Beartaítear ag an mBille seo na dáilcheantair a athmheas ag féachaint do na hathraithe ar dháileadh an daonra a léiríodh sa Daonáireamh a rinneadh sa bhliain 1966.
Faoi réir an Acht Toghcháin (Leasú), 1961, céad daichead is ceithre chomhalta an líon comhaltaí atá i nDáil Éireann anois. Nuair a bhí an tAcht sin faoi bhráid an Oireachtais, glacadh go foirleathan leis an líon sin. Ghlac an Dáil leis, freisin, san díospóireacht ar an mBille seo agus, mar sin, ní beartaítear an líon comhaltaí a athrú. Ós rud é go bhfuil Acht na bliana 1961 á athghairm anois beartaítear an fhoráil sin a athachtú in Alt 2 den Bhille seo.
Ag féachaint don bhreith a thug an Ard-Chúirt ar an Acht Toghcháin (Leasú), 1961, bhí iachall orainn ag socrú na Dáilcheantair nua dúinn, deimhin a dhéanamh de nach mbeadh an líon daoine os coinne an teachta, os ionn ná faoi bhun, an meánlíon náisiúnta méid is mó ná míle duine i gcás ar bith. Lena chois sin, thugamar aird ar an gcoibhneas atá idir an daonra agus líon na dtoghthóirí sna codanna éagsúla den tír sa dóigh nach mbeadh difríocht rí-mhór idir fiúntas an vóta in áit amháin seachas áit eile. Thugamar aird, freisin, ar theoranta na gcontaethe, ach ag féachaint do na forálacha Bunreachta agus do bhreitheanna na gcúireanna ina dtaobh, níor éirigh linn na teoranta san a choinneáil slán ach i gcorchás.
Forálaíonn Alt 3 gurb iad na Dáilcheantair a shonraítear sa Sceideal a ghabhann leis an mBille seo a bheidh ina Dháilcheantair tar éis an céad lanscor eile ar Dháil Éireann agus forálaíonn Alt 4 gurb é an líon comhaltaí a shonraítear sa tríú cholún den Sceideal a thoghfar do gach Dáilcheantar ar leith díobh. Sna haltanna eile, leagtar amach na forálacha is iondúil a bheith i mBille dá leithéid seo.
The purpose of this Bill is to revise the Dáil constituencies in the light of the 1966 Census of Population.
Section 2 provides for a Dáil membership of one hundred and forty-four which is the same as the existing membership and the maximum permissible under the Constitution. There was broad agreement on this in 1961, when constituencies were last revised, and, indeed, in the Dáil debates on the present Bill.
Section 3 provides that after the next dissolution of Dáil Éireann, the constituencies will be those specified in the Schedule to the Bill and section 4 provides that the number of Deputies to be returned for each constituency will be as set out in the third column of the Schedule.
The remaining sections contain the consequential and transitional provisions usual in a Bill of this kind.
The Schedule to the Bill sets out the constituencies and is, of course, the really important part of the Bill. While detailed discussion of the Schedule would not be appropriate at this stage, I should like to mention briefly some general considerations to which the Government have had regard in connection with this Bill.
Subsection 3º of section 2 of article 16 of the Constitution provides that "the ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country." Having regard to Court rulings on the meaning of this provision it is clear that very many of the present constituencies do not comply with the Constitution and that a revision must be effected before the next election. It is also clear that in devising new constituencies it is necessary to ensure that the population per Deputy in any case should not deviate from the national average by more than 1,000 per Deputy. Within these limits we can have regard to certain factors, especially the ratio of electors to population. There has, so far, been broad agreement on this approach.
The next question to be considered is the size of constituencies. Over the years the tendency has been towards smaller constituencies. At one time we had nine-seat and seven-seat constituencies and the present pattern is one of five, four and three-seat constituencies. The Government have come to the conclusion that the five-seat constituency has proved too unwidely and that no new constituencies of this size should be formed. The two five-seat constituencies provided for in the Bill —Carlow-Kilkenny and Laoghis-Offaly —are existing constituencies and are part of an area which is left undisturbed in the present revision.
This brings me to another important consideration. I think most people will agree that existing constituencies should not be disturbed unnecessarily. For example, the present constituencies of Laoighis-Offaly, Carlow-Kilkenny, Wexford and Wicklow comply with constitutional requirements and are not being disturbed. Many of the constituencies to the north of this area (Cavan, Monaghan and Longford-Westmeath) do not comply and some change affecting these and neighbouring constituencies is necessary. It has been found possible however to retain each of these constituencies by making a number of boundary adjustments and reducing the Kildare representation by one. The same type of approach has been adopted in the area of Munster excluding Clare.
There are, of course, limits to the extent to which constituencies can be shored up in this way. The Census returns reveal a huge disparity between population ratios in constituencies in the Dublin area and the need for an addition of at least four members. In this case nothing less than a complete recasting of constituencies will suffice. In the area west of the Shannon there must be a reduction of at least three members and widespread alteration of constituencies.
I think most people would agree that, in providing for a new scheme of constituencies in Dublin city, we should proceed on a uniform basis. Given the decision not to form new five-seat constituencies, this means that the 27 seats in the city area should be divided into either nine three-seat constituencies or six four-seat constituencies and one three-seat constituency. The latter course, which is the one adopted in the Bill, has the merit that it involves less disturbance of the existing pattern of representation. At present there are three constituencies on the North side and three on the South side. Under the Bill there will still be three North side and three South side constituencies and in addition a central city constituency. Apart from this consideration, it should be remembered that constituencies in the city area are comparatively small in size and from this point of view there would be little advantage in having three-seat rather than four-seat constituencies.
When we consider the area west of the Shannon we find the position is quite different. This area is large in extent and thinly populated. If the 30 seats in this region are to be distributed in a uniform manner the obvious course is to have ten three-seat constituencies as proposed in the Bill. Even on this basis the constituencies will be fairly large in area. Moreover a division on this basis gives a pattern of representation closer to the existing pattern than would be afforded by a division based mainly on four-seat constituencies. I should add that irrespective of the method adopted the boundaries of most counties in the area must be breached.
The question of county boundaries, or rather of counties and the loyalties and sentiment they attract, is very important. Before 1961, constituencies were firmly based on counties. Excluding the four small counties of Carlow, Laoighis, Longford and Leitrim and the counties with which they have traditionally been grouped, each county either constituted a constituency in itself or was divided into two or three constituencies, which were exclusively within the area of the county. The High Court decision of 1961 forced us to abandon this approach and the court's decision was endorsed by the people at the recent referendum. Nevertheless, I think we should still have regard to the existence of counties, although of course within the narrower limits now permitted. The census returns show that most counties either have a level of population which, if the county were dealt with in isolation, would not permit of a ratio of population to Deputy within the permitted limits or are affected by such a disparity in a neighbouring county. Faced with this problem we can adopt either of two approaches. We can merge the counties concerned in huge constituencies consisting of two or more counties or we can retain the identity of each county and bring the population within the permitted level by making boundary adjustments. The second course, which is more consonant with local sentiment, is adopted in this Bill. There is, admittedly, the difficulty that people in the transferred areas may feel themselves disfranchised but this can be largely overcome if the number of people in a transferred area is significant enough to ensure that candidates cannot afford to overlook them. This point has been borne in mind in the drafting of the present Bill.
These, then, are the main considerations to which the Government have had regard in formulating the proposals contained in the Bill. I do not claim that they are the only considerations to which regard should be had or that the application of these general principles automatically produces a single answer. There are very many other ways in which the constituencies could be revised even on the basis of the general approach now being adopted. What I do claim is that the scheme set out in the present Bill is better than any alternative which has come to notice. I will, if necessary, deal with this in more detail at a later stage.
Finally, I have to say that I regret the necessity for this Bill. I particularly regret the reduction in western representation and the breaching of county boundaries. Under the Constitution as it stands no other course is now open to us. It is in this spirit, and bearing in mind that a general election cannot be held until the constituencies are revised, that I urge a speedy passage of this Bill.