I wish to share my time with Deputies Currie and Hayes.
Private Members' Business. - Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1998 [ Seanad ]: Second Stage (Resumed) and Subsequent Stages.
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I had said that by adding two Members to the total membership of the House, as proposed by Fine Gael, there could be a rational distribution of constituencies with minimal change in boundaries and no change in representation. Everybody would see that as a modest proposal and a reasonable approach to the matter, but unfortunately the commission took a different view.
I would point out to future Governments and commissions the question of the distribution of constituencies. There are still five two-county five seat constituencies. Carlow-Kilkenny is a little more than two counties since it also includes part of County Wicklow. Two-county constituencies are difficult to manage, as you will know. It is difficult for Deputies, party organisations and sometimes electors who find themselves influencing the outcome of an election in a county other than their own with which they feel very little affinity. Longford-Roscommon is a case in point. There is very little link between the two counties in affinity, topography, their economic base or their interests. One is in Connacht while the other is in Leinster. Although they both border the Shannon, that river divides them. I regard that constituency as the most anomalous in the current structure.
A new constituency has been created in Dublin Mid-West. The constitution of that constituency affects two of the current constituencies, Dublin South-West and Dublin West. The boundaries of those three constituencies depart substantially from any obvious natural or man-made divisions. I have a great deal of sympathy for people feeling dislocated, a feeling articulated by people of many political parties in the Rathcoole and Saggart areas. There will almost certainly be further changes in the boundaries of those three constituencies at the next revision of constituency boundaries. I suppose I should extend sympathy to the electors and Deputies in Dublin North-East, Dublin North-Central, Dublin Central, Dublin North-West — particularly Deputy De Rossa — and Dublin North, where there have been a number of boundary adjustments.
As long as we have a mixture of three, four and five seat constituencies we should try to construct the system rationally. In theory at least, five seat constituencies should be a feature of heavily populated urban areas, three seat constituencies should be a feature of relatively thinly populated rural areas, with four seat constituencies, which are an aberration, somewhere in the middle. That is not the way the constituencies are distributed. Of the 12 constituencies in Dublin county, three are five seaters, five are four seaters and four are three seater constituencies. That sum might not add up, but I think it makes the point. That is not a rational structure of constituencies.
The rural constituencies of Mayo, Galway West, Cavan-Monaghan, Laoighis-Offaly, Carlow-Kilkenny, Wicklow and Meath are all five seat constituencies. Mayo has probably the largest constituency land area in the country. Whether by accident, design or the innate cuteness of the people, the most logical distribution seems to be in County Cork, where there are two five seat constituencies in the city and two three seater and one four seater in the county. It would be interesting to know the result of a concentration of five seat constituencies in heavily populated urban areas and a concentration of three seaters in rural areas.
The publication of the Bill has given rise to another round of discussion on electoral reform, much of which is very fanciful. We cannot simply impose our current pattern of voting and structure of constituencies on another model of constituencies and claim one party would dominate and another would be annihilated. That is not the way people vote. If we changed the configuration of constituencies, there would be a noticeable change in the way people vote, even if only for tactical reasons.
I utterly reject the proposition that is frequently and glibly made that multi-seat constituencies give rise to clientelism. Single seat constituencies are just as likely to give rise to it. In a single seat constituency councillors, snapping at one's heels wanting to take one's seat, will not go away. If we are to debate the relative merits of different types of electoral systems, we should do so on the basis of reality, not myth.
Mr. Hayes
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this debate. Since 1997 we have put all changes to constituencies on a sound legislative footing. I welcome the legislation that was put in place in 1997.
Irrespective of the commission's report, it is obvious that Dublin is the poor relation. In terms of variation from the national average, in every Dublin constituency except one the number of Deputies to the number of electors is much greater than in any other electoral district. Every constituency in Dublin, except Dublin North-Central, is under represented in the Dáil. There has been massive expansion of the city of Dublin over the past 15 years, but it has not been allocated additional seats. In contrast, every Cork constituency has an over representation of Deputies in terms of the number of electors. That matter must be addressed following the next census. Dublin should have more Deputies representing its constituencies. The matter was referred to on the last occasion we held a census and at the last revision of constituency boundaries, but nothing has been done. At least one extra seat should have been given to the Dublin constituencies to reflect population growth.
Deputy Dukes referred to the new constituency of Dublin Mid-West. A large proportion of the Dublin South-West constituency, which I have the privilege of representing, has been transferred into the new constituency of Dublin Mid-West, taking in the large conurbation of Clondalkin, Lucan and the villages of Rathcoole, Saggart, Brittas and Newcastle. There is a sense of complete disbelief that Saggart, Brittas and Rathcoole, which have much closer connections with the Tallaght area, have been hived off into the Dublin Mid-West constituency. One would not need an expert to tell us the most obvious distinguishable physical division between the two constituencies is the Naas Road. Saggart, Brittas and Rathcoole have no connection with the large conurbation of Clondalkin.
This sense of disbelief was appropriately expressed in a recent unique letter to The Irish Times which carried the signatures of parties as diverse as Sinn Féin and the Fine Gael Party. We should take note when parties of such a diverse nature and origin agree on a matter. There is a palpable sense of disbelief in those rural communities that they are to be part of the new Dublin Mid-West constituency. It does not even look right on a map. I told the constituents involved, which I will have the privilege to represent until the next election when I will stand in the Dublin South-West constituency, that I would articulate their views in the Dáil. Their views have also been endorsed by the district councils in Saggart and Rathcoole. Even though the Tallaght-Rathcoole local division is different from the Clondalkin area, the new constituency straddles those divides. That is something we have been trying to move from. I cannot understand why it has occurred.
In the Minister's contribution in the Seanad, he referred to the idea that in future local or general elections photographs of candidates would appear on ballot papers. Will the Minister throw some light on the subject in his summation? I think that is the way to go and I encourage the Minister to do it, as we are living in a visual age. While people may not recognise candidates' names, they might recognise their pictures. We must do everything in our power to ensure that voters can discern between different candidates.
Will the Minister comment on the Laver report produced last week, in the light of his own rather courageous views on the matter? In Opposition and Government the Minister has been ploughing a lone furrow and I compliment him for doing so. We need more individual views from all sides of the House. When the Minister sent a questionnaire to colleagues last year it provoked a response. The Minister may wish to comment on the significance, or otherwise as he sees it, of the report issued by Professor Laver and his colleagues for the All Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution.
We have all heard the aphorism of US Congressman, Tipp O'Neill, to the effect that all politics is local. There is certainly nothing more local, politically speaking, than the redrawing of constituency boundaries. There is also nothing more fatal to the future political ambitions of those who find that constituency boundaries have been redrawn to their disadvantage.
I note that there are not many people in the House. Those present are Deputies who are directly concerned by the redrawing of the boundaries and I confess to be one of them. Politics is a hard game and we have seen the most capable of Deputies, through no fault of their own, being put out of politics because constituency boundaries are redrawn. That is one of the hardest ways for some Deputies to go.
To some extent, members of an independent commission whose recommendations are automatically accepted, play God with our futures and our ambitions. I, of course, support the independent commission and it is right to accept that body's recommendations. However, I cannot help but remember the story about an unsuccessful candidate in an American election who said, "The people have spoken and, of course, I accept their verdict. Damn them". I feel like saying, "The commission has spoken and, of course, I accept the verdict. Bless them". That is the reality of the situation. We must accept where the dice falls and I have no problem with that.
When I first stood for election in this jurisdiction, I was in a five-seater constituency in Dublin west. It then became a four-seater and is now a three-seater. If I was practising my profession of politics north of the Border, in the days when the Unionists were in control and we did not have an independent commission, I would have got the message very clearly by now.
I accept the independence of the commission but, as Deputy Conor Lenihan said, I have also noticed that the two people who will gain most as a result of the commission's recommendations are the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. I have also noted the, presumably divinely inspired, forecast of certain Fianna Fáil Deputies — made some six weeks before the report was published — that there would be two three-seaters in west Dublin.
I wonder about three-seat constituencies in large urban areas, particularly in Dublin. In Northern Ireland there are now 18 six-seater constituencies to make it as democratic as possible and to make sure that minority interests are represented as much as possible. In that context, the increase of three-seaters in Dublin is not a move towards democracy.
When my constituency was a five-seater I could be in any part of the constituency in about 25 minutes, because of the toll bridge. Now I can be in any part of Dublin west and most parts of Dublin mid-west in 15 minutes. There are more houses being built around Dublin 15 in Dublin west and in Lucan, in the new mid-west constituency, than anywhere else in the European Union. The census returns for both constituencies are already out of date. By the time of the next census the three TDs representing those two constituencies will probably be representing more voters on a per capita basis than anywhere else in the State. That is the way the situation is developing.
One of the factors upon which the commission made its recommendations was to take into account what it described as "significant physical features". No one can discount the fact that the Liffey is a very significant physical feature and ought to be taken into consideration. However, I will return to an old hobby horse, which is my concern about the future of the Liffey valley. We now have a situation where nobody actually represents the Liffey valley except that small section where Palmerstown is linked up with the rest of Dublin west. In the interests of those who want to protect the amenity of the Liffey valley we ought to examine the possibility of establishing a Liffey valley authority.
The exception to this rule concerning the Liffey as a significant physical feature relates to Palmerstown and Quarryvale. It is particularly unfortunate in the case of Palmerstown which now finds itself as the only part of Dublin west which is in a different council area. It is located in the South Dublin Council area. Lucan is also in that area, but is now in a different constituency.
It is unfortunate that Palmerstown has been repartitioned and I use the phrase advisedly. Unfortunately, the Lucan bypass went straight through Palmerstown disrupting community life there. People feel very strongly about it. They have had major traffic problems between both sections of the village causing considerable disruption, particularly for people attending church.
Palmerstown has now been separated from Lucan and is in the Dublin mid-west constituency, but it is in a different local authority area from the rest of the constituency which is in the Fingal local authority area. That is very bad. For them to read in the report that the only reason Palmerstown is included in Dublin West is to make up the numbers underlines what many people in the Palmerstown area have suspected — that sufficient attention is not being given to that area. I agree with my colleague, Deputy Hayes, on the objections of his current constituents in Rathcoole, Saggart and Brittas who felt strongly enough about their situation and isolation from Tallaght to write to the papers. I was told of the strength of their opposition and their anger at what has happened to them.
One has no alternative but to accept the recommendations of the independent commission because it is right that we do so. To have constituency boundaries as a matter of intense political dispute would be wrong. I have no hesitation in supporting the recommendations of the independent commission but I regret the recommendations came out in this way as far as west Dublin is concerned.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation contrary to what might be the view, primarily because our spokesperson on this area is unavailable tonight. I thank Deputy Dukes for his kind concern about my likely survival in Dublin North West or unlikely survival as some predict. As a person concerned about my political future, I carried out a mathematical exercise as regards the new three seater constituency. I will be marginally better off next time round than the last time as a result of the carve up. I say carve up not in a sense of criticism of the commission but, as Deputy Dukes and others have said, three seaters in heavily population urban areas are anomalous for a PR multi-seat constituency. Despite what the commission says, it does not take account of the intensity of the representation required in urban as against rural areas. The argument in the report says that the compactness of the areas is an argument in favour of three seater but I believe the reverse is the case.
The Bill is a technical measure to implement the recommendations of the constituency commission. The only option open to any Member of the House in terms of amendments is to effectively rewrite the recommendations in relation to the composition of the constituencies made by the commission. That would be entirely inappropriate given that it is a statutorily established commission with an independent remit. That is not to say important issues have not been raised by the commission's report and the consequent legislation to be considered by the House. Thankfully, we have long moved on from when decisions about the size and composition of Dáil constituencies were made by a Minister and political advantage rather than fairness or the interests of the electorate were, in most cases, the determining influence. On some occasions, efforts to gerrymander, constituencies totally backfired on those who had redrawn them.
As a matter of general principle, it is good and desirable that the constituency should be redrawn by an independent body whose members have no vested interest in the outcome. The Rainbow Government recognised this and placed the commission, which had previously operated on an ad hoc basis, on a statutory footing. I also accept that the members of the commission were public servants of the utmost integrity who performed their duties with honesty and impartiality within the confines of the terms of reference given to them by the Minister for the Environment and Local Goverment.
However, I have serious reservations about the terms of reference given to commissions by all recent Governments and we need to look closely at the terms given to commissions now and in the future. The main concerns I have are that the terms given to all recent commissions have resulted in an excessive number of changes to constituencies and that it has made our proportional representation system less fair and less proportional. Given that our Constitution allows a significant degree of flexibility between the upper and lower ratio of electors to Deputies, the number of changes to constituencies over the past 20 years has been excessive. This has been particularly so in the Dublin area and this is reflected in the report and Bill before us.
There is hardly a constituency in Dublin which has not been subjected to major redrawing. Many constituencies are unrecognisable compared to 20 years ago. Some unfortunate neighbourhoods have been hurled from one constituency to another at virtually every revision. It makes life difficult for Deputies and anecdotal evidence suggests electors do not like being transferred from one constituency to another. It causes confusion and people do not know what constituencies they are in, who their TDs are or who they will be asked to vote for at the next election.
An example of this is an area in my constituency which was in Dublin North before the redrawing. Recently, people in the Santry area have been campaigning on the port tunnel access issue. In order to get any representation, they had to invite the TDs from three constituencies, Dublin North West, Dublin North and Dublin North Central, in addition to councillors from Dublin North, the Drumcondra-Ballymun and the Artane areas. Because they were an island in a Dublin North constituency but affected by a decision taken in the Dublin Corporation area, they were not effectively represented by anybody. Counting councillors and TDs as individual representatives, although many serve as both, we are talking about more than 20 representatives. These people are now in the Dublin North West constituency but as far as the local authority is concerned, they are in the Fingal area.
A good reason to get rid of the dual mandate.
I will clap the Minister on the back when he does that.
Without a knife in it.
I would like to be at the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting when the Minister proposes that.
I will have fifty quid with the Deputy.
The terms of reference given to the most recent commission include the desirability of not breaching county boundaries, that each constituency should be composed of contiguous areas and that there should be regard to geographical considerations. These are all desirable objectives but future terms of reference should also include the desirability of not unnecessarily moving electors from one constituency to another.
It has been brought to my attention — and this is an issue raised by Deputy Hayes — that the commission has switched the main boundary in west Dublin from the canal to the Naas Road, which is a defensible decision. However, it is distinctly odd that having taken that decision — the Naas Road to be the new boundary — the commission then recommend when one gets to Newcastle-Rathcoole, the Naas Road should be breached. As a result, and somewhat mysteriously, Rathcoole, Saggart and Brittas are all taken into the new constituency of Mid West with Newcastle and Clondalkin. There is presumably a reason for this but it is difficult to discern it.
Our electoral system is one of the fairest and most proportionate of any in the world. It is also an established fact that the larger the constituency the more proportional the PR system. It is worth reminding the House that in the 1920s and the 1930s we had six, seven, eight and one nineseat constituencies. There is certainly an argument about whether we should have such large constituencies because of the huge geographic areas involved but there is little or no case against four and five-seat constituencies in Dublin and other areas. Yet it is here that the increase in three-seat constituencies has been most pronounced.
In the multi-party negotiations in Castle Buildings, our Government insisted that the constituency should be as large as possible to ensure political diversity in the new Assembly in Northern Ireland. Why should not the same principle apply in the Republic? Fianna Fáil has never liked the PR multi-seat system and has looked enviously across the water at the first past the post system in Britain when 40 per cent of the popular vote can deliver a whopping overall majority. Fianna Fáil has made two attempts to have the PR system ditched, both of which were rejected by the electorate. The advent of a Fianna Fail Government has invariably been the signal for a new assault on the PR system. As recently as November 1997, the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, used the opportunity presented by an interview in the Sunday Business Post to attack the PR system and to make it clear he was absolutely committed “to change from the current system”.
No electoral system is without blemish but ours is one of the fairest there is. Multi-seat proportional representation ensures that parties receive roughly the same proportion of seats in the national parliament as the votes in an election. We should be loath to interfere with a system that has a proven track record as being fair and democratic and abandon it in favour of something else.
The PR system is so manifestly fair and democratic that opponents have to find other grounds for an assault on it. All our political ills are attributed to the PR system. In the early 1980s when there were three general elections in succession, PR was blamed for inflicting instability on the country. Now we are told that PR is the main reason for the growth in clientelism in recent years although, I think, clientelism is not as recent a phenomenon in Irish politics as many people believe.
The report prepared for the all-party committee on the Constitution by Michael Laver is interesting. By way of an aside, the title of the pamphlet is "A New Electoral System for Ireland?" while the Foreword by Deputy Brian Lenihan, Chairman of the committee reads: "A New Electoral System for Ireland"— without the question mark. This is perhaps wishful thinking on his part. It is interesting that in the course of this paper, Michael Laver quotes from an article in the Sunday Independent of 30 November in which the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, said many politicians spend more time going to local funerals than they do preparing for Dáil debates. Some do and many do not. I do not, and I never have, yet my vote has varied from 1,300 in 1977 to as high as 8,000 and now to 4,000. It was not the attendance or the non-attendance at funerals that has increased or decreased my vote.
The Deputy is not living in a rural constituency.
We need to look at the distinction between urban and rural Ireland in relation to elections and how people vote. It is not enough to take a truism i.e. our multi-seat constituencies give rise to clientelism but there is evidence that it does not in many cases. Perhaps it does in other areas, depending on the nature of the area. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, goes on to argue that we need to devise a system that ensures accountability without enslaving politicians to local client-bound pressures. When the Minister talks about a system I presume he is talking about an electoral system. It is the nature of our political culture rather than the system that gives rise to the clientelism to which many of us are prone. There are different forms of clientelism than attending funerals. Michael Laver, in his conclusion to the second paragraph, said there is little systematic evidence therefore that it is the STV system rather than the intensely local political culture, so characteristic of Ireland, that is the root cause of punishing constituency workloads.
I welcome this report not because I agree — I do not agree — with the electoral system put forward in it as a possible alternative but because there is a need for a debate on the issue of our political culture and our political system. The point made by the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, regarding local politics and national politics is well worth looking at as well as the issue of the dual mandate.
I do not know whether there is a clear distinction in rural areas between local councillors and TDs. In the Dublin area there are very few constituents who know the distinction between a councillor and a TD and their respective roles and functions. I was present at a meeting recently in my constituency where I was the only TD present because I am the only TD in the area who is not a member of Dublin Corporation. A Dublin Corporation meeting was being held that night and the other three were present at it. One of the councillors who is not a TD arrived late at the meeting and was introduced as a TD.
Immediately the two of us were asked about getting the road swept in the area. I have no objection to doing that because I have to get elected in the same way as the next person but it is clear there is a great deal of work to be done in sorting out what a TD is elected to do and what a councillor is elected to do. There is nothing wrong with councillors aspiring to be TDs or even the odd TD aspiring to become a councillor. I do not think there are too many of the latter around. My theory is that the growth of clientelism has more to do with the nature of our party system than with how we elect our TDs. It is a direct result of the relative lack of political or ideological difference between the two main parties that have dominated politics for the past 70 years. The absence of political differences encourages TDs and councillors from parties to compete for votes through intensive clientelism.
I am not suggesting the PR system should be regarded as sacred or inviolable but I am suggesting we should be careful about the motives of those who continually criticise it. The booklet by Michael Laver on the Constitution is a useful contribution to that debate and merits careful consideration. However, I would like to see reports produced on other alternatives and the various problems in the political process.
I wish to address the question of voter turn-out at elections and referenda. I suggested here some time ago that we should establish an all-party committee to address the issue of voter turn-out. I was assured by the Taoiseach at that time that he did not think it was necessary. I believe it is more necessary than ever. We have just come through a referendum on the British-Irish Agreement and the Amsterdam Treaty. A total of 95 per cent of those who turned out voted for the Agreement and approximately 62 per cent voted for the treaty. Clearly those who turned out to vote were well clued in and made their choice between the two issues, but despite the overwhelming desire of people in this State for peace, only 56 per cent of the electorate turned out to vote. Therefore, 44 per cent did not vote even when a critical issue affecting the future of this island was placed before them.
It could not be argued that the people did not have sufficient information or that there had not been an intense debate. This was a crucial issue which involved changing our Constitution in the most fundamental way in terms of the way we identify ourselves, yet over 40 per cent of our electorate did not vote. That must deliver a warning signal if none of the other turnouts in previous referenda delivered a warning signal. We must be serious about the way we encourage young people in particular to participate in the electoral system. Because of the McKenna judgment and other judgments we must ensure there is an impassioned political debate on the issues put before the people. One way to do that would be for a Government to agree to set up an all-party committee which would have a limited time span — perhaps six months — to address the issues and bring forward a report. It may not produce all the answers but it may begin a debate which is necessary if we are to ensure the continued legitimacy of this House.
I welcome the opportunity to make some brief comments on the Bill and the report it seeks to sanction in law. I accept the remarks made throughout the debate in relation to the independence of the commission and the attempt to keep the structure of constituencies out of the party political arena. However, I have grave reservations about the Bill and the structure of the Dublin constituencies.
Somebody said to me at a meeting in Luxembourg last week that it is a tradition in Britain to ensure the leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition have fairly secure seats.
That sounds like a good idea.
They should not represent difficult areas but areas like John Major's constituency——
Mr. Hayes
Huntingdon.
——or that of Tony Blair in the north of England. It is possible that some members of the public here might construe this debate as an attempt to ensure that the Taoiseach represents a relatively safe constituency, although many people are of the opinion that Dublin Central should include both sides of the Liffey or perhaps the area between the canals whereas in reality it is a north central constituency.
There is general annoyance in the Dublin area, certainly among the activists and supporters in my own party who read the commission report, in regard to what we believe is a general discrimination against Dublin, a blatant under-representation in this House of the Dublin area which has a population of almost 1.2 million people.
Why should boundaries which were decided by King John in the year 1180 or thereabouts be utterly sacrosanct, yet localities in the Dublin area which have a distinct culture are divided by the new constituency boundaries? Why do we have only 166 seats in this House? Deputy Hayes referred to the list of Dublin constituencies which, like my own, are now seriously under-represented in this House. My constituency will now become a three seater. I am not afraid to fight a three seater although I would be a fool if I did not regard it as a more difficult task than winning in a four or five seat constituency.
There is no reason we could not have 168 or 169 seats in this House with the Dublin area being properly represented. We should have had an extra seat in the west of Dublin and at least one more seat on the north side to give us demographic parity with other parts of the country. Why should it be the case that electors in Leitrim, for example, can return two Deputies to this House while an area which has the same population as my city council ward finds has difficulty returning 1.5 Deputies? That is the nature of the under-representation. There may be some other implications but the end result is that this measure will satisfy a Dublin Taoiseach. The whole Dublin area will be seriously under-represented in the 29th Dáil.
Deputy De Rossa referred at length to the position in regard to three seat constituencies. Our proportional representation system, which we were encouraged to use by the electoral reform society of Great Britain in 1918 and which is also utilised by the people of Malta, cannot work properly in constituencies with fewer than four seats. It is worth noting that this Government demanded that there be 18 six seat constituencies in the North, and that is the democratic way to proceed. We were obviously trying to protect smaller groups such as the Progressive Unionist Party, the Women's Coalition, the Northern Ireland Labour Party and others who may have snatched one seat out of six but would not have a ghost of a chance in a three seat constituency. The PR system cannot work in a one or two seat constituency.
We will now have a plethora of three seat constituencies in the Dublin area. The last time a Minister for the Environment from Meath inflicted three seat constituencies on the Dublin area, it rebounded on his party, which was my party, and the Government of the day. I hope the same fate does not befall the Minister for the Environment and Local Government.
The three seat constituency phenomenon is nonsense and discriminates against smaller parties. My constituency of Dublin North Central and the constituency of Dublin North East, the two constituencies with which I am most familiar, were reorganised by the commission. I wonder how familiar the members of the commission were with the intricacies of cultural life in Dublin. In my constituency, for example, the area of Coolock, which most people regard as an historic area of Dublin, has a population of perhaps 40,000 or 50,000, yet in every revision over the years that constituency has been divided in two.
I recognise the phenomenon to which Deputy De Rossa referred. When a meeting is held in Coolock, a minimum of eight TDs show up. It could be said that if a person is represented by eight TDs they are effectively represented by none. That is the reality.
I am from Clondalkin and that area also suffered over the years. One benefit of this revision is that my ancestral area of Clondalkin will at long last be in a constituency of its own. It has suffered drastically by being split between nine TDs for most of its history.
Raheny is a village in my constituency which most people would say is a historic area of Dublin. There has been a settlement there from the time of our Celtic predecessors. People have lived there, through the Viking era until now. Raheny has been in my constituency of Dublin North-East for the past nine to ten years and is represented by me, the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Woods, Deputy Martin Brady and Deputy Cosgrave. It has been represented in the recent past by the former Deputies Seán Kenny, Pat McCartan and others. Its integrity was respected. With the revision, a line has been drawn through the middle of the village using Raheny Road as a boundary. This means people on the east of the road are in Dublin North-East and people on the west side are in Dublin North-Central. I do not understand how the people examining this did not recognise that it makes matters extremely difficult for local cultural organisations, such as Raheny business association, football and GAA clubs, the tidy towns committee and other groups, as they must now operate across a constituency boundary. I know this happens to a small extent around the country but it seems to happen in a big way across Dublin. The integrity of the different regions of Dublin is not taken into account. That said, it is sometimes not taken into account by the planners in the four Dublin counties.
One of the instructions given to the commission was to respect county boundaries. I do not see how it did this on the north side of Dublin because I will represent a significant part of Fingal as well as a significant part of Dublin Corporation in the next Dáil. If anything, the Malahide Road should have been used as a boundary, although that might have suited some of my predecessors or those who wish to be TDs again more than it would have suited me. It seems to me that a sensible Dublin North-Central constituency could have been built around the Clontarf and Artane wards with the Donaghmede and Howth wards being included in Dublin North-East. This does not seem to have occurred to members of the commission. I know when they read this debate they will see that a common theme will be that they did not respect the regional and cultural differences of the Dublin area.
We have been left with a situation whereby a significant group of Dublin constituencies are under represented. That means that, when major Dublin issues arise, some of which have been discussed in the House, such as Luas, the next tranche of Structural Funds, the various schemes for the millennium, crime, etc., there will be three fewer Dublin Deputies than there should be in the 29th Dáil. I regret that; it is wrong and should have been avoided. The independence of the commission must be accepted but, in future deliberations, the Dublin area should be treated with respect and given its full weight in the national political system. Its villages and local cultural differences should be fully respected.
In general, I do not believe there should be three seat constituencies because it is not good for the democratic process. As Deputy De Rossa stated, there were seven, eight and nine seaters in the early history of the State and we now expect Northern Ireland to have six seat constituencies. Nonetheless, we persist with three seaters. I hope it is not something the Government lives to regret.
I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate. I will deal with the main points made, especially those relevant to the Bill. I will also make some general remarks about the commission and its responsibilities.
There was a general welcome for the introduction of an independent commission by Fianna Fáil in 1977. The concept of having independent commissions decide on constituency revisions is generally welcomed in the House. At the time it was introduced, it was regarded as an advance on the old and unsatisfactory arrangement by which constituencies could be redrawn by the Government. Deputies mentioned some of the famous attempts by previous Governments to use that system and which backfired on them. In that context, I do not wish Deputy Broughan's last comment to stand on the record unchallenged. The commission, not the Government, proposes three seaters and we accept in full its proposals. Speaking as a Fianna Fáil member, three seaters do not particularly suit Fianna Fáil.
They did in 1977.
The only time they ever did.
They did in 1977 when Jimmy Tully did his job but it was the only time they did. Three seaters especially do not suit Fianna Fáil in Dublin and that is a proven fact. I do not want to leave Deputy Broughan's remarks unchallenged. I am implementing the independent commission's recommendations. I will address later some of the insinuations made in this regard.
No matter how constituencies were drawn up and no matter what results the commission came up with, people were always going to be unhappy, especially those affected by the changes. That is human nature. All in this House sympathise with those affected by changes because changes can be traumatic for a Deputy and for an electorate which has become accustomed to its public representative and which is getting a good service from him. However, we must recognise the reality that the Constitution requires that constituencies be revised, that there be equality of representation and that any revisions take account of the distribution and changes in population. They must be based on the previous census and Deputy Currie is probably right in the point he made about the changes which have taken place since the 1996 census, especially in the Dublin West area.
The census is already out of date.
Assuming I have not done my calculations incorrectly, I examined the Meath constituency registers for the election last year and for the previous election and found a difference of about 8,000. I can imagine how much greater it must be in Dublin West. Unfortunately that cannot be taken into account until the next census. With all these constitutional considerations, someone is bound to be affected and that is the price we pay for our system of democratic representation.
We are all agreed such revisions should be left to an independent commission and it would be less than honourable of us to criticise it for the way it has fulfilled its responsibilities. I am sure it did its work in the best manner possible. Members of the commission would be the first to admit that if five other people were appointed and faced with the same facts and population they could have come up with a different solution.
We should accept the report. The commission strove conscientiously to produce proposals in keeping with the Constitution and the terms of reference. It has a legal obligation to operate within those terms of reference as far as practicable and it has done so. It had to make choices and we cannot blame it for doing so. However, it has done the job in the best way possible and in compliance with the terms of reference.
A number of Deputies spoke of the terms of reference which were set out in the Electoral Act, 1997.
An excellent Act.
Deputy De Rossa was in Government at that time. I had serious reservations about writing the terms of reference into legislation. I still have those reservations. However, it is in the legislation and if we want to change it I have no difficulty talking about that in committee. The primary legislation would have to be changed.
A number of Deputies, while accepting the independence of the commission and that the recommendations were made in accordance with the guidelines, made points about political interference which were less than worthy. They were careful not to allege but to insinuate that the decisions of the commission were reached for political reasons or as a result of political interference. No such allegation has been made outside the House. If Deputies have evidence for it they should bring it forward. Under the legislation, any interference other than through the normal procedures is a criminal offence and must be reported. It is less than worthy of any Member to insinuate that there was political interference or that the commission made a recommendation to suit or at the behest of someone. It suits me that Meath was not changed. Some changes suit some Deputies more than others but to allege or insinuate that the commission's motivation was political or as a result of political interference is unworthy.
On a point of order, I do not know to whom the Minister is referring. Any criticisms I made of the commission were based on my belief that it made mistakes.
I am not referring to the Deputy. The Deputies concerned will know who they are and perhaps they might withdraw the comments at a later stage. During the last revision I heard insinuations that boundaries were drawn to suit one Deputy and to entice him into contesting an election. I treat that with the same contempt as I do other similar remarks.
It is not my role to respond to Deputies who have put the case for their constituencies and how they are being affected. Deputies in west Dublin — and others — have raised various queries. The commission did the job and I should not have to defend it. It explained its intentions and why it made its decisions and I need not defend it any further.
Deputy Dukes and others raised the issue of recommending that there should be 168 seats. The commission considered increasing the numbers but it indicates in the report that the present number of Members allowed for a reasonable arrangement of constituencies in accordance with its terms of reference. That is the reason given for not increasing the number of Deputies from 166 to 168.
A number of Deputies raised the matter of three seat constituencies. Some people make the point that this runs counter to the principle of proportional representation. I do not accept this point. The Constitution envisaged three seat constituencies.
As a minimum where the single transferable vote system operates.
That is correct and three seat constituencies comply with the principle of proportional representation as provided for in Article 16.2.5º. Deputy Hayes mentioned putting photographs on ballot papers. The former Minister, Deputy Howlin, indicated that this would be examined in the context of the European elections in 1999 and I am confident we will be in a position to do this.
Mr. Hayes
What about the local authority elections?
No hope. We are going to try this for the European elections. Logistically it is easier and we want to see how well it works. If it works well we will examine the situation regarding other elections. There is a time factor involved. Candidates are selected earlier for European elections than for local or general elections. We will be able to try it for the European elections and then see about extending it.
A number of Deputies spoke of reviewing the electoral system and Michael Laver's report. I responded to a statement made by Deputy De Rossa some time ago regarding something I had been quoted as saying in the newspapers. I am not leading a crusade to have a first past the post electoral system introduced. The Deputy and I are at one on the issue but the time has come to make a change. It is important that the matter be debated fully. Those who hold a different view should express it as strongly as possible. Multi-seat constituencies have caused Members to divert their focus from their work as legislators and as scrutineers of the actions of the Executive. The system studied by Professor Laver is a reasonably good alternative, although there may be better ones.
The Deputy asked how fair is the current system. Based on the percentage of votes received in the last general election, Fianna Fáil received a 12 seat bonus——
It did well.
Fine Gael received an eight seat bonus. Of the smaller parties about which we are concerned——
One in particular.
——the Labour Party was the only one to receive its proper share. The Progressive Democrats have four seats less than they should have; the Green Party, five seats; and Deputy Hayes' friends in Sinn Féin, three seats.
Mr. Hayes
Thankfully.
I agree with Professor Laver that a new electoral system with a threshold of 2 per cent would produce a more proportional result. People should be aware of all the issues before any move is made to change the current system. I will do everything I can to promote a debate on the issue. I thank Members for their contributions.
Will the Minister comment on my suggestion that an all-party committee should be asked to look at the question of voter turnout at elections and referendums?
The Select Committee on the Environment and Local Government could be asked to look at not just that issue but the broader——
Mr. Hayes
It is included in its work programme.
The Department will try to assist it in every way possible by the provision of statistics and so on.
Question put and agreed to.