into four areas. Now the Department says that while it created Fingal, it is not really a full county at all. That is what local people were saying also. We should do one thing or the other.

Mr. Dempsey

It is like having four Dublin teams.

Mr. N. Ahern

The commission has laid out its stall and its terms of reference are on pages 11 and 12 of the report. The terms of reference include at paragraph 2.2 subparagraph (2)

(e) there shall be regard to geographic considerations including significant physical features and the extent of and the density of population in each constituency; and

(f) subject to the provisions of this section, the Commission shall endeavour to maintain continuity in relation to the arrangement of constituencies.

Yet during the Seanad debate people said the commission's findings were totally in line with the terms of reference. It is not a perfect world and maybe one cannot bring in findings which are fully in line with terms of reference and constitutional provisions. Like most contributors to this debate, my remarks are specifically targeted at what the commission has done to the constituency I represent. The commission, however, has not adhered to all its terms of reference and the justification for moving away from those terms of reference is very vague. I would feel happier if the commission had explained in far greater detail why it did not adhere to what I see as its terms of reference.

I noted the number of submissions made to the commission. As I did not make one I suppose I should not complain now. Perhaps there is a lesson in that for everybody.

One of the items the commission took into account was the Dáil debate on the previous commission's report. That is interesting and heartening because we often think that nobody is listening to what is said here.

On pages 18 and 19, the commission's report states:

Thus, for example, in the case of Dublin, we recommend the establishment of four 3-seat constituencies because we consider that this is the optimal arrangement, having regard to local circumstances.

That is a very broad, general statement and I really do not know what it means. It could mean anything one likes it to mean.

On page 32, paragraph 5.3, under the heading "Guiding principles", the report states:

We considered a number of "minimum change" schemes retaining the existing seats in all constituencies, which would bring all Dublin variances within the 5% limit from national average representation. Apart from improving variances, these schemes were not notably superior to the existing arrangement of constituencies.

If the commission was able to look at a number of "minimum change" schemes which retained the existing seats in all constituencies and which would bring all Dublin variances within the 5 per cent limit, I would have thought that was near to perfection. So, why did it not run with that?

The commission makes statements and lays out its terms of reference, but it does not fully live up to them. It speaks about taking account of population density. I regard my constituency of Dublin north-west as one of the most densely populated, including Ballymun flats which is one of the biggest multi-storey complexes in the country. If anything, that justifies the constituency being a four, five or six seater rather than reducing the number of seats — from four to three — which seems contrary to one of the commission's terms of reference.

It very much depends where the commission starts in relation to Dublin. If it starts at one end of the city, people fall into place. This time the commission seems to have gone back to the old thinking that the Liffey is the biggest natural boundary. It is a big feature both for the north and south sides of the city. My specific complaint is that, even allowing for the fact that Dublin central would become a northside constituency, and allowing for subparagraph (2)(e) and (f) of the terms of reference, why could the commission not make Dublin central a three seater and leave Dublin north-west as a four seater? The commission report does not provide a logical explanation for that.

It refers to uniting communities but one can examine any constituency boundary, either in the new or old set ups, and see communities that are divided everywhere. As regards this or any other change, certainly in an urban context, it is impossible to bring unity back.

Paragraph 5.6, on page 34 of the report, deals with north Dublin and states:

In reverting to a northside 4-seat constituency, Central cedes both a seat and the Ballyfermot, Inchicore and Kilmainham area to South-Central.

I find that rather strange. I did not think any constituency could cede a seat to another. It certainly cedes x thousand people, but not a seat. The report goes on to say, also on page 34, that Dublin central gains a seat from Dublin north-west, but I thought that a constituency gets a number of seats based on the size of its population. One does not cede or gain a seat from another constituency. It gives the impression that when somebody is looking at this and playing God with a playstation and or chess board he is not looking at it in a cold mathematically way but is looking at heads. When it is said a seat is being gained in one constituency at the expense of another what is in mind is that somebody will move one way or the other. Obviously, that is not what is meant to happen. Perhaps the Minister will explain the report's use of the words "to cede both a seat" and where it says one constituency will gain a seat from an area.

I am surprised Dublin North West is being reduced from a four seater to a three seater constituency. I do not understand it under the terms of reference. It has not been fully explained. Individual constituencies are referred to in cold terms. The report says the Dublin North West constituency experienced the largest population decline in Dublin between 1991 and 1996 and that it will now become a three seater embracing the Santry, Ballymun and Finglas communities and extending north to the M50. One can either take it or leave it. The terms of reference are laid out but there is no justification for it other than to say the Liffey will be the dividing line and that Dublin Central will become a constituency on the north side of the Liffey. It does not explain why it did not accept terms of reference (f) and act on the basis of continuity and make Dublin Central a three seater and Dublin North West a four seater. I know we are supposed to take a broad balanced view of these matters and not gripe. If I return to speak on a commission report, I hope the commission will have read this Dáil debate.

Mr. C. Lenihan

Second to membership of the House, membership of an independent commission in the Republic is perhaps the next most thankless task one could undertake. The independent commission is a welcome move but, unfortunately, there are always winners and losers as a result of boundary changes. In this case, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste seem to be the chief beneficiaries and we might all wonder aloud how that occurred.

I have nothing much to complain about, although I regret losing Clondalkin. The separation, however, of Clondalkin and Tallaght is logical. What is quite illogical is the separation of Rathcoole, Saggart and Brittas. I hope that in the long-term the commissioners will take account of the local communities' views on this matter that they should be reunited with the Dublin South West constituency. The dual carriageway is a rational and natural divide and should be maintained in the next boundary revision.

In the long-term I fear a difficulty in the Dublin area. I look around with a certain amount of envy at our rural colleagues because the county boundaries are largely respected. There is a coherence and continuity to the political life of those constituencies even in Deputy Dukes' constituency which was divided but it was still Kildare and there was some level of continuity, cultural and otherwise, to the changes which occurred there. In the Dublin area, the Minister and, indeed, the commission might consider confining the new constituencies to the local authority areas. South Dublin would have a number of constituencies contained in it as would Dún Laoghaire Rathdown, the corporation area and Fingal. That would be rational and would provide a level of continuity in that local party members and Members of the Dáil would serve the one broad community represented by a local authority area. That would be a welcome change in the future and would help my colleague, Deputy Noel Ahern. Some of the divisions in Dublin are unreal and it is not entirely the commissioners fault because they are juggling numbers.

In the long-term, the Minister might consider fixing the number of Members of the House in his reforms. We cannot endlessly create more Deputies because the population is increasing and we should address that issue. The public will not pay for us in the long-term if we keep rapidly reproducing ourselves.

Another important issue is the dual mandate, membership of local authorities and of this House, and I urge the Minister to get rid of it over two electoral cycles. I would like the Minister to look at the issue of directly elected mayors of local authorities. It would be good if these constituencies could be defined in the long-term and they should be confined to local authority areas in general or county boundaries outside Dublin.

Mr. Dukes

May I share my time with Deputy Hayes?

Acting Chairman (Mr. Foley)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Dukes

Since the first appointment of an independent commission to advise on Dáil constituency boundaries in 1977, it has been the tradition to implement those recommendations without alteration. It is a wise and well-founded tradition to which we should adhere. I have not heard a strong or cogent case to depart from tradition on this occasion.

The commission has done a very competent job within the terms of reference it was given. The report, contrary to what Deputy Noel Ahern seems to think, is a model of clarity. It is evident from the report that the commission gave fair consideration to all the possible options it had within the framework of its terms of reference. It is fair to say it was given a difficult job to do because the terms of reference did not hang together as coherently as one might have liked.

Given that realistically we will implement the recommendations of the commission and pass this Bill without alteration, any comments made here are made more in the hope that they will be taken into account by a future Government when drawing up terms of reference for a future commission and perhaps by a future commission when making its recommendations. With that in view, there are some points which call for comment.

Fine Gael expressed the view that the number of boundary changes to constituencies could be kept to an absolute minimum by the simple expedient of increasing the total membership of this House to 168. I know the argument is often made that the Dáil is too large and should be reduced to perhaps 100 Members. There is merit in that argument just as there is merit for keeping the Dáil at its present size. In our view a proposal to increase membership of the House to 168 for the reasons I briefly outlined would not affect the merits of either of those arguments one way or the other.

While it is the case, happily, that the overall population is increasing, it is also the case that the centre of gravity of the population continues to shift eastward. We took the view that there could be a rational distribution of constituencies with minimal changes in boundaries.

Debate adjourned.