Deputy Lawlor is unfortunate in so far as the time he was sharing with others was used up to the extent that there is officially two minutes left to him. If he wishes to postpone his slot and look for one later, I will allow it.
Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I appreciate that. I will postpone my slot and take it up later on.
Tá áthas orm deis a fháil labhairt ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo. A number of issues were very prominent in public discourse in the 2011 general election. One of those was political reform, which was made prevalent by the significant distrust of our political institutions on the part of ordinary people and the many cases of corruption by the political class and those around it. Political reform became a buzz word. For some, it meant one thing and for others, something quite different. For those engaging in a grab for power and seeking to appeal to the simplest of arguments, political reform took on the meaning of slashing and burning democratic structures in order to give the impression that politics was changing. These measures remove people further from power and consolidate it in the hands of those who have controlled this State since its foundation without ever showing any real desire to bring about meaningful democratic reform which would put power in the hands of the people at every level and in every part of the State. Any moves towards democratic reform previously undertaken by Government have mostly been, as in this case, to remove power.
What are the grand reforms proposed by this Government? The first measure I will deal with is the cut in the number of Deputies from 166 to 158. This will surely look attractive to an electorate that has become so disillusioned from years of corruption and bad governance but it is playing to the idea that all public representatives are wasteful and not worth paying for. It is the very issue against which the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources spoke recently when he challenged the popular sentiment that politics and everyone involved in it are rotten.
We have all heard the arguments on doorsteps that we are all the same. I am not the same as the people who took the State down this terrible path and who gambled, lost and then sold out the people they claimed to represent. Many in this House are not like that and the argument that the less Deputies the better plays to the idea that we are all just elected "Seanie Fitzs".
Sinn Féin proposes to cut the cost of Deputies but not to reduce the representation of the people. Our proposal would save nearly twice what is proposed in this Bill. With fewer Deputies, people and non-mainstream views will have less representation. Ireland has become a much more diverse place in recent decades but with fewer Deputies these new views, ideas and backgrounds will have less chance to be heard. The last census found that the population had increased by 8.2% since 2006, which means Deputies represent more people than was previously the case. Our workload has also increased due to the current economic and political climate.
Five constituencies are now in breach of the constitutional minimum standards for representation. One of them is my constituency of Dublin North-West, which is now to take in parts of Drumcondra and Glasnevin. Dublin North-West is a highly populated constituency which was recently highlighted in the map of deprivation produced by the International Centre for Local and Regional Development as containing a large number of areas of high or extreme disadvantage. The constituency returns three Deputies, which is the minimum figure permitted in our voting system, but it is now to expand. How can the Government make laws that blatantly contradict the Constitution? There is on average one Deputy for every 27,640 people. Given the trend of population growth and the possibility of emigrants returning in the future, this figure is dangerously close to the 30,000 mark.
My party argues that local and general election boundaries should mirror each other. A person should not be in a local authority area that has the vast majority of its population in a different general election constituency because it is bad practice and makes the work of providing representation and services more difficult. However, under these so-called reforms, 22 of the 40 constituencies, in breach of the commission's own terms of reference, will cross county boundaries. My colleague, Deputy Stanley, has shown how his own constituency of Laois will take in six divisions from counties Kildare, Offaly and Tipperary. Sligo-Leitrim will also include parts of counties Cavan and Donegal. If there is sense in these proposals I am eager to find it. It is also essential to locate polling booths within reasonable distance of voters. It would make more sense to introduce boundary changes at European, national and local level simultaneously rather than by different commissions over time.
I want to see the most accessible and representative democratic structure possible in this country. I want people to feel engaged in the decision-making process. If we are to carve a republic that has any hope of providing an equal, fair and just society, it is essential that people have a sense of ownership of the political infrastructure. They must not see it as adversarial or a necessary evil. These reforms do nothing to make that goal a reality and are a retrograde step.
We are told these changes are a done deal. Maps have been circulated and politicians have produced literature outlining the changes for their respective constituencies. It would have been preferable to have had our debate before this happened. There are crossovers among local authority areas, including my own, in terms of local elections. Swords is closer to Ballymun and Finglas but the constituency includes parts of Blanchardstown, Swords and the Fingal side of Santry. These boundaries should reflect the general election constituencies. People have to travel long distances to polling booths. I have spoken to many people who have to travel from one end of the constituency to the other to vote. It is an affront to democracy that people should be required to do this. We should also take account of the types of people in the constituencies and how they travel around. Young people are becoming alienated by the thought of travelling long distances by bus. Women are also coming under huge pressure because they generally have other things to do than travel to the other end of a constituency to vote. Constituency boundaries have to be changed but it is important that any such changes are reflected at local and European level.
I recognise that the Constitution requires proportionality of population and representation, but it is frustrating that boundaries constantly change from one election to the next. Politicians and voters are frustrated by this constant change. In the last local election sections of the area I represent were moved to another area and residents' associations had to begin an entirely new process of developing relationships with their representatives.
I call Deputy Seán Kyne, who is sharing time with Deputies Humphreys and Tuffy. Is that agreed?
On a point of order, I understand my name is also on that list.
The Deputy's name is not in this grouping.
I received an e-mail from the Whip's office that I would be speaking with Deputies Humphreys and Tuffy.
Will the Deputy accept five minutes?
Yes.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The redrawing of boundaries for Dáil constituencies is an issue that can give rise to significant grievances and protests, but it is a necessary part of a political process that takes account of constitutional requirements and census results. I was only two years old when the most infamous changes to Dáil constituencies took place in 1977 and the term "Tullymander" entered the Irish political vocabulary. The result of that episode, as well as one or two others, is that any change to electoral boundaries must be overseen by an explicitly independent authority. It is a fundamental feature of our democracy that the Constituency Commission is defined by law and is unfettered in its operations and activities.
Any citizen in any constituency can make a submission to the commission on his views and opinions of its task. The current commission received more than 530 submissions, a substantial increase from 99 in 2004 and 335 in 2007. Furthermore, four out every five submissions were from a non-party-political person or organisation, thereby demonstrating an increasing and welcome engagement with politics among citizens.
It is testament to the Government's commitment to transparency and fairness that the Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill 2012 has been introduced speedily in order to legislate for the commission's findings.
The Bill also contains measures which meet commitments given by the Government to reduce the number of Deputies to 158 and the number of constituencies to 40. These measures will save over €2 million and are broadly welcome.
What are of more concern are the proposed changes to the constituencies. The commission worked on the basis of avoiding the breaching of county boundaries as far as practicable. As a result there was a false sense of security that constituencies, with one or two exceptions, would, more or less, adhere to county boundaries. It should be emphasised that county boundaries are recognised boundaries which have remained the same for centuries. However, the numbers failed to stack up, particularly in certain regions and most notably in the west. In a statement which caused trepidation in some quarters, the commission declared that an arrangement of constituencies based exclusively on county boundaries was not feasible. Breaches in county boundaries already in existence in constituencies, including in Carlow, Clare, Meath and Westmeath, will now be joined by new breaches in Cavan, Donegal, Galway, Kildare, Mayo and Tipperary.
While I respect the decisions of the constituency commission and defend strongly its independence and impartiality, I appreciate the difficulties facing it in taking on board the constitutional and legislative requirements regarding Dáil representation and the number of Deputies. Nonetheless, I must express reservations regarding the abundance of county boundary breaches. It seems in the west and north west that in order to reunite the county of Leitrim, we are carving up counties across the region, including Cavan, Donegal, Mayo, Roscommon and Galway. My fear is that such large scale breaches in county boundaries will result in isolation and alienation from the national, political process and discourage political participation and voter turnout. It could be said that sufficient consideration has not been given to these consequences, because they are not a factor for Dublin or other major population centres.
In my constituency, the commission's proposals will see a total of nine electoral divisions of Mayo and will include the transfer of Neale, Cong, Shrule, Garrymore and Ballinrobe to Galway West. The people of these areas are rightly proud of their Mayo roots, a county with its own newspapers, radio stations, county council, community organisations, sporting teams and so on. I appreciate their fears that their voice will somehow be drowned out by the influence of or focus on Galway, the larger county in the new configuration. I wish to assuage these concerns and pledge that as a Deputy I will represent the citizens of south Mayo to the best of my ability, if elected in the new Galway West-Southeast Mayo constituency. I will work for them, as I currently do for the citizens of Galway West.
That said, I believe the situation whereby this area of Mayo is lumped in with a larger Galway West gives rise to huge concern that the voice of the people of that part of Mayo will be drowned out in this new configuration. If the commission had looked at the map, it might have noticed that the town of Headford, which is in Galway East, remains in Galway East although there is a large connection between south Mayo and Headford. Therefore, if the commission had looked properly at the maps, it could have come up with a fairer configuration.
The Government must take action to ensure a smooth introduction of the proposed changes, by outlining, as soon as possible, the names of the new constituencies - if there are to be further changes from the document we have received - to better reflect the new configurations. It should also conduct an information campaign on the upcoming changes so that all citizens know who their representatives are in the national Parliament.
I will share my time with Deputies Kevin Humphreys and Joanna Tuffy.
The purpose of the Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill is to provide for the number of members to be elected to Dáil Éireann, for the revision of constituencies and for the number of members to be elected for each constituency. The Bill implements the recommendations of the report of the constituency commission on constituencies and on the European Parliament constituencies. The commission was established under the Electoral Act 1997 to report on the constituencies for the election of members to Dáil Éireann and the European Parliament in light of the results of the 2011 census of population.
This means that in line with the programme for Government, the number of Deputies elected to this House will be reduced. One of the most significant changes of the Bill will be to amalgamate two large constituencies, Dublin North-Central and Dublin North-East, where I have spent most all of my career as an elected representative. I am sorry to see Dublin North-East go, as I am sure are many people in politics, both currently and formerly. Some distinguished Dublin North-East Deputies have been Labour Party Deputies. James Larkin was a Labour Deputy in the 1930s and his son, Denis Larkin, was elected as a Labour Party Deputy in the 1950s and 1960s. Conor Cruise O'Brien was elected for Labour in the 1960s and 1970s. Noel Browne was also a Deputy in part of the constituency during the late 1970s.
The environmentalist, Sean Dublin Bay Rockall Loftus, was elected as an Independent Deputy in the early 1980s. The new constituency now bears his name, which is a fitting tribute to him. However, not everyone is completely enamoured with the new constituency title. I met a Dublin North-East constituent recently who asked, when I told him that he would soon be in Dublin Bay North, whether that meant he would get more money for his house if he sold it. I could not answer that.
We cannot refer to the demise of Dublin North-East without referring to Fianna Fáil's Charles J. Haughey, who in his time dominated the constituency like no other. When I first came to live in Raheny, he was the local political boss. His election campaigns have been written about before. At election time, I remember seeing builders' trucks going around putting up Fianna Fáil posters and leaving no room for any others to put up theirs. They also erected gigantic Fianna Fáil hoardings at strategic locations. One could not move anywhere in Dublin North-East without having CJ gazing sternly down at one. His election campaigning was the stuff of Tammany Hall type politics, which involved the spending of massive sums of money on electioneering, money that we now know belonged to somebody else. Most people knew that at the time, but just could not prove it. Thankfully that type of politics has now been consigned to the past.
Dream on.
It is only right to highlight other distinguished Deputies who have been elected to Dublin North East over the years. Pat McCartan, now a justice of the Circuit Court, was a Deputy for the Workers Party in Dublin North-East in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Richard Mulcahy was a Dublin North-East Fine Gael Deputy in the 1930s.
The only occasions on which two Labour Deputies were elected to Dublin North-East in the same election occurred in 1992 and again in the most recent general election in 2011. I remember both occasions very well indeed and I pay tribute to all of the members of the Dublin North-East Labour Party who campaigned for all of the Labour Party candidates who were elected to Dáil Éireann, as well as those candidates who stood for election under the Labour Party banner.
It is worth mentioning that Dublin North-East was abolished once before. In the 1970s, the Dublin constituencies were completely rearranged and parts of Dublin North-East were allocated to Dublin-Artane and Dublin-Clontarf constituencies. This arrangement existed only for the 1977 general election and Dublin North-East was then restored again as a Dáil constituency. I believe the proposed abolition of Dublin North-East may be more permanent.
The new Dáil constituency of Dublin Bay North, which is an amalgamation of Dublin North-East and Dublin North-Central, is a much larger five-seat constituency, spreading from the fringes of inner city of Dublin to Howth Head and to the edges of the more rural parts of north County Dublin. As a large geographic area, it will one of the largest urban constituencies in the State. The Deputies elected to represent the constituents of Dublin Bay North in the years to come will have a challenge to ensure they represent their constituents effectively.
Changing the shape and size of constituencies and the number of Deputies is a worthy topic, but these are small concerns compared to our need to tackle the unemployment crisis and to create more jobs. I wish the special Cabinet meeting this afternoon the best of luck in its work in that regard and look forward to seeing what ideas come from it.
I want to put on the record during this stage of the debate the objections I have to the renaming of the constituency of Dublin South-East to Dublin Bay South. Dublin South-East was created in 1947 for the general election to the 13th Dáil, from the old constituency of Dublin Townships, which had been part of the original constituency of Dublin County in the second Dáil. I remind the House that in 1948 the constituency of Dublin South-East elected three Deputies, including Fine Gael Deputy and leader, John A. Costello, who became Taoiseach in that Dáil and Fianna Fáil Deputy, Seán McEntee, who served as a Minister for Finance and was a member of every Fianna Fáil Cabinet from 1932 to 1965. The constituency also elected Noel Browne, who was elected first to Dublin South-East. He was appointed Minister for Health on his first day in the Dáil and went on to do great work in the area of TB and became a hero of the left.
The Dublin South-East constituency has elected two leaders of this nation - John A. Costello and Garret FitzGerald - both of whom represented the Acting Chairman's party. The former President, Mary McAleese, ran for election in the constituency. Indeed, another former President, Mary Robinson, ran in a local election in the Rathmines township. Dublin South-East has also elected three other former party leaders - Deputy Ruairí Quinn of the Labour Party, Michael McDowell of the Progressive Democrats and John Gormley of the Green Party. I am making these points to show that the voters of my constituency have lived with the Dublin South-East name for decades.
The Constituency Commission suggested in its report that there is very little sense of place in Dublin South-East and very little connection with the name. I contend that there is a strong sense of identity in the constituency. There is a strong connection with the locality and with the name of the constituency. The statement made in the report of the Constituency Commission is misinformed and wrong. The voters of Dublin South-East are attached to the name of the constituency after using it for 65 years. None of the submissions made to the commission called for a change of name.
It is probable that the commission's sense of the geography of Dublin Bay is seriously misinformed. The name change makes no historical or geographical sense. Terenure village, which has been added into Dublin South-East, is 6 km from Sandymount strand. I remind the House that the urban villages of Portobello, Rathmines, Rathgar, Ranelagh, Milltown, Ballsbridge and Donnybrook are not beside the sea. I hope it remains that way. Perhaps this is why we need to include serious targets in the forthcoming climate change Bill. More of the constituency fronts onto the River Liffey and the quays than onto the coast. The Ringsend, Irishtown and Pearse Street areas have a natural affinity with the River Liffey and Dublin Port, rather than with Dublin Bay. Sandymount is the only part of the constituency that fronts onto Dublin Bay, and then for a distance of just 2 km.
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Hogan, to the Chamber. I put it to him that Dublin South-East is a city centre constituency with no interest in having "Dublin Bay" included in its name. If any constituency on the south side suits the "Dublin Bay South" tag, it is probably the Dún Laoghaire constituency. I accept that the naming of Dublin Bay North makes more sense, given that the constituency includes Clontarf, Bull Island and the Howth Peninsula, which actually look out on the bay. The only reason provided in the report for changing the name of Dublin South-East is symmetry. I suggest the constituency that matches Dublin South-East on the north side is Dublin Central rather than the proposed Dublin Bay North. The commission has mismatched the names it has used. I urge the Minister to accept an amendment on Committee Stage to retain the current name. The proposed name change has little or no public support. Change for the sake of change is no change at all.
I am disappointed that the number of three-seat constituencies has not been more substantially reduced. The decrease from 16 to 13 in the number of such constituencies reflects the decrease from 43 to 40 in the total number of constituencies. That works against the principle of proportional representation, which is that seats should be allocated in proportion to how votes are cast. I am also disappointed that the significant under-representation of the Dublin constituency in the European Parliament is not being addressed. There is a variance of 11%. The number of people per MEP in Dublin is almost 60,000 higher than the number in the rest of the country. That will need to be addressed when the European Parliament constituencies are revised following the accession of Croatia to the EU.
I would like to echo what Deputy Ellis said by pointing out that cutting the number of elected representatives and abolishing democratic forums of various kinds is not the same as introducing reform. I accept that there may be some merits in the Minister's proposals regarding local government. Apart from anything else, the proposals address the issue of there not beng town councils throughout the country. I understand the concerns of town councils that have been in existence for approximately 100 years.
The real reason these cuts are being made has nothing to do with reform. An effort is being made to be seen to save money. The reforms before the House, such as the reduction in the number of Deputies, will lead to a theoretical saving of money that will not be seen in practice until after the next general election. I suggest that the ongoing increase in population makes it likely that this change will be a one-term wonder, as the constitutional requirement to have a certain number of Deputies per head of population is likely to lead to an increase in the number of Deputies before the following election. In other words, just one election will take place on the basis of these new constituencies. As the Dáil does not have to complete a full five-year term, another election could be called within a year or two of that election.
This change is also being made to satisfy the hunger for political scalps that exists. It is very much a red herring in that regard. There is also the ideological basis for this measure. The Minister referred to the idea that cleaner and more efficient government is desirable. I cannot remember the exact term he used, but it alluded to rolling back the State and providing for smaller government. I do not believe smaller government makes for more democracy. If anything, it makes for less democracy. I believe this is an anti-democratic move. I wish we could have had a proper debate on it.
While I welcome what Deputy Ellis has said, I feel that Sinn Féin was very muted on this proposal when it was originally made. The same is true of the Opposition generally. I have been one of the most vocal people on this issue. I would have liked a more thorough debate on the issues I raised. We need a reflective debate about the size our Parliament should be. We should compare like with like when we speak about other countries. Studies have shown there is a relationship between the size of a country's parliament and the cube root of its population. Given that our population is 4.5 million, the cube root rule means we should have exactly 166 TDs. If one is to believe studies that have looked at what works in practice, we have exactly the right number of TDs at the moment.
We should not be compared to countries like India, Britain and Italy that have levels of regional and provincial government that we do not have. Ireland is too small to have regional assemblies - autonomous provincial parliaments - of the kind found in Italy, for example. We are familiar with the assemblies etc, that have been established in Britain. I will not go into all the detail. We have similar levels of representation to countries of a similar size, such as Finland and Sweden. Cyprus, which recently held the Presidency of the EU, has 56 MPs to serve its population of 800,000. Its proportion of parliamentarians per head of population is far greater than the proportion in this country. That is the case because Cyprus is a smaller country. That is the way it has always been in practice.
I have been a Member of the Oireachtas for over ten years. I have been a Deputy since 2007. The workload of Deputies has increased significantly in that time. Obviously, it has increased substantially since the number of Deputies was originally set at 166. The population of this country was smaller by some 1.2 million at that time. Politicians are now much more accessible. It is absolute rubbish to suggest we can move away and tell our constituents to shove off because we are legislators. We are much more accessible to the public now. We are accessible through social media. We can be contacted via e-mails and telephone calls. We meet people on the streets. We represent our constituents just as MPs do in other countries. We do not do a higher percentage of constituency work than MPs in other countries. In fact, MPs in Canada do the most work in that regard. We are not here to legislate in an ivory tower - we are here to legislate on behalf of the people.
I think we will regret the move that has been announced by the Minister because as our workload increases, we will be less able to do our jobs as legislators who are informed by the lives of our constituents. I wish the Minister had engaged more with the silent majority, rather than the elitist commentators, the academics or the advisers who drove this debate, before he announced this supposed political reform. If he had engaged with the silent majority, he would have learned that people want to be in touch with politicians. They believe they have a right to contact their elected representatives about the issues that concern them and the effects of the decisions that are made in here on their daily lives. I reiterate that I regret the move that is being taken by the Minister.
I would like to share time with Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I agree that we need to have a wider debate on what the reform of our system of governance, in the widest sense, should mean and should look like. Having said that, I am intimately aware of the reason we need to pass this legislation. Along with Deputy Finian McGrath, I took a constitutional case in 2007 regarding the timeline within which we are required to work. I believe the 2007 general election was deeply unfair because ten constituencies were radically out of line with the average.
We took the case because it was an affront to democracy and the substance of the point subsequently found its way into law. As Mr. Justice Frank Clarke said at the time, the obligation was not on the Minister or on the Government but on the Oireachtas, once a commission is set up, to within six months bring in legislation that will have the boundaries altered. This is because the 2007 elections were basically fought on the 2002 census as opposed to the 2006 census. It is just one thing that needs to be done but we have an obligation to do it.
The public expectation was that reform would look very different from what has in fact transpired. There was an expectation there would be a radically reduced number of TDs. That, of course, would have required a constitutional amendment because, while there is a tolerance on either end, there must be one TD for between 20,000 and 30,000 people, with rough parity - it is not exact but it has to be near enough. Essentially, the kind of reductions that were being talked about were never going to transpire in the absence of a constitutional amendment being passed by the citizens of this country.
It was very dangerous to do that. It was to suggest we had too much democracy and that this was the cause of our problem. In fact, I would argue the reverse, but I would also argue that democracy and the outlets for citizen engagement are not wide enough and not open enough to something beyond a representative democracy. I believe the change has not just to happen in regard to the number of TDs but also in regard to the relationship between the Legislature and the Executive. It has to take the localism out of the national Parliament and place it where there is a particular genius in this country.
One often hears people say things like "We are better than this". We are better than this. When one considers some of the organic developments at local level - for example, the credit union movement, the GAA, the co-operative movement, the Tidy Towns, the level of volunteerism and the trust that exists at local level, where people know each other - how is it that we do not build this into our governance? I believe it would unleash something that would truly be a democratic revolution. The notion that democratic revolution is a Government made up of two thirds of the Parliament is really quite insulting, and I wish people would stop using that phrase as it is simply not true. The issues of the use of the guillotine and the shoehorning of key legislation into very tight timelines so there is not ample time to debate it need to feature in the kind of debate we have.
To go back to the origins of the local government system, it pretty much developed as a result of the shiring of counties, which was about putting in a sheriff to maintain control for the Crown. It was all about control. We are pretty bad in that regard. If anyone tries to control Irish people, they will resent it. This is about designing a system that gives people a lot more flexibility and trusts the citizens of this country - it is about deepening democracy. If one looks to countries where this has been done, there is a particularly good example in Colombia, where the capital city was redeveloped in conjunction with a deep democratic involvement of the people, and the results are there to be seen in terms of reduced crime rates and greater levels of equality. There are other examples around the world that we should be looking at. There is often one opportunity in a lifetime to really radically reform. Unfortunately, what we are doing is tinkering at the edges rather than doing something with people that will leave something lasting in regard to deepening our democracy.
I was a county councillor and a town councillor for many years and I know we could operate in a radically different way in both areas. The town council I was involved with became a facilitator of the local community and networked that local community. Not a single, solitary penny will be saved to this State as a consequence of abolishing that town council. I would have liked a much bigger debate about what it is that people identify with, and what it is that would unleash the kind of common purpose that could be garnered by a deeper and different kind of democracy that is much more inclusive than what is being proposed. I believe this is tinkering at the edges, it is piecemeal and it is a wasted opportunity. As I said, this is a time for the deepening of democracy.
With regard to local government reform, we currently have a managerial system and a system of local administration, and I do not foresee that changing substantially. There is a mistrust between the centre and the local. While some of that was understandable in the early days of the State, we do not seem to have moved on from that. Unless we do move on, I do not believe we will see that localism being taken out of the national Parliament and placed exactly where it should be. The idea of the parish pump is actually very positive if it is in the right place. It is about collaboration, about a community coming together and about people looking after each other. If this Parliament was de-cluttered from the excessive localism we see here, we would have a Parliament that would function more in the way parliaments function in other countries. There is an ample number of examples in other countries and we should be looking at best case scenarios rather than just tinkering at the edges.
I completely accept there is a need for this legislation. I would like to see an electoral commission permanently in place to deal with issues such as the register of electors, which is very hit and miss, and to deal with matters that arise at the time of referenda. To have such a commission permanently in place would mean we are building towards something and it would provide checks and balances to the Executive. To conclude, I accept the decision of the commission in the work it did and I will be supporting the legislation on that basis.
The proposed reduction in the number of TDs from 166 to 158 should go further. While I believe there should be more democracy in this country, at the same time, the democracy is all in the wrong place. I personally believe 80 TDs would be plenty for this country but, in order to achieve that, we need real local and regional government reform.
I found what Deputy Tuffy said very interesting. She pointed out that people often mention Britain and India as an example when they talk about the number of MPs, or TDs in our case. Deputy Tuffy rightly said this was unfair because they have regional and local government. That being true, and I agree with it, what are we going to do to create more regional government and more real local government?
The proposals are to close down many of the local councils, further castrate the county councils and turn them into even bigger talking shops, but there is no real desire for change in the power base. Last year a Fine Gael Deputy espoused an opinion on local government that showed what many here thought. The Deputy said people were looking for more power at local level but what they seemed to forget was that it would give us less power here. That sums up the attitude - the governing party wants to hold onto the power it has. God knows it had to wait long enough to get it and I can understand the natural urge to hold on to it, but if that is not for the benefit of the majority of the people, why do it? It does not benefit the majority. The current system only puts people off politics, the proof of which is that there are people cheerleading the idea that we would enjoy less democracy. There would not be localism in the Dáil if we had real local democracy. In those circumstances I would not be here because my place is in local government. The Minister’s job is to legislate, but he has neither the time nor the incentive to drive that agenda, as it will not get him re-elected. If he did bury himself completely, 100%, in dealing with legislation, he would never get a chance to talk to his constituents in the way he does now. We need a separation.
The concern about having more elected representatives is that it would cost us more, but it would not. The money saved in reducing the number of Deputies to 80 would more than cover the cost involved. If the Minister is to cut at local level, he should cut the number of county councillors and invest the money saved in real local government reform at town level because otherwise it will not work. Consider the position in Switzerland: in areas with a population of only 100 they decide whether a footpath is to be pulled up again this year, they make a practical decision on whether to lay another shiny new footpath 12 months after laying the old one or on whether to upgrade their swimming pool, which would increase the possibility of increasing tourism in the area and decrease the possibility of people committing suicide because they would have more recreational facilities available and help to combat obesity, etc. Instead we have a system in which there is an attempt to control these decisions from the centre. This is not a question of Dublin against the rest. The Government cannot decide exactly what is right for people in Castlerea any more than I from Dublin can make my kids eat Weetabix at home, no more than people in Donegal know what is best for people in Castlerea and no more than I know what is best for people on Jervis Street. The decisions should be made locally. Then the system would work much better. Even though the members of the Government and the people who vote for it seem to have a problem with the fact that we do not have real local government nothing will happen or change. As the Fine Gael Deputy said last year, they would have no power. That is what it is all about, us having power because then a Deputy can be reported in the newspaper boasting about getting X, Y and Z for his or her constituency. That does not help people in general.
This commission guarantees that yet again my constituency will not return the same Deputies. In the history of the State Roscommon has never returned the same three Deputies. Even in my short time in politics, I have run for election in Longford-Roscommon, South Leitrim and Roscommon and now it appears that I will run in Roscommon and Galway East. No one can question the independence of the commission and if anyone does, I will say he or she is wrong. It is not often I can say that definitively because even when it comes to God, I am agnostic. I am not sure either way, but I am definite about this. The commission was totally independent because otherwise it would have redrawn my constituency in a slightly differently way. People on the ground are saying the commission hanged the Government guy. I do not know whether that is true, but I do know from the way my constituency has been redrawn that it was definitely independent, as otherwise it would not have made a big attempt to put me in that constituency.
The Deputy should ask the Taoiseach about it.
Deputies Peter Fitzpatrick and Joe O’Reilly propose to share the next slot. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill 2012 proposes to implement the recommendations of the constituency commission’s report 2012. In essence, this means reducing the number of Deputies from 166 to 158, the number of Dáil constituencies from 43 to 40 and redrawing many constituency boundaries. This may not be great news for everyone in the House. I have noticed that there is some very uneasy shifting on the backbenches, not to mention perspiration on some brows. The great Canadian motivational speaker Brian Tracy often refers to doing things that are important rather than urgent. This Bill may not be urgent, but it certainly is important. That is a line the Government has tried to adopt at all times. We believe in the long-term prosperity of the country. As a result, we are not afraid to make the often overlooked important decisions as opposed to the more popular urgent ones.
The Bill provides for a reduction in the number of Deputies, implementing the commitment in the programme for Government to reduce the number of Deputies following publication of the results of census 2011. Prior to the establishment of the constituency commission in 2011, its terms of reference were changed by the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2011 which fixed the range for the total number of Deputies at between 153 and 160, as compared with the previous range of 164 to 168.
In any group there will always be those who are thinking about their personal interests. This is understandable, but the time for thinking about personal interests in this country has long past, as we all know well. Since its inception, the Government has aimed to do the right thing for the country and for the right reasons. In any reshuffle or realignment there will be winners and losers. I, therefore, urge Members to think beyond their personal interests and of the greater good of the country. Like the esteemed Mr. Tracy, I urge them to make the important decisions and support this legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.
I welcome the chance to speak on this legislation. Any chance to engage in constituency reform is to be welcomed, as it gives us a chance to examine how we do business. I object to the manner in which part of south Mayo has been discommoded and detached.
It would never have happened in P. Flynn's time.
A lot of things happened during that time. The matter actually went the other way.
We look forward to proposing an amendment in regard to that constituency on Committee Stage, to the effect that this substantial number of Mayo people be recognised in the new constituency, which should be renamed Galway West-South Mayo to reflect the large input of Mayo people. I have no doubt that Deputy Ó Cuív will look after them well, along with whoever may join him from the other side.
There is great concern throughout the country about the manner in which communities can be discommoded in this way. It is similar to the process currently under way, albeit with open consultations, whereby parishes can be divided for representation at council level. There is concern that there is no appeals process. In previous times the boundary review process was used for party political advantage, but surely we have moved on and can come up with a system that makes proposals on the make-up of constituencies but allows some kind of input concerning the proposals made. It is all very well making a submission in advance but many people do not fully understand the intricacies of the process or the way in which the frames of reference can be interpreted by the commission. A draft report should be published, following which communities should be allowed to facilitate input into it. There is no doubt about the anger in south Mayo concerning the way in which it is being attached to Galway, and this anger is replicated in communities throughout the country that are being moved around. It is the same in cities. People vote in different constituencies in different elections depending on the way population centres move. It is difficult for colleagues or for anybody who seeks elected office to develop a working relationship with communities or prioritise working with communities when that happens.
With its proposed reduction of eight seats, the Bill demonstrates the folly of many of the pre-election promises made by the Government. The Minister, Deputy Hogan, intended to reduce the number by 20 but I understand the Labour Party got to him and kept the number to eight. That will increase again to 166 after the next election. Let us stand back and consider this. Perhaps we have lost the opportunity to have a full debate. Is having 42 or 43 constituencies the best way to go now? Should we start mixing it up a bit - mixing the electoral constituency system with a list system? Perhaps we should proceed by availing of the Constitutional Convention in advance of making any decisions.
The Government has mentioned having a debate on Seanad reform or abolition. It should be on Seanad reform. Equally, we need to consider the way in which we do business in this House. While I accept there have been some minimal changes in the way business is done, we must push the bar out further and be much more ambitious about the way in which we do business. We must resource our committees. I commend Deputy Jerry Buttimer and his colleagues on the health committee on the way in which they managed last week's committee hearings. If every committee was resourced and given powers to that effect we would get through our work as a Parliament much more quickly and in a much more challenging way for those who attend. It would require a considerable resource commitment for us to do that, but if we are serious about our work and want to make it more relevant we should consider this and invest in it. The committee system can work well. There is much good work that happens, literally, in the bowel of LH2000, but it rarely gets attention unless there is a star witness. That is where the real work of this Parliament is done. Committee Stage of legislation can be beneficial for everybody. We must look at our own internal resources, work with the public relations unit of the Oireachtas, see the way in which it highlights committee work and come up with a way of improving the work.
Everybody says there are too many politicians in this country, but people here like to have a relationship with their local representatives. They like to be able to reach out and have access to that person. Public representatives are generally much more available here than in many other countries. We do not have the system that pertains in the United Kingdom whereby politicians may spend a few weekends in their constituencies and the rest of the time in London. If we lose that link it will undermine our work and whatever bit of solace we have left in this House. That is why we need to engage to a much greater degree with communities in setting boundaries and respecting how deeply they are attached to those boundaries. It is not a question of sitting around a table moving around lines on a map. One is dealing, first, with people's right to representation and, second, with people's livelihoods. Many people have left this House not for want of work but because of boundary changes that reduced their ability to be re-elected. People must consider those things as well.
It is all very well for a boundary review group to publish its work, but the manner in which we have completely removed ourselves from interpreting that work needs to change. There must be some kind of appeals mechanism for communities that feel discommoded. I reiterate that we can design such a mechanism, which must not be politically controlled. That is within our ability.
My party will table an amendment on Committee Stage in regard to the invasion of Mayo by Galway. I know the county is short of a few footballers but it will not get away with it that easily. We will propose the renaming of the constituency to Galway West-South Mayo to reflect the fact that more than 10,000 Mayo people will be voting in that constituency in the next election. They deserve to be formally recognised in that way.
I cannot imagine that the Minister, Deputy Hogan, would be too impressed at being moved into Waterford or Wexford, as Deputy Browne informs me.
It would not bother me one way or another.
We need to give recognition to the fact that there will be such a big move from Mayo into Galway. We gained a Taoiseach but lost a Dáil seat.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. There is to be a paltry reduction in the number of Deputies from 166 to 158, although the Minister's party spoke about a reduction of 20. Personally, I do not agree with any reduction and believe the number should have been left at 166. As Deputy Calleary noted, there are many people who, although they may throw rotten oranges and apples at us from time to time, like to have access to their politicians and be able to come in and have a chat. In this country politicians are generally people-friendly in comparison with those in other countries. I had two old aunties, God rest them, who lived in England and used to come home every year. They could never believe that I or the Minister, Deputy Howlin, or whoever was a Deputy at the time would sit in a hotel and allow people to drop in off the street and have a chat without making an appointment. If they wanted to see their MP they might be waiting three to six months. It would be a pity to change that system here. We should always ensure that Deputies are available to the people. That is the reason I do not at all agree with either the Minister or my own party about the proposal to reduce the number from 166 to 158. The number of Deputies should be left alone.
I have always had a notion about the boundary commission and had many arguments with the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Noel Dempsey, in this regard. This group of people makes the decisions; they are like God and their decisions cannot be changed even though some of them are way off-kilter. Under the second last review there was no Deputy from County Leitrim, which was a farcical situation. I learned from a BBC programme during the week that the House of Lords was voting against a boundary review committee decision, which meant the matter would have to return to the Government. Boundary commissions should not be all-powerful and have the final say, with no Minister prepared to make any change, perhaps because of a possible backlash from the media. I refer to what Deputy Calleary stated. I was talking to some west of Ireland Deputies recently who told me that if any change was to be made, it should have been to join west and east Galway rather than throwing part of Mayo into west Galway.
Before the last election the Minister said much about reform, reform of this House and reform of the Seanad and it appears the Government will abolish the Seanad. However, I think the people will take a different view when the issue appears before them as we are doing away with too many strands of democracy. The Minister, Deputy Hogan, has decided with the sweep of a brush to do away with town councils and to have municipal authorities. As town councils were at the heart of the community and were part and parcel of the community it is a wrong decision. I admit that the former Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Mr. Noel Dempsey, was probably thinking on those lines also and, perhaps, the Minister placed it on the table and decided to proceed with the Fianna Fáil document. It is a wrong decision to do away with town councils. I am sure if the Minister of State, Deputy John Perry, were speaking from the heart he would probably agree with those sentiments. Few countries are doing away with democratic sectors. If we do away with town councils and the Seanad all we are left with is county councils and the Dáil system and people will not be properly represented in that scenario. For that reason I ask the Minister to look again at the issue.
Last November marked my service of 30 years as a Member of this House, some would say too long. Nothing has changed in the area of reform. The Minister and the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Paul Kehoe, made a decision to introduce a Topical Issue debate. Given the number of members putting their names forward for that debate it is almost impossible to get on the clár. In respect of issues that are relevant and important to a constituency today it is important that a representative of that constituency would have an opportunity to raise a matter on the day it arises. Sometimes two or three weeks elapse before one can make one's point. The issue may concern the loss of jobs, the closure of a factory or other major changes in the constituency. This is not the fault of the Ceann Comhairle as he is allowed only a certain number of topical issues per day. The system needs to be looked at again and changed and the operation of the House needs to be made more relevant to the day to day issues in our constituencies.
The replies from Ministers to parliamentary questions are becoming less and less informative. Perhaps the Government backbenchers are getting more concise replies than we on this side get. Many of the replies are not replies at all. If the matter concerns the National Roads Authority, the Health Service Executive or many other State bodies, the usual reply from the Minister is that the matter has been passed on to the HSE or the NRA. At the end of the day, the Minister of the day is responsible for all these organisations and should be in a position to provide a concise answer without having to wait for a month or two before the HSE, the NRA or some other body decides to reply. That system needs to be changed.
I have been present for many Friday sittings which start at 10.30 a.m. and usually finish at 1 p.m. There is no Order of Business or Leaders' Question and no real Dáil business is done except the Bill that is taken. If we are to have Friday sittings they should be proper sittings with a full Dáil system in operation on the day, otherwise we should forget about farcical Friday sittings. What is happening is not relevant and is certainly not good enough.
In regard to the Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill 2012, I do not agree with the proposal to reduce the number of Deputies or some of the changes to the boundaries. I had hoped that the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, who portrays himself as a tough Minister would be prepared to take tough decisions. I argued with many, during our time in government, that the boundary review commission report should not be sacrosanct, whereby no changes could be made. Some changes were farcical and left many without public representation and counties which had no contact with each other were joined up. As Deputy Calleary said if wrong decisions are made there should be a mechanism in place to allow the Minister make the change or an appeals system should be put in place to enable a further review of the situation. Generally, I support the Bill and hope the Minister will be prepared to take some amendments on Committee Stage.
I call Deputy Joe O'Reilly, to be followed by Deputies John O'Mahony, Alan Farrell and Heather Humphreys. Is that agreed? Agreed.
In the three minutes at my disposal I register my concern and protest that County Cavan will lose 13,000 voters when the west Cavan electoral area is removed from County Cavan. Effectively, this is being done to respond to the reasonably held concerns of the Leitrim people. When Leitrim was divided, various associations there expressed their annoyance and made representations. Rightly so. I am disappointed that the solution to the Leitrim problem, which was a legitimate concern, is the dismemberment of the division of County Cavan. The county structure is sacrosanct. It is the structure to which we relate in football and in every sphere of activity. For administrative purposes those 13,183 voters in west Cavan will come under Cavan County Council yet will not be represented by Cavan-Monaghan representatives in the House. That is a huge concern and will make for duplication and isolation of that area. It breaks up the county structure and is unwelcome.
I understand the reunification of County Leitrim. I also understand its angst and annoyance in the past at its dismemberment and break up but the solution should not be the break up of Cavan. Councillors from west Cavan will be on Cavan County Council; for part of County Cavan there will be a different set of Dáil Deputies, albeit very eminent figures, including the Minister of State, Deputy John Perry, in front of me, from the other constituency who will represent a section of Cavan and Cavan will have a certain representative role. For example, as my colleagues Deputy Heather Humphreys, Deputy Seán Conlan and I would get representations continuously from west Cavan with Cavan implications on infrastructure and the same representations would be duplicated in Sligo-Leitrim it makes for administrative mayhem, a lack of cohesion and a lack of unity. That is a bad outcome and I ask that it be altered in the short term. If it is not to be altered in the short term it needs to be altered in the long term as it affects the homogenous nature of the county and efforts to get inward investment in the county conducted at countywide level will be frustrated.
It causes duplicity and a lack of coherence.
I appreciate the time allowed for my contribution. I wish to register my annoyance, displeasure and concern about the breaking up of my county and the removal of an entire electoral division and 13,183 voters. This will result in a constituency of ridiculous length and proportions.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill. I also welcome the efforts of the Government and the actions of the Minister on the issue of political reform at national and local authority level. There is disagreement on all sides of the House about certain aspects of that reform and its implementation. However, what was acceptable, reasonable and efficient in 1922, 1972 or 2002 is no longer suitable in 2013. To leave things as they are is not an option. I do not object to the proposed reduction in the number of Deputies. However, I fail to see the logic in the changes to the constituency boundaries in the western and north-western regions, in particular. Deputy Joe Reilly also voiced this sentiment.
I am conscious of the resentment in County Leitrim when it was divided over ten years ago when many felt disenfranchised. The solution was to include the county in one constituency. However, the result was a terrible mess and a dog's dinner. In the case of County Mayo 10,000 people in south Mayo were transferred to the Galway West constituency. The solution for County Leitrim is the creation of a new constituency comprising four counties. The Deputies who will represent that constituency will have to deal with four county managers and four local authorities. Galway West is not the natural hinterland for the people of south Mayo and the electorate in that region will now elect local authority members in County Mayo and Deputies for Galway.
I am aware that the new boundaries were drawn by an independent commission. I checked the criteria supplied to the commission and note that they stated the breaching of county boundaries was to be avoided in so far as practical and that each constituency should be composed of contiguous areas, which means sharing a common border. The outcome in the case of the new Galway West constituency is anything but the sharing of a contiguous border. I have tremendous respect for people in both Mayo and Galway, as many will know, but in the case of all counties in Connacht borders have been either breached or additional territory has been added. For political reform to be effective, it must be streamlined.
The number of sittings of the House has increased dramatically since 2011. This means Deputies are unable to spend as much time in their constituencies as they did in the past. They need to have a very good working relationship with local councillors. If a constituent needs assistance in dealing with an issue to do with road resurfacing or pot holes, the local councillor will deal with the problem. However, in the case of a town such as Ballinrobe or a parish such as Garrymore, the local councillor with sit on Mayo County Council but their local Deputy will have links to Galway city and county councils. This outcome makes life more difficult for the public who are the most important in this instance, the councillor and the Deputy. It lacks cohesion.
I have spoken to people on all sides of the political divide in the south Mayo region who say they are confused and angered by the new electoral boundaries. Many of them have pointed out that south Mayo is not even included in the name of the new Galway West constituency. Other Deputies have also contacted the Minister about the naming of the new constituency. I ask him to address this matter and to have the constituency renamed as Galway West-South Mayo. Even my Galway colleagues would agree with this request.
The greatest and most successful organisations in Ireland are made up of people who work together in community. In order to work well in this way, a sense of place and identity is required. This revision breaks that sense of place, as well as communities. It leaves people feeling disenfranchised. I have no doubt that Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív will look after all voters in Galway West and that Deputies Brian Walsh and Seán Kyne will do likewise. However, the point is that the public prefer to have a sense of unity and streamlined representation. This constituency revision does not meet those criteria.
The boundary commission's findings were published some time ago but the new year presents a good opportunity to debate proposals for reform of the political system, at least on a geographical basis. There is an appetite for a reduction in the number of Deputies. The people should get what they want in this instance. Speakers have referred ad nauseam to the commitment in the Fine Gael election manifesto in respect of a reduction of 20 in the number of Deputies. This level of reduction was not possible owing to the extraordinary growth in population in the past decade as shown in the census figures for 2006 and 2011. My community in north Dublin, Fingal, has seen unprecedented growth, so much so that it is the fastest growing local community in Europe. The average age of its population in 2006 was 31.2 years; it is now 31.7 years. However, with such a young community come strains on local services, but that is a debate for another day. An increase in population of 8.2% has made it necessary to consolidate constituency boundaries. I agree with Deputy John O'Mahony on his point about County Mayo and having boundaries which are contiguous. He noted that counties had been split in half. He also referred to the involvement of four local authorities in one constituency, resulting in Deputies having to deal with four county managers. This makes it very difficult for public representatives to carry out their duties efficiently and effectively.
In the case of my constituency, the town of Swords was split down the middle by the previous boundary commission and divided between the constituencies of Dublin West and Dublin North. This was controversial and a difficult issue at the time for councillors, Deputies and Senators who endeavoured to represent their constituencies effectively. The town has now been unified, which is welcome. The reunification of Portmarnock with Dublin North and the neighbouring town of Malahide is also very important as the two towns have a symbiotic relationship. They share shopping facilities, the amenity of the strand at Portmarnock and the promenade at Malahide. The two communities are interlinked to such an extent that it would not make sense to separate them.
I welcome the fact they are being reunited at the next general election.
With regard to the fifth seat, Fingal has always been consistently under-represented at local authority level by comparison with its country cousins. Councillors in some local authority wards represent 10,000 to 13,000 people. Deputy Luke Flanagan, as a former local authority member, will know that some local authority representatives represent as few as 1,200 people.
Get rid of 20 of them; that will solve the problem. I would vote for that.
That is another argument. The point is that there is an imbalance in representation. It is important that there be a re-balance and that is why I am pleased to see the extra seat being allocated to the north side of Dublin and my constituency.
Political reform is not a reduction in the number of Deputies; rather, it is changing and consolidating what they do. It is about defining the boundaries between Deputies, Senators, councillors and mayors such that there is no overlap. Without achieving this, local authority members will continue to bite at the heels of Deputies in the hope that they will replace them at the next election, and Deputies who lose their seats, like so many at the last general election, will continue to regard local authority elections as their saviour. If we do not define the roles of elected representatives, there will be continual rotation among local authority members, Deputies and Senators.
This is a young, growing nation. The number of children born here today rivals that during the baby boom of the 1960s and 1970s. The average age in my constituency is childbearing age. The Department of Education and Skills made massive planning mistakes in the past, as is evident from the fact that 80 students showed up with bags and uniforms to a school in Balbriggan in which they were not even enrolled and which was not capable of supporting them. The Department assumed that when a couple buys a house, they will have a schooling requirement four or five years later. In fact, when a couple buys a house, there is an immediate schooling requirement because they will already have a couple of kids, and potentially more on the way. Failures regarding the planning of strategic local services must not continue. They are not continuing under the Department at present.
We need to be able to plan for the increasing populations in towns such as Swords, Balbriggan, Blanchardstown and Tallaght, and other hotspots of growth around the country, such that we do not need to change the boundaries of constituencies every four or five years. There needs to be representative consistency so there will not be circumstances such as those in which Swords was split in 2008 by the boundary commission. We should not have circumstances such as those in which Portmarnock must be skived off Dublin North to extend the life span of Dublin North-East for couple of years before it finally gives up the ghost and must be put in with another constituency nearby, all with a view to giving Dublin Bay North the ability to sustain itself on an ongoing basis. I appreciate that we will not achieve what I am suggesting on this occasion but I suggest that when the boundary commission is being given its terms of reference in the future, growth will be accounted for sufficiently in the drawing up of constituencies.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It proposes to implement the recommendations of the constituency commission's report of 2012, which included a reduction in the number of Dáil constituencies from 43 to 40 and a reduction in the number of Deputies from 166 to 158. These changes follow a commitment in the programme for Government. For some time, there has been growing demand to reduce the number of Deputies. While there are arguments to be made regarding the appropriate number of constituents per Deputy, the main reason for the calls to reduce the number of Deputies is largely attributable to general disillusionment among the public with the body politic.
As somebody who was elected as a Deputy for the first time in 2011, I was initially surprised by the great volume of work individual Deputies face daily and the wide range of issues with which they must deal. The reason for this heavy workload has much to do with the fact that the Irish enjoy a unique level of access to their public representatives. This is a positive aspect of our electoral system, and our democracy has been the stronger for it. Ireland differs from other countries in that it is very easy for any member of the public to make contact with his local Deputy if he so wishes. It is critical that members of the public have direct contact with local Deputies so they can outline their views or concerns regarding certain policy matters. This allows Deputies such as me to outline various policy decisions and the rationale therefor. It allows me to take on board people's views as to where improvements can be made and bring these concerns back to the Government. This level of contact with the people is very significant. It is vital that we do not lose touch with the people we are here to serve. We must not allow Deputies to become overstretched such that they cannot reasonably meet the needs of their constituents. With that in mind, I believe the modest decrease in the number of Deputies, as proposed, represents a sensible start. This measure, along with the proposed abolition of the Seanad, will represent a major reduction in the number of Members and the Oireachtas.
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government recently brought forward proposals for the reform of local government. They include the abolition of town councils and a 40% reduction in the number of councillors. If implemented, the result will be a vastly reduced number of public representatives nationwide.
With regard to the changes recommended by the boundary commission in my constituency, I am saddened by the decision to move west Cavan out of the Cavan-Monaghan constituency. It is far from ideal when county lines are breached. For years, people were calling for Leitrim to be reunited. Unfortunately, this appears to have happened at Cavan's expense.
There are a number of joint services covering Cavan and Monaghan and the two counties have always worked well together. The new amalgamated VEC will serve both counties, as does the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in Cavan at present. On a purely administrative basis, I envisage problems. Cavan County Council, for example, will now receive representations from four Deputies in Cavan-Monaghan along with five Deputies in the new Sligo-Leitrim constituency. These are the sorts of issues that will arise from the decision to divide Cavan. It could be that what appears good on paper is not always practical on the ground, especially in rural areas with a dispersed population.
Based on the results of the 2011 census, I note the new Cavan-Monaghan constituency will be one of only five in which the population per Deputy will be over 30,000. If the Seanad is abolished, it will mean the number of Oireachtas members in Cavan-Monaghan will be reduced from seven to four. As part of the reform of local government, the number of county councillors in Cavan County Council will be reduced from 25 to 18, and the number in Monaghan County Council will be reduced from 20 to 18. All the town councils in the constituency are to be abolished.
Some people have argued that the reduction in numbers has not gone far enough. In any reasonable analysis, this represents a truly seismic decrease in the number of public representatives at local level. However, we must tread carefully because if we were to go any further at this point, there would be a danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. As I stated, the level of interaction between the people and public representatives and the ease of access have constituted a strength of our democracy. While I accept that reform is necessary, I believe it is important that this level of connectivity be maintained in so far as it is possible.
The programme for Government claims that Fine Gael and the Labour Party entered government on the back of a democratic revolution. I doubt if any previous Administration, except perhaps the Fianna Fáil Government of 1932, came to power with more promises of reform. The record of the coalition thus far has been a litany of disappointments and broken promises. This Bill is no exception. Its purpose is not to enhance democracy or reform politics in the State or on this island but to reduce the number of Deputies by eight and the number of Dáil constituencies by three.
It is a Fine Gael Bill and it arises out of a Fine Gael slogan about cutting the number of Deputies, rather than out of any real consideration of how the Dáil can be truly reformed. The irony is that the original Fine Gael target of cutting the number of Deputies by 20 could not be done because it would be unconstitutional, given the increase in the population.
Census 2011 results show that this State's population has continued to grow strongly since Census 2006, increasing by 348,404 persons to 4,588,252 persons in the Twenty-six Counties. This represents an increase of 8.2% over the five-year period. The electoral commission claimed that it was required to base its report on the population in Census 2011 but the report failed to reflect this reality. It was the first time that a commission had a predetermined outcome of reducing the number of Dáil Deputies. What we have now is a Bill to axe eight Dáil seats and three constituencies - despite an increased and growing population - and carve up constituency boundaries yet again.
The terms of reference given to the Constituency Commission were too narrow. Crucially, they were constrained by the undemocratic legislation which restricts the number of TDs per constituency to a maximum of five. As a result of that legislation we had, for example, the partition of Leitrim because a six or more seater Sligo-Leitrim-Roscommon constituency was not permitted. With that undemocratic five-seat ceiling still in place we now have the proposed reunification of Leitrim which is most welcome but the partition of Cavan which is most unwelcome. Real and fundamental reform would have revisited the five-seat ceiling and it would have adopted a co-ordinated approach to the Oireachtas and local government, both in terms of democratic powers, numbers of councillors and Deputies, and constituency boundaries. This would facilitate better administration and improved representation for citizens, harmonising the remit and the boundaries of local government and the Oireachtas. Instead we now face widely varying boundaries in terms of Dáil constituencies and councils, missing another opportunity to match them up as far as possible.
Under this Bill, 22 out of 40 constituency boundaries breach county boundaries. Article 16.2.2o of Bunreacht na hÉireann states that "the total number of members of Dáil Éireann shall not be fixed at less than one member for each thirty thousand of the population, or at more than one member for each twenty thousand of the population". Yet in this Bill the redrawn Cavan-Monaghan, Donegal, Dublin North West, Galway West and Mayo Constituencies each have more than 30,000 people per Deputy.
Turning to the counties of Cavan and Monaghan, which I have represented here since 1997, I can only describe this Bill as a travesty. It removes a large part of west Cavan from the Cavan-Monaghan constituency and creates what I can only describe as an unnatural or, dare I say it, Frankenstein constituency comprising Sligo, Leitrim and parts of counties Donegal and Cavan - four counties cobbled together from two provinces. To facilitate this, a chunk of County Galway, in the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's own backyard, is being put in with County Roscommon and all because the sacred cow of the five-seat ceiling will not be touched by this so-called reforming Government.
It is a carve-up, plain and simple. County Cavan is and always has been an administrative unit in terms of local government and a united county, either as a stand-alone constituency or with County Monaghan, for Dáil elections. There is no logic or sense in splitting away west Cavan. The carve-up takes 36 electoral divisions with a population of 13,183 out of County Cavan. Thus, west Cavan, a part of the wider hinterland of the county town of Cavan, is removed to a separate Dáil constituency. The Cavan-Monaghan Constituency is to be reduced to four seats, meaning that its population will be under-represented.
From two counties with three seats each, this former six-seat area will now likely only have four Dáil representatives in the Thirty-second Dáil despite the increased population of both counties. The electorates of counties Cavan and Monaghan deserve better than this. Marginalised Border counties that have suffered underdevelopment and underinvestment during the decades since partition deserve better than this.
I urge the Minister and the Government not to proceed with this crude constituency boundary redrafting proposal but to sit down with all interested opinion and address the real reforms that can and should be introduced in both local government and in Dáil and Seanad representation.
Before I call Deputy Durkan, Deputy Feighan is seeking three minutes to make a contribution, if that is agreeable to the House. Agreed. The Deputy will have three minutes and will be followed by Deputy Durkan.
I very much welcome this Bill. The Government promised there would be constituency reviews and that the number of seats would be reduced. While I very much welcome this I want to say goodbye to the good people of south Leitrim who were very loyal to me in 2007 and 2011. The constituency Roscommon-South Leitrim will now be Roscommon-East Galway and, as a Deputy for Roscommon-South Leitrim, I intend to live up to my obligations along with the other Deputies in the constituency - I note the Minister of State, Deputy Perry and other Deputies are present - to work on behalf of the people for Roscommon-South Leitrim during the lifetime of this Dáil. More than another three years remain of this Dáil and there are many issues with which I have to deal such as the enhancement of Roscommon Hospital, compensation for turfcutters, schools and hospitals in Ballinamore, the retention of jobs in MBNA and other issues including bringing back employment to the area.
I look forward, God willing, to contesting the next general election in 2016 in the Roscommon-East Galway constituency but that would be at the behest of the Fine Gael organisation. I am very honoured to represent the people of Roscommon-South Leitrim and to have represented an area, which will be in part of Deputy Ó Caoláin's constituency, and I wish whoever represents the people of that area well.
Roscommon Hospital is not closed; it is twice as busy as it was in 2010. An application for planning permission has been submitted for a new endoscopy unit at the hospital, the cost of which will be more than €3 million. By the time that is finished in the next few years Roscommon Hospital will be twice as big, five times busier but, most important, patients will be much safer.
I thank the people of south Leitrim and Roscommon and I intend to remain as their Deputy doing the work a Deputy is elected to do until the end of this Dáil term in three years time.
I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation. It is ironic that the constituency boundaries revision does not affect me or my constituency to any great extent other than that the boundaries and populations will be marginally moved and that will create difficulties in terms of logistics in how to facilitate the voters in a particular area.
In general, however, my view is that constituency boundaries should remain constant with county or other boundaries in so far as is possible. Over the years a certain continuity will have built up with public representatives and they will have come to identify with their respective areas, a development beneficial to the community at large. It is hugely important that the public have a rapport with their elected public representatives within a constituency boundary. It is important that public representatives devote their activities to addressing the issues that affect their constituencies.
When one unravels the fabric of existing systems, there is always a tendency to create something new on the basis that it will be better. That is not always necessarily the case. Some new constituencies will prove extremely difficult for travel for their public representatives. Two Members present, Deputies Smith and Perry, will soon experience this logistical problem in their respective new constituencies. In my time, 50 miles was the longest distance I had to travel and that was in the old Kildare constituency, which has since been divided into the smaller Kildare North and South constituencies.
When boundaries are rearranged, one factor that is always left out is the degree to which the voting public identifies with the people it elects. Some strange things have happened in this regard from time to time. Although a boundary change may have been well flagged in advance, there have been occasions on which people have refused to vote when they found they could only vote for a representative they had not previously voted for. These are not isolated instances but have come about on several occasions in my constituency in the past, as well as in others. I know it will happen again because of this boundary commission review.
When the terms of reference of the review are set down, it naturally follows that one has to start somewhere and end somewhere else. However, as we all know, wherever one starts, the ripples extend right out to the perimeter. It is at that particular juncture that people find themselves squeezed, as it were.
Some people will take great pleasure in the fact that public representatives will find themselves challenged by boundary revisions and the subsequent unease that creates. Apart from the pleasure it gives some people who like to comment on these matters, it does not do anything for the public or improve or extend the remit of the public representative. Neither does it improve the quality or level of representation. It could, however, have the effect of removing the public representative to a distance further afield from those who elected him or her.
There is a theory that there is too much interaction between the electorate and public representatives. I do not agree with this as I believe it is good and important that elected public representatives engage with the electorate to such an extent as to be able to identify how the legislation they pass in Parliament affects them. If we lose that vital ingredient, there is no other avenue for the public to express themselves other than waiting for the next election. It also has the possibility of creating instability, particularly at times of economic difficulty. The one thing we now know we need more than anything else, and which will continue to be needed for some years to come, is stability. We must have reliability, continuity and stability. There must be a recognition that those outside this jurisdiction looking to invest in this or other jurisdictions will, in the first instance, seek out places that have the ability to provide stability.
I am concerned that we are heading towards a situation in which the electorate is more removed from its elected representatives than in the past. Some other jurisdictions - some closer and some further afield - have had that tradition over the years. In some jurisdictions, the electorate very seldom sees its public representatives. Some may say, cynically, that it is better that way. I do not agree. The interaction that takes place here between elected representatives and the electorate is good for Parliament, democracy and the public. That does not mean to say that elected public representatives should always bend to the ever-changing whims of an electorate. It does, however, encourage public representatives to be responsible and ensures people's expectations are not unnecessarily raised. It also ensures that we are realistic, that we give leadership and that we give sound advice to our constituents and, in turn, that they will benefit economically from that. We have much to work on in this area, provided we do not expect to wave a magic wand and come up with some new invention for the democratic system to make it much more responsive and effective, because there is a contradiction in that as well.
Strange things happen from time to time. I remember making comparisons between our system and those in other European countries. We have long since abolished the dual mandate which allowed Oireachtas Members to be local authority members. There was a significant amount of applause from certain quarters when that was abolished. I totally disagreed at the time because I believed it was a negative and unnecessary development. It removed people who had knowledge at national parliamentary level from local authorities. With that went much of the power that was vested in local authorities previously. Events since have shown that. Hence the need now for local government reform. I know there were some who took great pleasure in the fact that Oireachtas Members were no longer members of local authorities and it was thought to be a good idea. However, I have not seen the benefits of it.
I recall meeting a gentleman from Belgium who was mayor of his town, a member of his national parliament and a Member of the European Parliament. While he would not have the same travel problems as one would have here, he was adequately able to represent his constituencies at all levels. He was always present and active. This increased the extent to which he was required to have a working knowledge of what happened in his constituency at local, national and international level. I am not saying it is possible to do the same in this country but I believe it was possible before the dual mandate was abolished. It was also much more beneficial for local and national democracy. While there are certain pundits who will strongly disagree with me, I strongly disagree with them as well. I reserve the right to hold that view on the dual mandate and will continue to hold it.
We should learn from our mistakes in the past and improve on our current position. Ultimately, it should be an objective of constituency reviews that we make the constituency relevant as far as the public is concerned and we do not become slaves to someone else's grand theory about what democracy should look like. Incidentally, the basic democratic system of direct elections to the national parliament is the ultimate one.
I realise various pundits have put forward suggestions on what might be improved but I do not believe in that concept either. I believe the system we have is the best one. I do not believe in list systems. The direct election system is the best. I believe that we should have a greater emphasis on continuity in so far as elected public representatives have a greater affinity with constituencies than might be the case if there were a series of electoral boundary revisions which ultimately created new and different boundaries after each revision to such an extent that there was a lack of identification with a particular area when it came to public representation.
I do not accept the notion of those who believe that legislators should sit in a glass tower where legislation becomes impersonal and is done in a vacuum. As public representatives, the best lessons we learn come from listening to the views of our constituents and their reactions to the legislation that we pass or do not pass from time to time. We should keep an eye on it. We should remember that this a basic concept and tenet of democracy. If we do not, cannot or are unable to relate to the electorate and explain the situation we find ourselves in, and if we cannot identify with them and they with us, then we will lose the battle and democracy may well be replaced by something else. There are some who would regard that as a great idea but I do not concur.
I hope that when the next constituency revision takes place - ultimately it will occur because of changes in population - some of the boundary changes that should be addressed again will be addressed in a positive way with a greater and due regard for county and other boundaries that have existed in the past and within which we have become familiar with working.
I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on the important legislation before us. Naturally, the legislation is based on a disappointing report. Deputy Durkan outlined the strengths of our parliamentary and democratic systems in his contribution. Public representatives must be close to the people they represent, otherwise they will not be returned to the Chamber.
Earlier today, Deputy Durkan and myself attended a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade. We discussed the difficulties that have arisen in the greater Belfast area during the past 40 days. Last November, members of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, including the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, were in Belfast. We met representatives of the loyalist community in east Belfast. They had a serious grievance to the effect that they were not represented at all.
All political parties have their faults. Our system has its faults but it has considerable strengths as well. No one is far removed from a public representative in this country. If a public representative was distant from his or her electorate, then his or her term in politics would be rather short.
We have had the privilege of serving in the Dáil for some time. I was elected to the Dáil in November 1992. Deputy Durkan came in the early 1980s, if I recall correctly. The Minister of State, Deputy Perry, has long service here as well. We do not take our election for granted at any stage. When one election is over, we are preparing for the next on the basis that work starts again the following day.
Earlier I saw the contribution of our colleague, Deputy John O'Mahony, on the monitor. He used the phrase "a dog's dinner" to describe the proposal for south Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim and west and south Cavan and he was absolutely correct. The proposal for this constituency is outrageous and unprecedented. I tabled a question to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, on 19 September last. I asked whether any previous Dáil constituency configurations involved a constituency comprising the entirety or parts of four counties, as proposed in the boundary report for a new constituency comprising south Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim and west and south Cavan, and whether he would make a statement on the matter. The Minister stated in reply:
Thirteen pieces of legislation have been enacted since 1923 which define Dáil constituency boundaries. None of the Dáil constituencies specified in the relevant Electoral Acts comprise all or parts of four counties.
The commission report is unprecedented. Cavan was a five-seat constituency at one stage, comprising the entirety of the county; the county boundary was totally intact. County Monaghan was a four-seater and may have been a five-seater at another stage. Both constituencies were reduced to three seat constituencies. Post the 1969 election a small area of north Meath near Carnaross and Oldcastle was added to the Cavan constituency and it remained a three-seat constituency. Similarly, for a period, the Monaghan constituency had part of County Louth and at another stage part of County Meath. These were small areas but ensured the constituencies had adequate numbers for representation.
The first time Cavan-Monaghan was one constituency was in 1977 and it has been a five-seat constituency since then. There is considerable similarity between both countries. Both are Border counties. We share similar terrain. Both are drumlin counties. We have the same topography and the same type of indigenous industry and economic activity. Many public services in two counties are delivered on a Cavan-Monaghan basis, for example, the Cavan Monaghan Hospital Group, made up of Cavan General Hospital and Monaghan General Hospital. Health services are delivered on a two-county basis. Many voluntary organisations have been formed on a Cavan-Monaghan basis, including the Irish Wheelchair Association, the Irish Kidney Association and Positive Age, a group that does great work with our elderly and senior citizens. All of these groups are organised on a Cavan-Monaghan basis because there is much similarity and a natural boundary. Both countries share a boundary with Northern Ireland as well.
Earlier, Deputy Ó Caoláin referred to the considerable disadvantages that our two countries have suffered because of the Border since the foundation of the State and this is true. Naturally, our two counties suffered tremendously because of the unprecedented Troubles throughout the Six Counties and adjoining areas for a protracted period from the late 1960s until the mid-1990s. There are particular challenges for the people representing Cavan and Monaghan.
I cannot fathom how a group of people could sign off on a proposal to create a constituency of south Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim and west and south Cavan. Let us picture the map of Ireland in our minds. Part of Cavan is quite close to Dublin city. People commute from County Cavan to Dublin on a daily basis for work purposes. The proposed new constituency would go from the centre of Cavan, near Cavan town and the Longford border, over to south Sligo, which is currently in the constituency of the Minister of State, Deputy Perry. Close examination of the map suggests that the south Sligo area stretches west of Ballina, County Mayo.
We now have a constituency stretching from east of the N55, the Cavan-Granard-Athlone road, to the centre of County Cavan, back to west of Ballina in County Mayo and south of Sligo where it stretches to south of Donegal town. It is ludicrous. The report as signed off by the independent constituency commission is the reason we should ensure there are people with practical political knowledge on any future commission. Anyone who has served in public office or has knowledge of the political system would not have signed off on these proposals. I acknowledge that successive Governments have appointed independent constituency commissions to draft proposals to try to take political people out of the system. However, the next commission should include representatives of the different political groups in the House. Eminent, retired politicians should be included who know the kind of constituencies it is practical to represent.
I will contest the Cavan-Monaghan constituency at the next general election. The large part of Cavan to be included in the proposed south Donegal-Sligo-Leitrim constituency is where I am from originally. My home village is Bawnboy in the centre of west Cavan. I will lose that area from the constituency I will contest next time. I will not have the privilege of contesting with Deputy John Perry in south Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim and west and south Cavan.
I will be looking for the Deputy's vote.
I heard Deputies Joe O'Reilly, Heather Humphreys and Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin outline clearly the ludicrousness of this proposal. Whoever is elected in the new constituency will have to deal with four local authorities and I do not know how many HSE regions they will cover.
The terms of reference quoted by Deputy John O'Mahony are worth referring to again. They set out that the constituency commission should, in observing the relevant provisions of the Constitution on Dáil constituencies, have regard to the following: the total number of Members of the Dáil and the need to avoid, as far as practicable, the breaching of county boundaries. I do not have a problem with the reduction in the number of Members or the requirement in each constituency to have three, four or five seats, but the constituency commission has not adhered to the need to avoid breaching county boundaries. It is further required to ensure constituencies comprise contiguous areas. The centre of Cavan to the Atlantic is not contiguous. If a person from Cavan intends to travel to south Donegal, he or she will travel through the Six Counties via County Fermanagh. If the constituency commission set out to ensure it breached the guidelines it was given, it could not have done so more thoroughly.
I refer again to the terms of reference which state regard should be had to geographic considerations, including significant physical features and the extent and density of population in each constituency. Coastal counties have been included with counties in the midlands. The terms of reference also state the constituency commission should, subject to certain provisions, endeavour to maintain continuity in the arrangement of constituencies. Cavan and Monaghan have never had their county boundaries breached. There was an outcry by the people of County Leitrim to have their county unified, which is fair enough. However, I take exception to Fine Gael public representatives in County Leitrim who, in advocating the unification of their own county, advocated the division of County Cavan. When that party's representatives seek the support of the electorate in west and south Cavan, they will be reminded that County Cavan has been divided and that Fine Gael was to the forefront in the lobbying in that regard. The reports also suggest lobbying paid off in a big way. I do not blame the people of County Leitrim for lobbying; they were right to do so, but it should not be done on the basis of dividing another county.
Swords was divided by the previous constituency commission, which was also ludicrous. I canvassed in the Dublin West by-election over a year ago and the people of Swords said the division was an issue for them. Deputy Alan Farrell spoke about the unification of Swords and the need to take into account growth in population. While Cavan is a vast rural county, it showed the third highest increase in population in the last census. Fingal, Laois and Cavan all experienced similar increases in population of approximately 14%. The county is being punished, notwithstanding the fact that its population is at its highest level in many decades. If teenagers with little knowledge or interest in politics were asked to formulate configurations for Dáil boundaries, they would not come up with the suggestion south Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim and west and south Cavan should form a constituency.
Members who spoke earlier referred to the proposed abolition of town councils, something with which I disagree entirely. While I have never served on a local authority, I value the input of people who work on a voluntary basis at town and county council level. We have the ludicrous position in Belturbet, County Cavan, that the town will be split between two constituencies. It is farcical. I have mentioned that many public services in Cavan and Monaghan are delivered on a two-county basis. Many of our voluntary organisations are organised on a Cavan-Monaghan basis. This is because the two counties have a great deal in common. A pattern of local representation at community, county and constituency level is being shredded.
Knowing some of the very competent public servants who sat on the constituency commission, I am astonished that they signed off on the report. I do not know if it has yet been placed in the public domain, but I would like to see the preparatory documentation which was placed before the constituency commission by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. I would love to see the permutations and combinations submitted. Counties Cavan, Monaghan, Louth and Meath have always been regarded as a unit and constituencies which include them should be configured on the basis of a north-east geographical area. The report is most disappointing and the people of Cavan and Monaghan are absolutely furious. The people who live in that large part of County Cavan who are being significantly disenfranchised are furious that for the first time in the history of the State their county boundaries are not being left intact. This is most disappointing. We will bring forward proposals on Committee Stage to seek a review of this matter.
I heard Deputy John O'Mahony speak about how county boundaries had once again been breached in the west. We are going down a route where we will see continuing imbalance in representation which favours the east coast. Seats have been lost in counties Donegal, Mayo, Cavan, Monaghan, Kerry and Tipperary which are in the western half of the country. This must be the worst constituency commission report which has ever been produced. Despite its population being at its highest level in decades, County Cavan is the biggest victim of the poposals before the House.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by colleagues from my constituency who spoke earlier about the break in the pattern of representation at public and community levels. It is disappointing. The report of the commission is unprecedented in many areas, including the fact that never before has the entirety of parts of four counties comprised one constituency.
The debate will be adjourned at 3.42 p.m. when we will move onto Topical Issues.
So there is very little time. I will make a start.
We will resume next week.
We are here to discuss the Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill 2012. It is an opportunity to look at the entire system and talk about what we do as Deputies. We are sent here by the people as messengers to the Dáil. There has been much discussion about the number of Deputies in the House and the number of people we represent. If one looks at national parliaments in small democracies like Ireland, one finds that we are well represented with roughly 16,000 people per public representative, including the Seanad. The proposal to abolish the Seanad would bring us up to a norm of about 25,000 people per public representative. Our electoral system is unique. I know the Constitutional Convention has been established to look at our electoral system which has a bearing on the number of constituencies and the number of Deputies per constituency.
This House should start looking at different ways of electing Deputies. I am particularly taken with the mixed list system in New Zealand. Deputy Olivia Mitchell spoke earlier about having single seat constituencies with possibly a list system. We should start exploring those possibilities. Even though we talk about the reform of local government, all those who come into this House perform two roles. Many of us end up doing local work which should be the remit of councillors.
I must interrupt the Deputy. The debate will be adjourned until next week.
Debate adjourned.