Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Dec 1983

Vol. 102 No. 7

Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill: Second Stage.

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

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

The purpose of this Bill is to specify the total number of Members of the Dáil, to revise the constituencies for the election of Members to the Dáil and to prescribe the number of Members to be returned for each constituency.

In considering the Bill it is necessary to have regard to the provisions of Article 16.2 of the Constitution, in particular to the requirements that

(a) 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 through the country, and

(b) the Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once in every twelve years with due regard to changes in distribution of population.

The constitutional provisions relating to the revision of Dáil constituencies came before the High Court and the Supreme Court in two well-known cases in the early sixties. The courts, however, did not lay down what variation from the national average number of persons per Deputy would be permissible in the formation of constituencies, nor did they indicate whether the Constitution requires equality of representation as between constituencies at all times or only at the time of a revision. There is, thus, a lack of authoritative guidance on these important questions.

The previous Dáil constituency revision took place in 1980 on the basis of the census of population taken in April 1979. When a further census taken in April 1981, disclosed shifts in population, particularly within the greater Dublin area, a revision of constituencies was put in train by the Government. An independent commission were appointed and given the same terms of reference as those given to the commission which drew up the 1980 proposals, with the addition that, given the short period of time which had elapsed since the last revision of constituencies, the commission should take account of the desirability of effecting the minimum changes. As Senators are aware, the commission's function was purely advisory. The Constitution places the obligation to revise the Dáil constituencies on the Oireachtas.

The commission's report recommended that there should be no change in the overall membership of the Dáil or in the allocation of seats to individual constituencies. As regards the definition of constituencies, no change is recommended apart from and there are only two in the entire scheme of the constituency boundaries for the country:

(i) the transfer of an area with a population of 10,830 from Dublin South-West to Dublin South-Central, and

(ii) the transfer of an area with a population of 5,783 from Dublin West to Dublin Central.

The Bill proposes to implement the commission's proposals in full. Senators will note that although only four constituencies are affected by the changes, all the constituencies are defined anew in the Schedule. This is to ensure that the revision now proposed is a revision within the meaning of Article 16.2 of the Constitution.

As Senators have already received copies of the commission's report indicating the changes proposed in these four constituencies, I do not think it necessary for me at this stage to comment in relation to any of these individual constituencies. Maps indicating the territorial changes proposed have been deposited in the Oireachtas Library.

In conclusion, I should like, on behalf of the Government, to express appreciation at the manner in which the commission have done their job and to place on the record of the House our thanks to the members of the commission, Mr. Justice Walsh of the Supreme Court, Mr. Turpin, Secretary of the Department of the Environment, and the Clerk of the Dáil, Mr. Rayel. I am sure that the House will wish to be associated with this expression of appreciation.

Mr. M. O'Toole

This is a very non-contentious Bill. We on this side of the House claim a certain amount of credibility for having the Bill before us in a non-contentious fashion because in the first instance we were of the Government who decided on setting up an independent commission to deal with the arranging and re-arranging of constituencies. The previous legislation gave power to the Minister for the Environment to revise the constituencies. The two Ministers who were responsible for the last two revisions were not successful, whether by luck or by guidance or by whatever method employed, but it did have a certain measure of reaction for both of them. However, I welcome the independent commission although nothing contentious has arisen as a result of the two reports and indeed on this occasion because of the short time since the last revision until the second commission sat — it was a very short period — no changes of any account occurred.

Regarding the major rural five-seat constituencies, I should like to give an idea of the vast difference between a Dublin constituency or a five-seater that would be about two miles square and my own constituency that I know well from Shrule Bridge on the Galway border to Blacksod on the North side of the constituency and which is more than 100 miles in extent. That is an indication of the difference between the two types of constituencies we are legislating for today. Some consideration must be given to that imbalance. There are also the two-county constituencies of Carlow-Kilkenny and Cavan-Monaghan. We know it is not easy for any Deputy to represent a two-county constituency and give it the kind of servicing that a constituency should be given.

To go back to the time when we went to the country on the issue of the single-seat, one-vote constituency, it was regrettable on that occasion the Irish people decided against the proposal. Unfortunately it was made a political issue. If a similar proposal were to come now from the commission rather than from the Government of the day, I think the Irish electorate would assess it on an equal basis and give a different result. The electorate would have a safety valve because they would have one representative representing a locality or a number of voters but who could be removed at the next election if he was not giving the performance that was required of him.

If one happens now to be a member of any political party, through the channels of selection that obtain, one can be selected and can serve for a long time under the new legislation. I am glad to see that the rural vote has changed somewhat, that it is now increasing rather than decreasing. When that tolerance proposal was put to the people, the west coast of Ireland lost seven seats to the city of Dublin. That was a major loss on that occasion. We are reversing that trend and with the prolificacy of the rural people of Ireland I have no doubt but that we will get these seven seats back in a very short time.

Mr. Quinn

I hope the Senator is not taking personal credit for that.

Mr. M. O'Toole

I am not but I have contributed my share.

Mr. O'Leary

In other words, the Senator will stand on his record.

Mr. M. O'Toole

The tolerance of 18,000 to 22,000 should be much reduced in the rural areas and increased somewhat in the bigger Dublin areas and the bigger areas where there is density of population. However, I do not want to dwell any longer on that only to say that it is a good trend to see the increase in rural population.

I might ask the Minister at this stage if it is the intention of the Minister for the Environment to hold the local elections in 1984. If the Minister is not in a position to answer that when replying I shall have to conclude that the Government may not have made up their minds at this time, but the Minister for the Environment did say that he would make a statement before Christmas on the issue. I would welcome the Minister of State making the announcement here this evening and thereby giving the country registrars, who are now the county secretaries, an opportunity of putting their own house in order in time for the local government election.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Browne)

This does not arise but there may be a passing reference to it.

Mr. M. O'Toole

I am afraid I have not very much more to say on the Bill only to compliment the members of the commission, Mr. Justice Walsh, Mr. Turpin, Mr. Rayel and the other people who were associated with bringing the report before us. It has gone through the other House with very little comment, but some recommendations should go to the commission for further revision. I am sure that with the population trends that will not take 12 years but may be a much shorter period. Some recognition should be given to the tolerance issue and to the rural geographical spread of Deputies today.

Mr. Durcan

As Senator O'Toole has said, this Bill, which is non-contentious, gives effect to the recommendations of the Dáil constituency commission. The terms of reference of that commission referred to the fact that such a short period of time had passed since the last commission reported and accordingly the terms of reference were only amended in one respect, namely, that the commission should take account of the desirability of accepting the minimum change possible. In doing their work the Commission have done just that. I would join with Senator O'Toole and the Minister in complimenting the commission for the work they have done, particularly when one bears in mind the fact that they were appointed on 27 April, 1983 and reported on July 29. It is their report which is embodied in this legislation.

I agree entirely with every word that Senator O'Toole said in relation to the situation existing in rural constituencies. While the matter may not arise directly on this Bill it arises indirectly, because the Bill is concerned with implementing the constitutional provisions dealing with membership of Dáil Éireann. There are specific constitutional provisions in that regard. People who represent urban constituencies have no idea, and certainly have no understanding, of the physical and mental strain which representation of a rural constituency imposes.

Senator O'Toole referred to the situation existing in Mayo west where one can travel from Shrule Bridge to Blacksod Bay and right up further to north Mayo. He is probably incorrect in saying it is 100 miles. It is probably closer on 120 miles or 130 miles. I can speak from experience as a part-time politician, starting off at 7 o'clock in the evening and doing a mere two clinics in the north Mayo area and not arriving home until 3 or 4 in the morning. On such occasions I would have driven 162 miles. That is something that I and other people representing constituencies like Mayo West have to repeat.

This Government, who are committed to reform in many areas, should consider a reform of the electoral laws and of the Constitution dealing with electoral provisions. I do not think that anybody representing a vast geographical area such as those of us from the west must represent can give proper representation or do their jobs properly as legislators bearing in mind the strain which covering that vast area imposes. Furthermore, I am not satisfied that the multi-seat constituency situation is conducive to good politics. Let us be blunt about it, all of us here operate within multi-seat constituencies and one is frequently more conscious of strains operating within one's own party than the natural strain which operates against your natural political opponent. The abolition of multi-seat constituencies would give rise to much healthier politics. I am not admitting or suggesting that any such strain exists in my own constituency — it does not — but it arises in many constituencies.

Mr. Smith

We will lead you up to that point.

Mr. Durcan

If we are to have healthy politics that must be examined. Personally I would favour the introduction of single seats with proportional representation. That was referred to as the Norton amendment in the sixties when the matter last went before the people. There is a very important need for reform there, and I hope that the Government will consider taking some steps in that direction.

I support the Bill in so far as it gives effect to the minimum change and county boundaries are breached to the least possible extent.

Mr. McMahon

I do not think that there will be any great discussion on this Bill because it changes only very slightly the boundaries on which the last general election was fought. Indeed, the only change that has taken place is in or around the Dublin area. Four constituencies are affected, but in effecting those changes very many people in these areas concerned will feel aggrieved because most people living there do not yet realise what is happening in the Bill because little attention has been given to it in the past and it is not easy to follow. The commission's brief was to have consideration to natural and county boundaries.

Unfortunately in the Dublin area very many people pay little regard to the boundary between the Dublin city and county area, which in many instances represents a greater division than the boundaries between many counties. It has been and still is necessary to couple two counties or parts of two counties into the one constituency. There is not a great deal of harm in that although rivalry may arise in the counties concerned, but they have an opportunity in most instances of electing a representative to the Dáil from both counties. The population of the area which I have represented since I was first elected to the Dáil in 1970 and on the county council since 1965 is almost 11,000 and I have come to know those people pretty well. I am referring to the area of Templeogue and Orwell which is moving for the first time from being a county constituency to a city constituency. Many of these people have expressed their dislike of this boundary change.

I would appeal to the Department to ensure that boundary commissions in future will pay greater regard to this division between county and city. People from other county constituencies may not see any great distinction there, but anyone who has lived in Dublin county, particularly anyone who has represented the county or on the other side has represented the city will realise the pride that people have in the area in which they live. To put it bluntly, they do not like being moved as a small unit from the county end into a much larger unit in the city end or vice versa. At one stage Ballyfermot was in the west county constituency and Churchtown was in the south county constituency. People living in such areas resent these constituency changes, and we should take note of their resentment and avoid it if at all possible. It could have been avoided on this occasion. A good deal of latitude was allowed and the commission could have recommended, for instance, increasing the representation in the south-west constituency and perhaps taking in another portion of the county area. The city and county of Dublin are now big and populous enough to allow for the moving of lines without crossing the city-county boundary. However the boundaries are changed within the city it should be possible to have city constituencies without taking in portions of the county to have proper representation in county constituencies confined to county areas.

Apart from that I do not think that anyone could complain about the Bill. We hope that we will not see a general election for another four years. By that time the representative-population ratio will have changed from what it was when the commission sat. In the south-west and west Dublin county constituencies there is a great movement of population, and even since the commission submitted the report of their deliberations the population had changed and that trend will continue. I understand that there will not be a further sitting of this commission until after the next census. I am not sure when that is due, but I am pretty sure that we will not have a revision of constituencies before the next election. By the time we arrive at that stage we will be back to square one as we were in the last two elections where in south-west Dublin we were electing four TDs where it was almost possible on the ratio to elect five. By the time the second election came the ratio should have permitted a fifth seat. Perhaps the commission should have waited until we had another census before sitting and we should have another census before another election is due.

Mr. O'Leary

I do not intend to make a long speech on this Bill. There are a number of things that we should refer to in considering Second Stage and the principle of the Bill which is before us. It is reasonable to say that the position concerning the revision of the constituencies has reached an intolerable stage. The idea that a constituency revision must follow every census is absolutely ludicrous. Government faced with the necessity of taking a census for one reason or another, either because of the necessity to get internal information concerning the population structure of this country or as a part of international exercise as members of the EEC or some other body, now have to consider the electoral and political significance of a simple thing like having a census.

The next census in Ireland is due to take place either in 1984 or 1986, that being five years after 1979 or five years after 1981. It is probably due to take place in April 1986. This Government were elected in November 1982 and if they run their full course a general election will take place in the latter portion of 1987, at which stage a new census would have been published. A census taken in April 1986 would probably be published less than one year later. Therefore, we would have the ludicrous situation when, having established the position in this Bill, prior to the next general election the constituencies would have to be revised again. That makes no sense whatsoever. Successive Governments have failed to tackle the problem that arose as a result of the successful challenge in the O'Donovan case of the constitutionality of a previous Electoral Amendment Bill and to make use of the many opportunities of a non-controversial nature to amend the Constitution and get rid of this necessity to have a revision every time there is a census. A simple revision of the Constitution to say that a revision of the constituencies should take place once every 12 years would solve the problem. That would mean that at the end of the 12-year period you would use whatever up-to-date census exists. Do the Members of this House and, more importantly, the Members of the other House, realise that these are not necessarily the constituencies on which the next general election will be fought? What more ludicrous a situation can one have than to be presenting a Bill to the Dáil and Seanad which will copper-fasten the electoral laws now but might be completely out of date before the next general election?

There is some doubt as to the legality of a general election held in the time between the publishing of the census and the enabling legislation to change the constituencies. This Electoral Amendment Bill could become law and a new census in April 1986 would be published in January or February 1987. Between that and a new Electoral Amendment Bill to take into account the changes shown up in that census of 1986 it might be, at least in theory, impossible to hold a legal general election in that time. That all arises because successive Governments have failed to tackle the problem that arose as a result of the O'Donovan case. I would recommend to the Minister that he give very serious consideration to this serious problem. During the course of the next few years he should take a suitable opportunity of some amendment to the Constitution to include a simple amendment to get rid of the necessity to have a revision of the constituency boundaries more frequently than once every 12 years. A very simple, non-controversial amendment would do that.

The constituencies established in the Bill — with the exception of the area dealt with by my colleague Senator McMahon — are those on which the last three general elections were fought. Those general elections reflected generally the views of the people in that the number of seats which parties got reflected the share of the national vote they achieved on each of those three occasions.

That aside, the Bill is quite acceptable and has our complete support. I urge the Minister to take an initiative at a suitable time between this and April 1986 to ensure that the lacuna will not exist in early 1987 where a legal general election may not be possible under the law as it now stands.

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

I thank the Senators for the succinct comments on this legislation. As they have correctly pointed out, it has been well debated elsewhere and it is substantially the same as the set of constituencies that were proposed and devised by the first commission. Indeed, the terms of reference are essentially the same.

The difficulties that rural constituencies have and rural-based public representatives face are genuine. They have a series of problems related to the geography and the distances the representatives must travel. They do not necessarily have a monopoly on such problems, because there are corresponding although different problems for urban areas. For any public representative of any political party the process and job representation are becoming increasingly difficult irrespective of whether you live in a rural area or an urban area.

I must in all honesty say that the points raised by Senators — particularly Senator O'Toole and Senator Durcan — really do not bear on this legislation. What they suggest as an alternative is a major constitutional change which this country can decide if it so chooses. On the question raised by Senator McMahon about the Dublin city and county boundary problem, by the next time we come to revise the constituencies in the Dublin area there may not be either a Dublin corporation or a Dublin county council and the boundaries he refers to may be boundaries of history. You cannot any longer maintain the fiction that the increase in the population in the area of Tallaght — which was 1,200 in the census of 1961 and is now somewhere in the region of 70,000 — has been due to the fecundity that Senator O'Toole referred to of the people of the west of Ireland ——

Mr. M. O'Toole

Prolificacy.

Mr. Quinn

Yes, so many people who consider themselves Dubliners live in that area. I realise what Senator McMahon is saying and I hope that in time the people who are moved in the two constituencies — it is a minimal change — will feel that they are being properly represented.

The revision factor raised by Senator O'Leary is a legal point, and Article 16.2.3º 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 shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same. Normally this was done on a 12-year basis, but the O'Donovan case requires it to be done more frequently. It would need a point of law to be stated to the Supreme Court to have it clarified or a political decision to change the Constitution to be more precise in the way in which we do it. It raises a long-term problem for this country. If our population continues to grow at the projected rate and we have an extra million people living within the State between now and the year 2000 — which is only 17 years away — it would represent something in the region of 50 extra Members, if my arithmetic on a quick tot is correct, on the ratio of 20,000 persons per Dáil Deputy.

Mr. O'Leary

Oh, Lord, deliver us.

Mr. Quinn

Yes. At some stage that question will have to be addressed, but not in the context of this legislation. I would point out to Senator O'Leary regarding the fear he expresses about the possible legal validity of the next general election — which in all probability will be held in 1986-87 certainly at the end of four years — that while the census is due to be held in 1986 the results of it would not be available for another year and a half and then the courts would hold that it would be reasonable to allow for some time before any change. Therefore, any doubt about the legal validity of an election result is a very small one. Having said that, I would like to thank the Senators for their contributions. Senator O'Toole asked me to refer to the local elections, and all I can do is to repeat what the Minister said in the other House in relation to this matter, that the present situation is that the local elections are to be held in June 1984. That is the position, and I have no further comment to make in relation to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.