Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Dec 1990

Vol. 127 No. 4

Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Second Stage.

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

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

The purpose of the Bill is to fix the total number of Members of Dáil Éireann and to revise the constituencies in order to bring them into line with the provision of the constitution regarding equality of representation.

Under Article 16 of the Constitution a revision must be carried out at least once in every 12 years. Over the past 30 years a revision has in fact taken place after each census of population.

The census taken in 1986 showed major changes in population. In some constituencies the number of persons represented by each Dáil Member was considerably above the national average while in others it was well below that average. This was particularly the case in Dublin. Taking extreme examples, the average number of persons per member in Dublin South-West was 26, 712 while in Dublin Central the average was 18, 346. These are the extreme examples but in other parts of the country the situation was far from satisfactory, for example, areas such as Kildare, Wicklow, Mayo and Roscommon.

Following the practice begun by the Fianna Fáil Government in 1977, an independent commission was set up on 4 May last to advise on the formation of constituencies. The terms of reference given to the commission were announced in the agreed "Programme for Government” and were identical with the terms given to the commission which reported in 1983 and which recommended the scheme of constituencies now in force. The terms were also very similar to those given to the first Dáil constituency commission which reported in 1980.

Of course, the commission is an advisory body only. The Constitution places the responsibility of revising the constituencies on the Oireachtas. While the commission may advise, the decisions and the responsibility are matters for the Oireachtas.

The members of the commission were Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton, President of the High Court, Dr. Kenneth Whitaker, former Governor of the Central Bank, Mr. Thomas Troy, Secretary of the Department of the Environment, Mr. Eamon Rayel, Clerk of the Dáil and Mr. Kieran Coughlan, then Clerk of the Seanad and now Clerk of the Lower House.

I am glad to have this opportunity to thank the members of the commission for the way in which they carried out the job given to them. Revising the constituencies is always a thankless job. No matter what arrangement of constituencies is recommended it is quite certain that somebody will be offended. Some sitting Deputy or intending candidate is bound to feel hard done by, that his chances of election or re-election have been made more difficulty by the new constituencies. I think the members of the commission have earned our thanks for the very fair and evenhanded way in which they did their job.

The members of the commission were, of course, entirely independent in carrying out the task given to them. They were constrained only by the Constitution and the terms of reference.

The commission reported at the end of July. The report was accepted by the Government and published and copies were given to each Member of the Oireachtas. The Bill proposes to implement in full the recommendations made in the commission's report.

A detailed explanatory memorandum has been circulated with the Bill. A set of maps illustrating the proposed new constituencies has been lodged in the Oireachtas Library. A set of maps to a smaller scale has been made available to each Member of the Oireachtas.

Section 2 of the Bill fixes the total number of Members of the Dáil at 166 which is the same as at present. The other sections are the normal provisions found in a constituency revision Bill. The proposed new constituencies are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. These constituencies will come into force on the next dissolution of the Dáil. Until then the present constituencies will continue in force, for example, for the purposes of by-elections. The total number of constituencies will remain at 41. The constituencies set out in the Schedule to the Bill are identical with those set out in the commission's report.

The scheme provides for 12 three-member constituencies, 15 four-member constituencies and 15 five-member constituencies. The new constituencies will involve breaching four county boundaries — those of counties Clare, Kildare, Galway and Waterford.

Sixteen of the constituencies are identical in area with an existing constituency. There are two entirely new constituencies — Longford-Roscommon and Westmeath. The remaining constituencies are subject to boundary changes, to one degree or another, and, in some cases, to changes in seat allocation.

In the Dublin area, there are boundary changes in every constituency with the single exception of Dublin South-West. Dublin Central, Dublin South-Central and Dublin West will each lose one seat and Dublin North and Dublin South-West will gain one seat each. The overall pattern of constituencies in Dublin will, however, remain very much as it is.

A small area of County Clare, containing part of Limerick city suburbs, will be included in the Limerick East constituency. There will be boundary adjustments between four of the five constituencies in Cork. A part of County Galway will be added to each of the two Mayo constituencies, but the part of the county at present contained in the constituency of Roscommon will be restored. Finally, an additional seat will be added to the Wicklow constituency which will be augmented by the addition of part of County Kildare.

Finally I would like to say "thank you" again to the members of the commission for the very competent and fair way they have carried out the difficult job given to them.

I hope Members will feel free to speak on the Bill. I would like to hear a debate on it and I fully appreciate that for Members of both Houses there will be inconvenience but the only thing I would say is that an election is years down the road.

Mrs. Honan

Now we know.

Mr. Connolly

It gives the parties an opportunity to make new arrangements and to adjust to the arrangements that are now being made. I fully appreciate the difficulties it makes for some. It is not easy to please everyone. Senators will not offend me. I understand the position. I am a long time in public life now and I understand the views of Members.

Mr. Manning

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. He is without doubt one of the most popular of the Ministers of State and if I were advising the Taoiseach or if he would listen to me I would say he would make a splendid Minister for Defence. Hopefully, the Taoiseach will bear that in mind as he ponders over his list this Christmas.

I thank the Minister for the assurance he has given us. It is not proper to draw attention to the absence of people in the House but he has assured us that this Government will last the full course and we will have an election-free 1991 and 1992. This is something which many of us would welcome but I wonder if he has consulted with his junior partners on that matter?

We will oppose this Bill for reasons which I will outline as I go along. I agree with the Minister that the revision of boundaries is a tricky and difficult matter even at the best of times and for most politicians there are never the best of times. Somebody is always going to get hurt. Somebody is always going to feel they have been unfairly treated in the drawing of boundaries. In any political environment there is a sense of paranoia, conspiracy and a feeling that people are ganging up to produce a certain kind of result. We all have our own views as to what the ideal boundaries should be.

Traditionally, the drawing of boundaries was done by the Minister for Local Government of the day and until the sixties the system, by and large, was regarded as being fairly done by all parties. From the twenties up to the fifties, there were frequently major changes in boundaries. Carlow-Kilkenny became Carlow-Kildare and then Carlow-Kilkenny again. Whole counties were moved around. There were other changes also of this sort. There was never any feeling among politicians that the system was being manipulated in a way which would give an unfair advantage to any particular party. As politicians we would like to see the job of drawing up the boundaries carried out by the Minister for the Environment of the day. Unfortunately the events of the sixties and seventies have made that very difficult and it is very difficult now to accept that there will be fairness all round.

The changes began in 1959 with the referendum that year where Fianna Fáil, as they were perfectly entitled to do, sought to change the electoral system because it felt we were unlikely to get strong Governments under proportional representation. It was strange coming from Fianna Fáil because the electoral system had served that party and the country very well. We remember at that time Fianna Fáil wanted to change to the straight vote, single seat British system of election. The people said otherwise and a second try was made in 1968. Perhaps that was one of the lost opportunities of Irish politics because in 1968, if the Government had been ready to listen to other groups, we might well have got what was then called the Norton amendment which would have been single seat constituencies with a transferable vote. Whether it would have been better than our present system we can only surmise.

The sixties saw the first deliberate attempt to manipulate boundaries for party advantage. This was one of Mr. Kevin Boland's legacies to Irish politics. It was the first deliberate attempt to change the boundaries to suit one political party and it worked to the advantage of Fianna Fáil at the time. That was followed in the seventies, I regret to say, by a similar exercise by Mr. Jim Tully where he sought to change the boundaries to suit the Coalition parties of the day. In the process he coined a new word, the "Tullymander," which means, in effect, a gerrymander that blows up in your face. It had the effect of helping Fianna Fáil in the 1977 general election.

Those two episodes — Mr. Boland's gerrymander and Mr. Tully's "tullymander"— persuaded most fair-minded people that the time had come to give this job to an independent commission and it was the right decision given what had gone before it. When the Minister spoke about the personnel on this commission, I agree with him entirely on the integrity and eminence of the people involved. Mr. Justice Hamilton is an expert on the drawing of boundaries and is obviously a man of complete integrity, as indeed are all of the other members of the commission. I do not think we can say that the commission was other than independent. It would be wrong to say that the commission was in any way improperly influenced in coming to the conclusions it came to. That would not merely be unfair but untrue. The integrity and the stature of the people involved rule anything of that sort out of the question.

The problem, however, is that a number of the proposals are really quite extraordinary and fly in the face of commonsense, of traditional boundaries, provincial boundaries and so forth. These points have been well made in the other House and it is not my intention to labour them today. It is impossible to justify the creation of the Roscommon-Longford constituency. It breaches a whole series of boundaries — provincial boundaries, health board boundaries and all of the various administrative boundaries. It creates a new artefact the purpose of which is difficult to understand. Likewise, it is impossible to justify the continuation of two three seat constituencies in Mayo with the hacking away of large chunks of Galway to make this possible. Again, I am not saying for one moment that the Minister for the Environment wanted this. He probably did but he did not do anything untoward to bring it about.

Mrs. Doyle

The Senator is much too gentlemanly.

Mr. Manning

It is on that basis that we will oppose this Bill. This is not the time to examine our electoral system, although in the other House a great deal of the debate was taken up with the effects of that system. We are going through a time of constitutional change where all sorts of changes are being spoken of as being possible in the near future and, in the light of that, we should take a very hard look at our electoral system. The only way that system will change will be on as much of an all-party basis as is possible.

The defects in our present system are obvious. The greatest one is that it creates and encourages a very strong sense of clientelism. It creates unnecessary, unrealistic and expensive competition between Members of the Dáil in the same constituency and often in the same party. It puts undue emphasis on the constituency element of a Deputy's or Senator's work to the detriment of the participation by the Deputy or Senator in the work of legislation.

One has only to look at the enormous constituency workload which any Member of the Dáil and most Members of the Seanad will carry, much of which is unnecessary and could be done through the system. Some of it has been encouraged by Members themselves, almost going out touting for business and work because they know this is the basis on which they will be judged when it comes to the election. Unfortunately the more important work of attention to the detail and principles of legislation frequently takes a back seat. Everybody is aware of that. The possibility of single seat constituencies would diminish the amount of competition and the geographic scale of work which has to be undertaken by a Member.

There are very good points in our electoral system. Unlike the UK which has a system of disproportional representation, where the Thatcher revolution was carried out with never more than 44 per cent of the popular vote supporting it and yet that Prime Minister felt she had a mandate to bring about some of the most dramatic changes in the structure of Britain over the past ten years, we do not have a situation here where a party will have a mandate without a majority of votes. We do not have a situation where large sections of the electorate can feel themselves disenfranchised over a long period. For example, in Scotland at present there are ten Tory MPs out of a total of 72. The people of Scotland have laws imposed on them which a majority of their elected representatives consistently oppose. We do not have that sense of alienation under our system.

It is also very important that people keep in touch. Our system ensures that people are in touch, perhaps too much so and too ready to bow to the prevailing winds, but certainly they keep in touch with what is happening on the ground in the constituencies. In many continental countries with the list system, a member can have no constituency work at all and have no contact with the constituency. He can become a bureaucrat who is out of touch with what is happening among ordinary people. Our system ensures that people do stay in touch with what is happening.

The final point is that our system has produced stable and good governments over the years. Perhaps that seems a little bit odd in terms of the 1980s during which all of us fought five general elections. Nonetheless if the Minister is looking at the electoral system these are some of the points I would like him to look at.

If we are in the process of change we should look at the electoral system to this House. It has changed hardly at all over the past 50 years and there are some fairly fundamental questions which we should address. One of them is whether the vocational element of this House is properly served by the present system; whether a stronger role might be given to the various nominating bodies in the filling of seats in this House in conjunction with the present system of election by local representatives. It is something we should look hard at.

We should also look hard at the question of whether university representation is justified at this time. We can all say that the quality of representation from the universities has been particularly high but there is a case to be made as to why the conferring of a degree from two of our universities should entitle a person to two votes or in some cases three votes in a national election. The whole question of the elitist system of university representation is something which any thorough-going review of our electoral system should take a hard look at.

Finally, because there is not really much to say on this Bill, the commission has met, the commission is an independent body; it has done its work and produced a result. We believe it is a flawed report. We believe it is fundamentally wrong as far as two particular constituencies are concerned. We say this without any aspersion on the integrity of the commission but we believe that they have got it wrong. I know that our view is certainly shared by very many of the Members on the other side of the House who may or may not feel free to express their views on this matter. For that reason, we will be opposing the Bill.

Mr. Foley

First, I want to welcome the Minister here and to endorse the sentiments expressed by Senator Manning at the outset in wishing him well in the promotion stakes. I would also say he is most approachable and certainly one of the most popular junior Minister we have.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this very important Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to fix the total number of Members of Dáil Éireann in pursuance of Article 16.2.2º and in pursuance of clause 4º of the same Article, to revise the constituencies in respect of which members are elected to the Dáil.

In summarising the constitutional requirements in relation to membership of the Dáil and to constituency formation these can be set out as follows: (1) the number of Members must be fixed from time to time by law; (2) there must be at least one member for every 30,000 of the population and not more than one for 20,000; (3) 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 possible, be the same throughout the country; (4) the Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once every 12 years with due regard to changes in the distribution of the population and the number of Members to be returned for any constituency shall not be less than three.

The commission recommends that the total membership of Dáil Éireann shall remain at the present figure of 166 and that the seats shall be arranged in 41 constituencies as follows: 14 with five members, 15 with four members and 12 with three members. The proposed five-seat constituencies are Carlow-Kilkenny, Cavan-Monaghan, Cork North-Central, Cork South-Central, Dublin South, Dublin South-West, Dun Laoghaire, Galway West, Kildare, Laois-Offaly, Limerick East, Meath, Wexford and Wicklow. the proposed four-seaters are Clare, Cork East, Dublin Central, Dublin North, Dublin North-Central, Dublin North-East, Dublin North-West, Dublin South-Central, Dublin SouthEast, Dublin West, Longford-Roscommon, Louth, Sligo-Leitrim, Tipperary South and Waterford. The proposed three-seaters are Cork North-West, Cork South-West, Donegal North-East, Donegal South-West, Galway East, Kerry North, Kerry South, Limerick West, Mayo East, Mayo West, Tipperary North and Westmeath.

Fifteen of the proposed constituencies are identical in name, area and representation with the existing constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny, Cavan-Monaghan, Cork East, Donegal North-East, Donegal South-West, Kerry North, Kerry South, Laois-Offaly, Limerick West, Louth, Sligo-Leitrim, Tipperary North and Tipperary South, Waterford and Wexford.

The following county boundaries are breached: (a) part of County Clare, population 2,625, is included in the proposed constituency of Limerick East; (b) part of County Kildare, population 10,061, is included in the proposed Wicklow constituency; (c) part of County Galway is included in the Mayo East constituency, population 4,443, and in Mayo West constituency, population 3,868; (d) as at present, part of County Waterford, population 2,661, is included in the constituency of Tipperary South.

A provincial boundary is breached by joining in a single constituency Counties Longford and Roscommon.

The national average population per Member is 21,329. The highest number of persons per Member is the prososed constituency of Louth which is identical with the existing constituency and has a population per Member of 22,953, 7.61 per cent above the national average. The lowest is in the proposed constituency of Tipperary North which, again, is identical with the existing constituency and has an average of 19,841 persons per Member, 6.98 per cent below the national average.

The first revision of constituencies by an independant commission was carried out in 1980 at which substantial departure from mathematical equality was adopted. The greatest departure from the national average in that revision was 6.4 per cent. In the revision in 1983 the greatest departure was 7.9 per cent. In the scheme of constituencies proposed by the present Bill the average per Member in the cases of the individual constituencies ranges from 7 per cent below the national average to 7.6 per cent above the present.

The Bill proposes to implement the scheme in constituencies recommended by the commission established for the purpose in May last. The terms of reference given to the commission were in essence the same as those given to the first Dáil Constituency Commission which reported in 1980, identical with those given to the commission which reported in 1983.

An interesting feature was that the commission, by way of advertisements, invited submissions and 58 submissions were received and considered by the commission. A list of the persons and organisations who presented submissions is contained in the fourth appendix of the original report. The commission has no constitutional or statutory standing. It was established by the Government to advise on the formation of constituencies in accordance with the terms of reference specified by the Government. The Government have no authority to make recommendations which would be outside or in conflict with the terms of reference.

The constituencies now proposed are those recommended by the commission. Their report was published in full last September.

The fact that so many people on all sides of the House are dissatisfied with the Bill shows the true independence of the commission's report. We can see where constituencies of senior Ministers have been torn apart. This is a clear indication that no collusion whatsoever took place. It is also quite evident that the report will create many problems for TDs on the Government side. Contrast this with the silence from the Opposition parties who seemingly are relieved in so far as the vast majority of them will not have a problem. Again, this lends credence to the independence of the commission. There is no doubt that the members of the commission were, of course, entirely independent in carrying out the task given to them. They were constrained only by the Constitution and the terms of reference.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mrs. Hederman

I am happy to have the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill and I would like to say to the Minister that I do not feel hard done by at all as far as the Bill is concerned. I will not be speaking from any personal viewpoint. Each time I stood for the local elections, in 1974, 1979 and 1986 the constituency for which I stood was nearly as big as a Dáil constituency and on each occasion it was dramatically and drastically changed. This, if I am thinking of standing for the Dáil it would be very difficult to carve it up yet again in such a way that it could inconvenience me. I think it is important that as few changes as possible should be made in constituencies.

With regard to some very uncomplimentary remarks which were made about the composition of the commission, I take the view that they are very distinguished persons in public service and I certainly would not want to show any doubt about the impartiality with which they carried out their functions. However, I believe that as few changes as possible should be made in constituencies because I know, as I am sure many other public representatives know, the difficulties which people experience with regard even to knowing who are their public representatives. It is very often the case, particularly in a country area, that if people talk about a problem and you ask if they had been to see their local councillor, they do not know who they are. Equally, they do not know their Deputies. The more changes that take place, the more people are pushed around from one constituency into another, them more problems will arise for them.

It also creates very severe problems when the time comes to vote. Even a simple factor of changing the polling station can, in itself, cause enormous problems for people. They get confused. They have been going to one polling booth for a great number of years and they cannot understand if they are told to go somewhere else. They do not always get their voting card and they turn up at the wrong place. There is a duty on us public representatives to do everything we can to encourage and facilitate people. It is part of the democratic process. The number of people voting in elections is not as high as I think we would like it to be and, for that reason, it is extremely important that we do as little as possible to confuse people.

With regard to the specific change which has been made in the Roscommon-Longford constituency, I certainly share the remarks of other speakers. It appears to breach boundaries in regard to European elections, in regard to provincial and health board boundaries and certainly it must be very confusing. The fact also that part of the Galway constituency has been put into Mayo has made people in that areas very unhappy. That will lead to considerable confusion.

I would like to support the remarks made by Senator Manning with regard to the Norton amendment, the idea of having a single seat constituency with PR, the transferable vote. I certainly support his comments with regard to the extent to which the present multi-seat constituency encourages clientelism and encourages competition between Deputies, or indeed councillors, for a particular area, It puts an enormous extra and unnecessary burden on the public servants who have to try to deal with repetitive queries.

With regard to election to the Seanad I greatly regret that the vocational element has gone. The Seanad is now very heavily party politically controlled.

The remarks with regard to the university Senators appear to make sense on the surface and I support what Senator Manning said, that at the moment only two of the universities have voting rights, I would be very enthusiastic to see the new universities that have been created entitled to the same rights as the universities that elect Senators at the moment.

The only Independents in this Chamber are the university Senators and it is now the situation where we have, sadly, a Seanad which is party controlled. The Dáil, understandably, is party controlled. The nominations for the Presidency, the highest role in the land which is supposed to be non-party political, are party controlled. Worst of all, there is the control of local authorities by parties. This is something which I bitterly regret because it has a very damaging influence in country areas and, in fact, in the whole country. The reason for this is very obvious, it is very important for the parties to keep a tight control on local authorities because they, in turn, vote for Senators. This is something which is damaging and unhealthy to our democracy, and something which I would like to see ended. I hope the Local Government Reform Bill for which I have been pressing so strenuously, will make some meaningful changes. I will believe them when I see them.

It is regrettable that there have been so many upheavals, some of them unnecessary. For that reason I will be opposing the Bill.

Mr. Dardis

May I welcome the Minister to the House this morning. The Progressive Democrats have no hesitation in supporting the Electoral (Amendment) Bill and I will outline the reasons why that is the case. Before doing that, I would like to pay tribute to the members of the Boundaries Commission for their enormous contribution to the task of producing the raw material for this Bill. My party are glad to associate ourselves with tributes to the people involved.

While we support the Bill, that is not to say that the party and I have not some reservations about it. We are taken aback by some of its recommendations, some of which we feel are lacking in logic; in fact, some of them have been described as being utterly grotesque. We cannot have our loaf and eat it. We wanted an independent commission. That is what we got and we have to put up with its findings. The priority above all else is that the commission operates independently, that it be established independently, that it work within terms of reference which are broad enough to allow it to do its job effectively and, having reached its conclusions, we abide by those conclusions.

I believe an independent commission can only be fully independent if it is given the full resources to carry out its function. It would be preferable for it to have an independent secretariat, so that in all its deliberations it be totally divorced and separate in its working from any Government Department. It should not be dependent on a Government Department because, obviously, within that framework it is open to certain influences.

Within the draft constitution which has been prepared by the Progressive Democrats there is incorporated a suggestion that it should be Uachtarán na hÉireann who should be given responsibility for this matter. There is much merit in that recommendation and I raise it here this morning to emphasise again the multitude of benefits that could accrue from significant and comprehensive constitutional reform. It is just one of many aspects, some of which we have discussed in this House over recent weeks in relation to the Constitution. It is quite clear that in this respect and in other respects in relation to Articles 2 and 3 and in relation to how the trend towards European union will put demands on us to hold referenda, that overall constitutional reform is an important question that needs to be addressed.

In the main we are pleased with the recommendations which are in this Bill and its implementation will ensure the continuation in this country of a predominantly fair, proportional and politically inclusive electoral system. It has been quite clear over the years that the people of Ireland want to maintain that tradition of proportionality which is central to our electoral system and that the rights of minorities to have their voices heard within the Oireachtas, the rights of smaller parties to be represented here, should be enshrined within our electoral system.

It is obvious to anybody who looks at the British system that is very undesirable that a party which can command quite a significant share of the popular vote can wind up with such a small proportion of seats within the Parliament. That is not a desirable trend. It is the foundation of our democratic process that smaller elements within the political system should be represented within the Parliament and a system that can facilitate representation within the Parliament of the widest range of political opinion, protecting in so far as is practicable the democratic rights of the minority within our community, is to be recommended. I would remind the House that the Progressive Democrats have had a strong role in bringing this about.

It is a matter of public record that as part of the agreed Programme for Government, published in July of last year when the Government were formed, that one of the clauses agreed then and advanced by the Progressive Democrats was the prescription in terms of reference for a commission to review the Dáil constituency boundaries and that those terms of reference would retain to the greatest degree possible the present three, four and five seat constituencies and would effect minimum changes in the present layout. The final outcome of the report has been faithful to those requirements.

The commission recommended and the Bill proposes the arrangement of 41 Dáil constituencies made up of 14 five seaters, 15 four seaters and 12 three seaters. That compares with the present pattern of 15 five seaters, 13 four seaters and 13 three seaters. There is very little difference in the overall make-up of the constituencies and that, of course, is within the terms of reference within the report.

That can be contrasted with the arrangement that was arrived at by the 1988 boundary commission which took its terms of reference from a single party minority government. The commission recommended a reduction in the number of five seat constituencies from 15 to five and there would have been 21 four seaters and 19 three seaters. That underlines the undesirability of a single party drawing up the terms of reference under which a commission would operate. It is an important principle that should not be the remit of a single party to do that because any party in power or any party who feel that they are in a position to affect the outcome as to what the boundaries should be, to their own advantage, will try to copperfasten that system and to see to it that their own position will be upheld by the report. That is not in the national interest and it is not in the interest of the Parliament. It is clear that within Northern Ireland over many years some of the very serious difficulties there were created by the desire of a single party to copperfasten this electoral position forever. The word "gerrymander" originated from that part of the country. For that reason, it is imperative that there should be an independent method of establishing what the boundaries should be and that they should conform to the requirements of the Constitution in relation to the number of people represented by a Deputy within the Dáil. Happily, for healthy democracy and the survival of smaller parties the package which was recommended in 1988 was stillborn.

What the Progressive Democrats secured in prescribing the terms of reference for the 1990 commission was a repeat of terms of reference used in 1979 and repeated in the early eighties and in the view of politicians and commentators generally, that served the country well and produced a pattern of Dáil constituencies which was broadly fair, proportional and accommodating of the diverse range of democratic political opinion within the country. The key provisions, therefore, of the terms of reference guiding the 1990 boundary commission included the vital provision ordaining "the retention of the traditional pattern of three seat, four seat, and five seat constituencies and the desirability of effecting the minimum changes".

The Progressive Democrats can take a degree of pride in the fact that we have been able to influence the continuation of this broad based, fair and proportional constituency alignment across the country. The people generally and the various political parties will acknowledge, at least in private if not in public, the very worthwhile role we have played in this regard.

Given that the task of revising the constituencies was left exclusively to the constituency commission, there is no option but to accept their findings. However, the Progressive Democrats would be dismayed to some degree by some of the recommendations. We find them incomprehensible, particularly the retention of the existing two three seat constituencies in Mayo when most people presumed that the logical outcome would have been the creation of a single five seat constituency in that county.

Deputy McCreevy, in a radio broadcast shortly after the publication of the commission's findings, said that he thought this all originated from one parish and he could tell us the parish. He did not do so but the inference was that it was in Mayo and that everything spread from that parish. That may not be a very realistic interpretation but there is widespread public disquiet about the fact that Mayo was left in two three seaters, given that geographical surgery was required to achieve this by bolstering up the two Mayo constituencies in numerical terms through the addition of parts of Galway West and Galway East. That led to a domino effect across the country and led to the creation of this political hybrid which everybody speaks about and which I am sure the Cathaoirleach would very much like to speak about if he had access to the floor of the House, that is, the political hybrid of Roscommon-Longford which breaches not only county but provincial boundaries. It breaches the boundaries for the European election. There are only two points of geographical contact between the two counties, two bridges across the Shannon. It does not seem sensible, even within the terms of reference of the report, to have carried out that type of surgery.

In my constituency of Kildare, people find it extraordinary that towns like Kilcullen, Castledermot and Ballymore Eustace have now been attached to Wicklow and they are wondering how they can be represented by public representatives who come from Bray or Greystones. Equally, the people of Bray or Greystones might wonder why they might be represented by people from Kilcullen or Castledermot. We will require an election to establish that. It is not in anybody's interest that representatives within that area would be elected to Kildare County Council and might subsequently find themselves representing in the Dáil their constituents in Wicklow.

In the terms of reference (b) says that geographical consideration should be taken into account and (c) says that other well-established characteristics in the formation of constituencies, such as clearly defined natural features, should be taken into account. The biggest natural feature in Wicklow is the mountains. Traditionally, the towns of Blessington, Baltinglass and Dunlavin would have related much more closely to east Kildare than they have to east Wicklow and the towns around the coast. I can recall from the time I was employed by the County Committee of Agriculture in Kildare that the offices in Naas were shared by the advisers from west Wicklow. This was one of the things that underlined the traditional association between west Wicklow and east Kildare. While it would not have been to my personal advantage, it would have been a much more logical thing for Kildare to have been divided into two three-seaters with west Wicklow attached leaving Wicklow as a four-seater rather than to do what has been done, to have Wicklow advanced to a five-seater by the attachment of part of Kildare, and Kildare left as a five-seater. It would have been much more logical to append Leixlip to part of Dublin, given that that town is very much a dormitory town of Dublin. Just as west Wicklow looks to east Kildare, Leixlip relates much more closely to urban Dublin than it does to rural Kildare. They are local matters and matters of disquiet to me. They may not be matters of immense national interest but they are certainly matters that interest the people of the towns of Kilcullen, Castledermot, Ballymore Eustace, Moone and so on. They are quite unhappy about the proposed arrangement.

I am also aware there is disquiet with some of the realignments in the north Dublin area which do not seem to make a lot of sense either. Having agreed to the establishment of such a commission, we are left with no choice but to accept its findings. It appears that the commission's report was not unanimous. Perhaps that indicates reservations such as those I have raised here this morning, that some of the conclusions are somewhat bizarre and illogical. Whereas the concluding sentence of the first chapter of the 1988 commission's report stated that it represented the unanimous recommendations of all members of the commission, this conclusion is notable for its absence from this year's commission reports and it begs the question whether the commission's findings were unanimous or were merely a majority decision. We regard it as a very important principle that the commission would be independent. That was established; it was independent and on that basis we have no choice but to support this Bill.

Mr. Cosgrave

I would like to welcome the Minister to this House. I would also like to pay tribute to the members of the commission, some of whom we know quite well and one of whom worked in this House up to recently. Obviously they had a very difficult task. One could say that an added term of reference was included, namely, "Provided you leave Mayo with two three-seaters you can do what you like after that."

Some aspects of the report are hard to comprehend but we have to accept it as it is. We all have our reservations and we may not like some aspects of it but we must accept the position that the report is there and we cannot amend it. Those of us who have fought elections are always concerned when our constituencies are to be changed or boundaries redrawn. My good friend and colleague here from Galway would probably have spent a lot longer in the other House if part of his area had not been cut in half which virtually ensured that there would not be enough votes to elect him an a particular constituency.

The Mayo position is a bit difficult to comprehend in the fact that there could have been a five-seater there and one would not then have to breach county boundaries. Instead, there is land from parts of Galway. One could also look at the position in Longford-Roscommon. There is nothing wrong with linking up constituencies — we have had Carlow-Kilkenny and the Minister's own constituency of Laois-Offaly and Sligo Leitrim — but in relation to Longford-Roscommon where you are breaching Euro-constituencies, provincial boundaries and where the Shannon divides the constituency, for those of us who are interested in politics as a possible bloodletting exercise, certain heavyweights of all parties will be jousting for the seats involved there. I am glad I will not be one of the people jousting with some formidable people on the different sides. All one can do is wish all of them the best of luck. No doubt people in Longford will be digging up roots in Roscommon and vice versa.

The whole question of multi-seat constituencies has got to be looked at. While, proportionally, it brings about a fairer and more equitable distribution in relation to what the public wants and what the elecorate decide, it does bring up other problems and I will mention a couple of them briefly. First, in relation to multi-seat constituencies — I had the privilege of representing a five-seater constituency but on two occasions I missed out representing it by a handful of votes — five-seaters in particular bring a lot of inter-rivalary between the TDs for an area both in and outside the party. I recall somebody calling to my clinic, after he had been with another TD, and showing me the literature and efforts by the other TD to make progress in relation to this point. Obviously it was a difficult problem because most of us will try and do our best in relation to the problem. I thought I had done quite well in talking to him and when he was leaving he asked me what time another TD held his clinic. I said to myself: "We will be lucky to get one-fifth of a vote each at the end of the day." It does bring certain problems. Numbers of letters can be written to a Department about one problem by TDs and Senators when one phone call could possibly have solved the problem in the first place. That aspect has got to be looked at.

There is also the matter of a person on about 8 or 9 per cent getting elected in a five-seater, as happened in one or two constituencies the last time. As happened in the eighties, it could end up with us having five elections in a short time. While it is up to the public to decide what they want, the vast majority of the electorate did not want five elections in a period such as that. In fact, in the early eighties we had three elections within 18 months. The problem is that one individual can literally hold the country to ransom or bring down the country. Then you have the knock-on effects in relation to a stable market and stable economy.

It is right and proper that there be an election every so often and that the people have a right to change their Government or put in whatever form of Government they want. It is probable that in many elections in the eighties, particularly the last two, the public in the main decided that they wanted a Fianna Fáil Government but not a Fianna Fáil Government with an overall majority. I know Members opposite may not have liked that but one must play by the rules and accept what the electorate decides. None of us here will always agree with what an election result throws up. People have lost out in certain cases but until we find a better system we must abide by what we have in operation. I do not think it right that one or two individuals can hold the country to ransom or bring down the Government or cause all the instability attendent thereon. A few weeks ago when there were rumblings of an election the only people looking forward to it were the printers, provided they could get paid because elections are costing more and more. A matter to be looked at is how much is being spent on elections. It is rumoured that in recent elections some people spent twice a TDs salary trying to get elected. Possibly people could but their way in. That whole area of funding of elections and funding of political parties has got to be looked at. In days of high expenses some State funding, perhaps based on party support, has got to be considered.

In relation to the whole question of multi-seat constituencies, too much time can be spent carrying out a job more appropriate to a messenger rather than a legislative role which one would hope we are all primarily here to do. While other matters have got to be looked at and problems dealt with, too much time can be spent on the phone to Departments, to local authorities and so on trying to get various problems solved and not enough time is spent in the House introducing and discussing legislation. It is important that we look at these aspects.

The commission had a difficult job because they have to stick to the terms of providing a number of three, four and five-seaters, trying as far as possible not to breach county boundaries, trying to maintain a certain proportionality. In many areas the commission have got it right. There are obviously areas which have been mentioned, for instance, Mayo, Longford, Roscommon, and Senator Dardis mentioned putting parts of Kildare in with Wicklow, and other counties where a few thousands votes had to be put in. It was difficult for the commission to arrive at a conclusion that would be universally acceptable but there are certain areas in which it is difficult, logically, to indicate how they arrived at their decisions.

In respect of multi-seat constituencies, it is important that there be a certain proportion of three, four and five-seat constituencies. What emerged in the eighties where no party got an overall majority — an occurrence likely to recur in that it will be very difficult for any one party to reach the elusive 84 seats — should be examined. The government who had the biggest majority after the buy-out in 1977 found that majority was a major problem in that they found themselves hamstrung in their duties because so many backbenchers became worried about losing their seats. It is important that a government should have a working majority, so that they can carry out difficult decisions, govern for a period and then be judged on their performance. That is the way it should be.

I hope the Minister will take into account some of the points raised. There will come a time when we will have to look at how we do our business, how we arrive at an effective electoral system when other systems have been considered in relation to the single transferable vote. What pertains in England is not right, where a smaller party can get so many million votes but only a handful of seats while another party with less than 40 per cent support can end up with an overall majority on a first-pass-the-post system. I thank the commission for doing what was a very difficult task. In some areas it is very difficult to explain how they arrived at a particular decision but we either accept it as a package or we do not.

Mr. Hussey

I will be very brief because I intend to confine my remarks to that area of the commission's report dealing with my own constituency of east Galway. It is normal for a Member, particularly from the Government side of the House, to welcome a Bill but on this occasion I cannot welcome this Bill because, once again, Galway has been singled out for mutilation by the commission. During my whole political career I have seen my constituency of east Galway change from a five-seater to a four-seater to a three-seater. At one stage I represented part of Roscommon and east Galway. Then the famous "Tullymander" took place which took away Roscommon and left us a four-seater constituency in east Galway and that was fine. At least there was no breaching of county boundaries and we were all happy. Then along comes the first independent commission and they decided in their wisdom to breach our county boundaries and put about 4,500 of our voters from north-east Galway into Roscommon.

I was one of the people who knew when I supported that Electoral Bill in 1978 that I was effectively signing away my Dáil seat because the commission had taken away 4,500 of my votes to create a three-seater constituency in Roscommon. This is a terrible disruption to any TD because they find when they are faced with a situation like that that the work they have been doing over the years and the support they have built up is no longer of any use to them. Naturally it is a disruption and it is a disappointment for the electorate also because they find themselves in with a new county. They find themselves being represented by new Members and it is not always the most satisfactory situation for them. If that kind of treatment was handed out to any other professional person, there would be an outcry from unions and others but the TD has to sing dumb because if he criticises it he will be accused of undermining the independence of the commission.

Under this Bill I was delighted to see that the part of Galway which was included with Roscommon since the last revision is now being returned to east Galway — places such as Kiltevnagh, Williamstown, Ballymoe, Glensk and Creggs. However, I am horrified to find that the commission has once again mutilated Galway and decided to transfer 4,443 of our voters in with east Mayo. When this Bill goes through, the district electoral divisions of Adrigool, Belclare, Dunberry, Foxhall, Kilbennon, Killeen and Kilshandy and, of course, Milltown, all of which were in the former rural district of Tuam will now find themselves in with east Mayo, a constituency stretching from Killala to Tuam.

Needless to say, the public representatives from east Galway are most disappointed with this decision, but this disappointment fades into insignificance when compared with the outrange felt by the electorate of those particular district electoral divisions. What is happening here is far more serious than many people realise because we are not just taking our 4,343 people and lumping them into another county. We are dismembering the town of Tuam, cutting away its props because east Mayo now extends right into the town boundary of Tuam. This is happening when I, and other Oireachtas Members from east Galway, are doing our utmost to find industry for that town, to give it a status it is entitled to as the biggest town in our constituency. Why, then, did the commission decide on this line of action? I hope the Minister will give me some answers. It is not just enough to say to me or to the people of east Galway that are affected that Mayo did not have sufficient population to retain six seats. That is their hard luck but why should Galway have to suffer as a result?

I submit that Galway could have been changed to a nine-seater and so avoid breaching the county boundaries. I am certain that Galway is much nearer — or within the guidlines — for nine seats than Mayo was for six. Why then was this option not pursued? I hope the Minister will give me answers to those questions because it is not just me, but the people of Tuam and its hinterland who are affected.

I welcome the proposed census of population next year and I hope the injustice done to Galway will be redressed as a matter of urgency when the census is carried out. I said I would confine my remarks to the area of the report which affects me and I am sure the Minister understands my feelings on this matter and the feelings of the people I represent. It is my duty to express these feelings openly and frankly today. It is the only opportunity one has to do so and I am glad to have put my views on record.

Professor Murphy

If it happens that Senator Hussey feels he will be bound in conscience having said what he said, to vote against the Bill, I will offer the Government my support because I am going to vote for the Bill on the grounds that the report of the independent commissioners really has to be accepted. In university situations we are sometimes faced with similar problems in regard to an assessors's board. I take the point that this commission were not apparently, unanimous, but if a board of experts is set up to consider candidates for a post, for example, and a majority of the members of the academic staff do not like that particular decision, nonetheless they are in duty bound and in the terms of enlightened self-interest to support that decision. Otherwise, the integrity and credentials not only of that board of assessors but of all future boards of assessors is under question.

I suggest that the only logic of those who criticise this Bill is to criticise the commissioners and, by implication, to impugn either their integrity or their competence. That is the logic of the attitude of those who oppose the Bill. You cannot please all of the people obviously. As Senator Dardis pointed out, the changes are not all that great except of course, the shoe pinches certain people. I am sorry about that. Senator Dardis is obviously concerned with a rather Utopian hope that he is going to make a mark in Kildare the next time round. Senator Hussey's prospects are more realistic but are now, apparently, dashed by this development.

I would query one point that Senator Hussey made. He said that the town of Tuam is going to be taken out of his jurisdiction just at a time when there was never more need to press for industry and jobs and so on. There are two fallacies here, one that it is TDs who get the jobs and industry for a particular area and the other is that whoever comes to cultivate that particular vineyard will work at it as assiduously as Senator Hussey has done in the past. Tá seanfhocal ann gurb é a chúram féin a dhéanann buairt do gach eínne. I take that point.

I am not familiar enough with the area west of the Shannon to express any opinion what seems to be a very common emphasis, the situation in Roscommon, Longford, Galway and Mayo. I recall my own town of Macroom and I have taken a very personal interest in elections there ever since boyhood belonged to every possible division of Cork you could possibly think of, west Cork, north-west Cork, mid-Cork and south Cork, but it did not prevent it being ably represented in Dáil Éireann throughout all that period. I think blaming the commission is rather like shooting the messengers. In principle, I will be certainly glad to support this Bill.

The other curious point is that Senators are discussing this Bill in such enthusiastic detail. In an ideal Seanad the only interest which Senators would have in this Bill would be purely academic, namely, that they would be concerned naturally that electoral representation in the other House in as good as possible. They would not be saying, "This destroys my changes of getting back there". All too often here we have this revelation of naked self-interest on the part of Senators. I suppose we have to credit them with honesty. The other day when we were paying tribute to the departing Clerk of the Seanad, Senator after Senator wished him well in the other House and hoped shortly to follow him. That revelation may be honest but it is very revealing of the whole misconception of what the role of this House should be and its prostitution as an anteChamber to the other House.

Mrs. Honan

I did not say that.

Professor P. Murphy

No, indeed, and I will now put on record that Senator Honan is an illustrious exception to the remarks I have just made because her total commitment has always been to this House. I hope I get something in return for that glowing tribute. Mention has been made of the so-called Norton amendment.

Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Professor Murphy

I had been making the point that the interest of Senators in this Bill should be simply that of a concerned interest that the Electoral (Amendment) Bill should be acceptable, that the work of the commission has accorded with its terms of reference and in general a concern that arrangements for the elections to the other House are acceptable. However, as we know and has been only too evident in the speeches here, individual Senators have an interest above and beyond that. I was making the point it is regrettable that, quite unashamedly and nakedly, Members of this House reveal all to often that their only concern is to use this house as a springboard to go back to the Dáil. That is deplorable.

I was referring to the so-called Norton amendment. It is of interest that Deputy Stagg has revived this idea, because the so-called Norton amendment was named after Deputy Patrick Norton and apparently the idea has taken some root in Kildare. There is a lot to be said for the view that there should be more radical provision of the whole representation and that the present unsatisfactory system of competing Deputies in a multiseat constituency should be replaced by one individual who is the undisputed Member for a constituency but who can also claim that he is not there simply by being first past the post, that he is really the choice of a sophisticated electorate, with PR taken into account. There is much to be said for that system, but that is work for another day.

On the larger implications of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, the point has been made that there is no great change intended here, that there will still be maintained the relative distribution of large seat and small seat constituencies and that the effect must be — and this is a tribute to the Government who are bringing in the Bill — to preserve more or less the status quo in electoral terms. No longer will it be possible for any Government to manage the electoral scene to benefit themselves. It never was possible, anyway. Even in the most skilfully stage managed days of gerrymandering, sometimes these gerrymanders, as we know, boomeranged. There is no electoral system which will present the popular will from expressing itself.

It is quite obvious now that the prospect of an overall majority for Fianna Fáil is very remote indeed. I would say that you would get better odds now on Fianna Fáil ever again getting an overall majority than you would get on Cork winning the double again for 1991. I hope so fervently. Overall majorities are very much the exception in Irish electoral history. I think I am right in saying that overall majorities have been achieved only five or six times out of 23 elections and then only when there was a really undisputed and unchallenged charismatic leader in Fianna Fáil, agus ní raibh a leithéid ann ó shin i leith. In regard to the self-deception of Fianna Fáil at the moment, that all they need to do is to work hard and add another 3 or 4 per cent to the hypothetical 43 per cent they have, I really think they are deceiving themselves — and I think it is a good job, too.

There is much about the Progressive Democrats that irritates me, not least their hypocritical presence in this House, but I am glad they are in Government. I think Fianna Fáil need an internal corrective. Whatever other changes this Bill makes, it is not going to make it any easier to achieve what is now becoming the impossible.

Overall, I repeat that I support this Bill. The suggestion has been made that this commission has not been entirely independent. The allegation is that one of the members was politically influenced. I must say I deplore these innuendoes, which will always be made no matter how impeccable the composition of such a commission. The fact is that the commission has reported, its recommendations are now promoted by the Government in this Bill and I am very glad indeed to support them.

Mrs. Honan

I welcome this Bill. I should really welcome it even more now since I have arrived at the stage, for the first time since 1977, that Senator Murphy has been kind to me, has paid me a tribute and, more astonishingly, he has praised the Chief. It must be the end of the world or something.

Professor Murphy

I am always singing your praises.

Mrs. Honan

I thank him sincerely. I would also like to thank the Minister, Deputy Connolly. This morning Senator Manning paid tribute to him for his commitment to this House and I would like to support absolutely my colleague, Senator Manning, in that tribute to the Minister.

This legislation affects Senators. It affects us in a very major way, because every time we have a general election it decides who goes down to the other House and who arrives on our panels back up here again, for whatever period that might be.

A nice thing about the Seanad is the freedom we have here as party members. Senator Hussey could stand up here this morning and say how strongly he felt about this Bill in regard to how Galway has been dealt with in this legislation. That is something you do not get in the Dáil. Senator Hussey has strong views on it, but he felt he had the freedom here this morning to voice those views. That is welcome.

Some Senators will have more of an interest in this because of the realignment of constituencies. I understand the Commission has been at all times completely independent, even though there have been insinuations — not meant, but just insinuations — that it may not have been completely independent. I understand the commission was given the constitutional requirements and terms of reference. I would understand that to be Minister Flynn's role, or the government's role, I am not quite sure.

Reference has been made here this morning to the famous Norton amendment. At that time I felt deeply about it when it was not successful. It was my husband, Derry who was serving at the time. I think it would have changed the whole Irish political scene. We would have had less vying with each other in constituencies for survival, which has happened all too often. In many constituencies you have very good relationships, but in some constituencies you do not. As one of my colleagues said here this morning, people come to all of us in all parties to get something done. They will hand you a letter and say "That is the reply such a person got from a Minister. Perhaps you could do better". That is the reality of political life in Ireland today.

I support this legislation. I do not have any choice. I must comment, however, on the reviews that should take place. The independence of university Senators in this House always defeats me. They seem to think at times that we should not be here, that the plebs should not be here. Let me tell the university Senators that we are directly elected by people who have been directly elected by the people of this nation — all 43 of us. The university Senators should take a look at themselves and at who elects them. We are directly elected by the people of the nation.

The Minister told us in his speech this morning that the commission is only an advisory body and that the Constitution places the responsibility of revising the Constituencies on the Oireachtas. Therefore, any revision of boundaries or constituencies is our responsibility and not that of any private body. I pay tribute to the commission because of its composition. We paid tribute to one of them in the last few weeks. On the basis of those of them I know — certainly a former colleague of mine, Dr. T.K. Whitaker, and of course, Kieran Coughlan — indeed, looking at the names of the members of the Commission nobody could say but that they were independent.

I also noted that there have been since 1923 nine revisions of constituencies and only one of those, the revision in 1959, was found to be unconstitutional. Revisions seem to go on all the time. The Minister saw fit to take away a piece at the bottom end of Clare and give it into Limerick city. I would hate to tell you to whose advantage that is.

Professor Murphy

Tell us.

Mrs. Honan

I do not have to tell you. Then, there is a revision of south Tipperary and Waterford again. We will hold in there. There is another revision somewhere else. We will be all right there.

I welcome this legislation. I welcome it if for nothing else but for the tribute — as I said earlier, I was floored really and I thank him — paid by Senator Murphy to myself and the Chief. Perhaps it is Christmas.

Professor Murphy

Old age.

Mrs. Honan

That accounts for it.

Professor Murphy

The Chief put us here, by the way. The Chief put the university Senators here.

Mrs. Honan

He made other mistakes, too; but that was one, anyway.

Professor Murphy

That is a new one on me.

Mrs. Honan

I would like to thank the Minister for his attention to the Seanad. I support this legislation. As Senator Murphy has put on record, the only way it affects me is: who will, including your good self, a Chathaoirligh, get into the Dáil and be on my panel the next time they come in here. However, that will be for another day.

An Cathaoirleach

I hope I can make a contribution to you.

Pól Ó Foighil

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Connolly. Is trua liom nach bhfuil an tAire Comhshaoil, an Teachta Flynn, anseo, mar ba mhaith liom go n-éisteodh sé le cuid de na rudaí atá le rá agam agus cuid de na ceisteanna a bheidh agam. Ba mhaith liom go mbeadh an deis agam é a fheiceáil ansin romham amach, ina chraiceann, go bhféadfainn labhairt leis go pearsanta faoi, mar eisean atá freagrach as an mBille seo a bheith os ár gcomhair anseo inniu.

Sa chéad dul síos, caithfimid mar pháirtithe, is cuma cén taobh lena mbainimid, fáilte a chur roimh an choimisiún mar is dream neamhspleách iad agus ceapadh daoine ar an gcoimisiún a dhéanfaidh an rud seo a scrúdú ar bhonn neamhspleách. Mura bhfuilimid sásta glacadh leis go bhfuil an obair neamhspleách ní dóigh liom go mbeidh aon bhonn nó cos le seasamh againn le rud ar bith. Mar sin, tá orainn glacadh le saothar an choimisiúin. Mura nglacaimid leis nílimid ag glacadh leis an bprionsabal neamhspleáchais.

Ar bhealach is rud acadúil é glacadh leis an toradh atá os ár gcomhair anseo inniu. Tá sé acadúil sa mhéid go bhfuil toradh an neamhspleáchais seo curtha ar fáil agus glactha leis ag chuile pháirtí sa Dáil. Ach é sin ráite agam, níl fáth ar bith ann nach mbeimid criticiúil faoi chuid den Bhille. Ní hionann a rá go nglacaimid le rud de bharr go bhfuil sé neamhspleách agus nach bhféadaimid mar Sheanadóirí bheith criticiúil faoin mBille. Ach amháin go gcreidim go láidir go bhfuil an saothar neamhspleách agus go bhfuil an coimisiún neamhspleách bheadh amhras orm faoin mBille. An fáth go mbeadh amhras chomh mór sin orm ná; go bhfeicim an chaoi a bhfuil, Contae Mhaigh agus áiteanna mar sin ag teacht isteach sa Bhille seo.

Ach amháin go raibh an coimisiún ann, d'fhéadfaí a rá go han-simplí go raibh fábhar i gceist ag an Aire agus go raibh sé in ann an fábhar sin a chur ag obair. Ach is trí thimpiste a tharla sé go raibh jab le déanamh i gContae Mhaigh Eo, agus is trí thimpiste a tharla go raibh an tAire Comhshaoil istigh i gContae Mhaigh Eo ag an am céanna. Mar sin, níl ann ach timpiste nó coincidence, mar a deirtear i mBéarla, gur tharla go bhfuil Aire ann go bhfuil baint mhór aige leis na hathruithe a rinne an coimisiún. Is é an fáth go ndeirim é seo ná, mar a dúirt duine éigin sa Teach eile, ceapaim, tá anchosúlacht air seo gur tharla sé seo thiar i bparóiste éigin i gContae Mhaigh Eo agus gur socraíodh in áit éigin go ndéanfaí athruithe dá réir; gur imigh sé uaidh sin go dtí an contae, go dtí an cúige agus ansin go dtí an coimisiún agus anois tá sé os ár gcomhair anseo inniu; agus go bhféadfaí a rá faoi gur tharla athruithe nach mbeifeá ag súil leo sa ghnáthshlí.

Bhí mé ag éisteacht go géar le óráid an Seanadóir Hussey ar maidin. Tá an-mheas agam air, agus bhí le blianta fada anuas, agus caithfidh mé a rá nach dóigh liom go bhfuil aon chomhalta sa Teach seo ná sa Teach eile go ndearnadh an oiread sin dochair dó go pearsanta agus a rinne an coimisiún seo ó bunaíodh é. Mar a dúirt sé féin, chuaigh sé trí sheal i nGaillimh Thoir nuair a bhí cúigear Teachtaí Dála sa Dáilcheantar, sul a raibh ceathrar nó triúr ann. Rinneadh go leor athruithe sa Dáilcheantar sin. Ba é an t-am ba mheasa, dar ndóigh, nuair a tharla sé gur baineadh coiméal breá mór de thuaisceart na Gaillimhe agus gur cuireadh isteach é le Ros Comáin. Bhain Sé an bonn iomlán a bhí ag Teachta Dála a bhí ina shuí anseo agus a bhí ag déanamh sárobair don cheantar sin. D'fhéadfadh duine argóint a dhéanamh anseo go mba dhrochrud é an comisiún a cheadaigh a leithéid sin de rud.

Molaim an Seanadóir go raibh sé de mhisneach aige anseo ar maidin seasamh agus a rá go raibh sé míshásta leis, nár thaitin sé leis agus go ndearna sé an dochar sin dó. Tá an rud tarlaithe arís an turas seo, ach is measa fós an scéal. Ní amháin go bhfuil dochar déanta do Ghaillimh Thoir ach is amhlaidh an scéal le Gaillimh Thiar. Tá mé criticiúil faoi thoradh obair an choimisiúin go ndearnadh an t-athrú sin, mar go bhfuil sé ráite go raibh na téarmaí tagartha leagtha amach go soiléir, agus, go deimhin, tá siad. Rinneadh cur isteach mór ansin i gcás na Gaillimhe, mar shampla, i dtéarmaí B, C agus E. Sin trí chinn de na téarmaí a bhí ag an gCoimisiún seo i gcás na Gaillimhe.

Is dócha nach bhfuil aon neart again air, mar a dúirt an Seanadóir Honan ar ball: tá an rud seo áitiúil don té a mbaineann sé leis. Bhíomar ag éisteacht ansin roimh am lóin nuair a bhí Seanadóirí ag caint ar Chill Dara agus mar sin de ach an t-athrú is mó agus is bunúsaí dá ndearnadh, rinneadh i gContae na Gaillimhe é chun freastal ar Chontae Mhaigh Eo. Ní thuigim é seo, agus lochtaím an Coimisiún nach raibh siad sásta glacadh leis na téarmaí a bhí acu agus Maigh Eo a fhágáil mar a bhí sé, ó thaobh contae de, agus Gaillimh a fhágáil mar a bhí sé, ó thaobh contae de.

Is é an fáth go bhfuil mé ag rá sin ná gur ndúirt an coimisiún anseo ar leathanach 11 den tuarascáil, gur thóg siad Contae na Mí, siar go Maigh Eo agus Gaillimh, mar aonad, agus b'shin drochlá oibre a leithéid a dhéanamh. Ní dhéanfaí é sin murach go raibh sé daingnithe istigh in aigne an choimisiúin go gcaithfí sé shuíochán, nó trí cinn bheith i ngach ceann den dá thoghcheantar i nGaillimh, Thiar agus Thoir, go gcaithfeadh triúr Teachta Dála teacht as gach aon cheann den dá dháilcheantar sin. Tá roinnt staidéir déanta agam ar na figiúirí agus, i mo thuairimse níor ghá dul, a bheag nó a mhór, go Contae na Mí. Creidim go bhféadfaí, mar shampla, Maigh Eo agus Ros Comáin a thabhairt le chéile. Má bhreathnaíonn tú ar na figiúirí, dá gcuirteá Ros Comáin agus Maigh Eo le chéile, agus dá dá mbeadh ceathrar i Maigh Eo agus ceathrar i Ros Comáin, ní bheadh aon ghá le dul in aice le Gaillimh, in aice le Longfort, le Contae na Mí nó na hiarmhí, agus bheifí laistigh den méid a bhí ceadaithe ó thaobh daonra de.

Dá bhfágfaí Maigh Eo agus Ros Comáin ní bheadh gá ach le teorainn chontae amháin a bhriseadh. Dheanfaí athrú istigh i gContae Mhaigh Eo, idir Thoir agus Thiar, agus chuirfí cuid de Mhaigh Eo isteach le Ros Comáin. Ach, de bharr an rud a rinneadh, síneadh amach soir thar an tSionainn agus rinneadh go leor leor cur isteach ar na gnéithe aiceanta, na natural features. Is é an trua gur tharla é sin mar rinne sé an-dochar do mhuintir na Gaillimhe, Mhaigh Eo, Ros Comáin, Longfort agus don Mhí.

Chuir sé iontas orm go raibh an tAire Fuinnimh, an Teachta Robert Molloy, a fuair cuid mhaith vótaí i gceantar na Gaillimhe Thiar sa toghchán deireanach, sásta droim láimhe a thabhairt do na daoine sin uilig agus dul isteach sa Dáil agus iad a vótáil amach as a gcontae féin, isteach go Maigh Eo. Cuirfidh Sé iontas orm freisin má tá éinne anseo, agus an Seanadóir Ó Cuív san áireamh, sásta cuid de mhuintir na Gaillimhe a vótáil amach as Contae na Gaillimhe agus iad a vótáil isteach i gContae Mhaigh Eo. Tá treoir tugtha anseo a bhí an-cheart agus andíreach agus an-éasca gan an cineál sin roinnte a dhéanamh. Tá sé déanta agus tá sé tar éis cur isteach mór a dhéanamh ar an chothromaíocht atá anois ann.

Baile mór ar nós bhaile Thuama i gContae na Gaillimhe, tá se scoite amach anois ón chuid eile den chontae, d'fhéadfá a rá. Beidh muintir Killala agus muintir Thuama anois ag plé leis na Teachtaí Dála céanna, a bheidh ag freastal an dá thrá sin. Níl aon chiall ag baint lena leithéid sin. Is rud é atá déanta agus cuireann sé iontas orm, ó thaobh chomhairle contae de, go mbeidh an tAire Fuinnimh ag dul suas do áiteanna i Maigh Eo ag iarraidh vótaí le é a chur ar an chomhairle chontae. An amhlaidh go bhfuil sé i gceist aige gan seasamh sa chéad toghchán eile agus, é sin a bheith déanta aige, go mbeidh sé sásta é a ghearradh amach ar fad agus go bhfágfar i gContae Mhaigh Eo é. Go bunúsach, sin iad na rudaí a fheicim go háitiúil, mar baineann na rudaí seo go háitiúil linn uilig.

Níor mhairth liom nach mbeadh tagairt sa Tuairisc Oifigiúil do mhuintir na Gaillimhe agus dúinn féin bheith in aghaidh a leithéid sin d'athrú, ach tá mé sásta go raibh an coimisiún ag saothrú go neamhspleách, bíodh go bhfuil a mhalairt le rá ag daoine eile faoi.

Éamon Ó Cuív

Fáiltim roimh an Aire anseo. Caithfimid a rá go dearfach agus go láidir go gcreidimid i neamhspleáchas na ndaoine a ceapadh ar an gcoimisiún seo. Creidim gur masla dóibh siúd tabhairt le fios go raibh aon chineál socruithe ann le duine ar bith a chosaint, bíodh sé ina Aire nó ina dhuine ar bith eile. Tá iomlán muiníne agamsa as neamhspleáchas an dreama a ceapadh ar an gCoimisiún.

D'fhéadfaimis go leor ama a chaitheamh at plé cúrsaí leagan amach na dtoghcheantar. D'fhéadfaí, mar shampla, ceist a chur orm, an bhfeileann sé go bhfuil dáilcheantair le líon difriúil suíochán iontu — trí, ceathair agus cúig — agus, mar a ardaíodh ar maidin, is dócha go bhféadfaí breathnú arís ar an gcóras vótála atá againn agus an tionchar atá aige sin ar an tír.

Ag plé thuarascáil an choimisiúin seo ar na suíocháin Dála, b'fhéidir nár mhiste dúinn anois breathnú go géar ar na suíocháin don Seanad, agus go mórmhór na suíocháin ollscoile agus a chinntiú gur gearr go mbeidh ionadaíocht ag na hollscoileanna ar fad sa Seanad. Feictear domsa, má cheaptar coimisiún agus má thugtar le tuiscint gur coimisiún neamhspleách é, tá sé fánach tosú ag casaoid ansin faoin toradh nuair nach bhfeileann sé. Cinnte, i mo chás-sa, agus i gcás duine ar bith i nGaillimh, níl sé an-fheiliúnach go bhfuil daonra an chontae sa chaoi anois nach bhfuil dóthain ann do naonúr agus go bhfuil an iomarca ann d'ochtar. Tá mé ag súil, leis an bhfás agus leis an bhforás atá ag teacht ar dhaonra na Gaillimhe, go mórmhór cathair na Gaillimhe, gur gearr go mbeidh naoi suíochán againn i nGaillimh.

Ach é sin ráite, tá fíricí áirithe ann. Tá go leor daoine tar éis a rá go mba cheart go mbeadh toghcheantar chúig shuíochán i gContae Mhaigh Eo, agus sa chéad tuarascáil a chuir an coimisiún amach i 1988, tá sé ráite ansin, dá ndéanfaí é sin go mbeadh an líon daoine 8 faoin gcéad os cionn an mheáin agus go mbeadh sé sin taobh amuigh de théarmaí tagartha an Choimisiúin.

Chomh maith leis sin, chaithfinnse a rá, mar dhuine atá ina chónaí i gceann de na dáilcheantair is mó sa tír, nach bhfeileann sé ach oiread go mbeadh toghcheantair chúig shuíochan i gceantair scaipthe daonra. Séard a chiallaíonn sé ná go mbeidh ceantar ollmhór le taisteal ag Teachtaí Dála, agus ní ceart deannad a dhéanamh, ar ndóigh, go dtoghtar duine mar Theachta Dála do thoghcheantar iomlán.

As I said, the situation regarding Mayo and Galway from a Galway point of view is very unfortunate. I particularly am very disappointed that the parts of the constituency geographically nearest to myself on the eastern side of the lake, that is the parishes of Ceahalestrane and Headford, are to be transferred to Mayo but I would reject that there was any collusion in this. It was the decision of an independent commission and, as far as I am concerned, if an independent commission are established to make recommendations we should recognise their independence. We have very little choice going down that road but to accept the recommendations of such a commission.

I would also like to put on the record that there were very good and cogent reasons given in the original report, that is the 1988 report, as to why County Mayo could not be a five seater constituency. A part of County Mayo would have had to be, in those circumstances, transferred to either Galway or Roscommon because it would have been over the national average and the tolerance. I have reservations about two things: one, the frequency with which we change the constituencies and, two, the level of tolerance that we accept but, unfortunately rance should be increased to avoid the in 1968, when Fianna Fáil proposed in a referendum to the people that the tolerance should be increased to avoid the kind of problems that an Seanadóir Ó Foighil and others have spoken about, it was rejected by the people. This has created the situation that we now have after every census, of major changes occurring in the constituencies. I think the whole question of tolerance, of even the voting system, could be looked at again to see is there a more efficient way of doing it. I would have to say, in the circumstances we face now, with the constitutional arrangements that are there, that it would be ridiculous to refuse to accept the report of an independent commission whose terms of reference were the same as those of the commission's that were there previously and whose independence we would be impunging by not unanimously adopting the report here today.

Mrs. Jackman

At the time of the establishment of the Dáil constituency commission relief was felt all round that the commission was the vehicle for advising and reporting on the formation of constituencies for election of Members to Dáil Éireann. This Bill gives effect to the recommendations of that independent commission. I looked through the terms of reference. We agree that membership should be not fewer than 164, not more than 168. It says that breaching county boundaries should be avoided if possible and that larger constituencies should preferably be situated in areas of greater population density. It mentions other well-established characteristics in the formation of constituencies, clearly defined natural features and the retention of the traditional pattern of three seat, four seat and five seat constituencies and, finally, the desirability of affecting the minimum change. Clearly the commission's recommendations relating to avoidance of breaching county boundaries is very much at variance with those terms of reference and it is questionable.

The most controversial of all changes is the creation of the new Longford-Roscommon constituency and it is not just the breaching of county boundaries, it is also the breaching of provincial boundaries. So the geographical consideration there is also observed in the fact that the Shannon is not just the major waterway in Ireland but it is the largest, most recognised physical feature in Western Europe. It is a very strange decision really that Longford and Roscommon should be joined together. Mayo seems to have been seen as a sacrosanct county in order that it should continue to retain two three seat constituencies. It is not just Fine Gael's opinion but everybody's opinion that Mayo should have become a single five seater constituency.

Senator Ó Foighil talked quite a bit about Galway, his county, and transferring almost 4,000 of the population from Galway West to the Headford area, to balance the constituency of Mayo West for three seats. This breaches the county boundary. When Minister Gemma Hussey dared to introduce what I would consider a very innovative idea, the idea of local educational councils, she was criticised high up and low down. The VECs throughout the country were loud in welcoming her efforts to try to regularise and to democratise education by developing local education authorities. The idea of breaching the county at that stage was absolutely horrific to Fianna Fáil people in the VECs. Debate was stifled; in regard to Minister Hussey, at the time, her area was considered absolutely in breach in all respects, according to the Fianna Fáil grassroots. I find it extraordinary that you can have one law for something which was quite democratic and another law in relation to the county. Whether we like it or not, the county unit and county loyalty is deeply embedded in the Irish psyche, particularly in the area of politics. Surely this change cannot be justified.

I will be very positive in relation to the Limerick-Clare situation where 2,566 people in the townland of Ballyglass, which I would consider suburban Limerick were brought into Limerick city. That is a welcome change and it balances out the population problem in County Clare and Limerick city. It was certainly an improvement because the feeling of the people in suburbia, many of them not necessarily County Clare people, was one of happiness to be included in the Limerick East constituency rather than County Clare. That was a rational and logical decision of the commission in balancing that population. We are not being negative for the sake of being negative. We will give credit where credit is due and that was certainly a welcome change.

The biggest irritant in Irish politics is the conflict between being, on the one hand, a legislator and on the other hand having to work with the heavy burden of constituency work the ordinary TD has to carry in the constituency. All surveys and reports done in this area have shown that the Irish electorate want their public representatives to be accessible. Whether we have the list system or the single seat constituency, perhaps it is the nature of the small population of the country, perhaps it is because of our insular position, the Irish electorate want easy accessibility to their politicians. I feel they probably emphasise the constituency work rather than the legislative processes which, to my mind, is the most important work of a Deputy and Senator.

My last point relates to Seanad reform. I have been asking since coming in here almost a year and a half ago for something very basic in relation to extending the university franchise to the new independent University of Dublin City and the University of Limerick. That is not going to go away as you have more and more graduates coming to the fore, and particularly the University of Limerick is to the fore in demanding that franchise. Before we look for what we consider a major reform of the system, I will ask again — and I hope I will have a comment from the Minister in relation to it because when he opened the debate he said he was open to questions from all — if he would consider the idea of Seanad representation for the two independent universities plus the regional technical colleges so that if we continue to have university representation in Seanad Éireann it will not be discriminatory, it will not just favour the NUI and University of Dublin but will take on board the other universities. I would like the Minister to tell us whether the Government intend to press for that representation.

I certainly could not support this Bill in relation to the breaching of county boundaries and the complete disregard of the Shannon river which should have been taken into consideration as regards Longford-Roscommon.

Mr. Mooney

I do not intend to delay the House for very long. That is probably the greatest cliché in the book but I will try to stick to it as much as possible.

Mr. Norris

It is the greatest lie, too.

An Cathaoirleach

That word is not appropriate to the House, Senator.

Mr. Norris

Inadequate application of the truth.

An Cathaoirleach

Inadequacy in the language.

Mr. Mooney

Has the verbal jousting been completed? I want to draw the Minister's attention to a number of points that have been covered very well by most of the people in this debate. I am sure the Minister has heard sufficient comments about the work of the commission to last him through to the working of the next commission, which according to one of the sections in this Bill might be sitting sooner rather than later.

I wonder if there is any significance in the fact that the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1990 in section 7 states that "it shall continue in force for a further two years to the 31 December, 1992" instead of for the customary four year period? We are to have a census of population in April 1991 and the preliminary results of this census would, if past records are anything to go on, be published in about 18 months at the very latest. That brings us into early 1993. One wonders if perhaps it is the thinking of the Government to introduce a further revision of constituencies in advance of the next election. I just raise the point, not mischievously, but out of curiosity as to why the suggestion of two years, rather than the customary four years, is being proposed.

I am also very pleased, coming as I do from the constituency of Sligo-Leitrim, not to be addressing the House, as I know my late father if he were here would have been, complaining bitterly about the machinations engaged in order to deprive Leitrim of its adequate representation. I am glad to say that the commission in its wisdom decided to leave the Sligo-Leitrim constituency with its present boundaries and long may that be the case. I must say, however, as my hinterland of Drumshanbo extends into north Roscommon — for the benefit of the Members of the House the county boundary with Roscommon is less than one mile from where I live — I do have a tremendous amount of sympathy with my distinguished colleague, the Cathaoirleach, and his Oireachtas colleagues in the newly proposed constituency of Roscom-mon-Longford and all I can say on that issue is that better they than me in the circumstances. Like my colleague on the far side of the House, Senator Cosgrave, all I can do in the circumstances is wish all of you Godspeed and may the best horse jump the ditch. I hope the Cathaoirleach will be among the horses jumping successfully.

Mrs. Honan

So do we all.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator means, jump the Shannon.

Mr. Mooney

I would like to put on record that the comment was not inserted at the behest of my distinguished colleague, the former Cathaoirleach, Senator Honan, but the message, I think, has been conveyed.

It is interesting that in the overall context of electoral revisions many contributions from all sides of the House have been directed at the possibility of further reform of the proportional representation system. This is a perennial chestnut. Sadly, Fianna Fáil have not got a happy record in this regard, having gone to the people on two previous occasions with proposals to change the multi-seat constituencies and the people, in their wisdom, refused to take the ball. As a result, we find ourselves increasingly in a situation where the future stability of administrations in this country is cast somewhat in doubt.

I do not wish for a moment to give the impression, personally or as a representative of my party, that we are in any way against the idea of minorities being represented either in this House or in the Lower House. As we are talking primarily about Dáil constituencies my remarks would obviously be directed towards the Dáil representation. However, I sometimes ask myself the question because it has been rejected by an increasing number of people in the country, how it is that a political system can produce a situation where you have one political party who receive no more than six per cent of the vote and yet can manage to return numbers substantially in excess of that percentage and, not only return them but, on occasions have a very strong influence on the formation of the Government and the direction of its policy. I am in favour of democracy, plurality and for the extension of the proportional representation system to encompass all those who wish to be represented in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I would lean in favour of a debate at the minimum and at the maximum, a change in the existing constituencies, so that we continue to operate the PR system but in single seat constituencies with the single transferable vote, the so-called Norton amendment, which sadly did not see the light of day when it was proposed in the Lower House when last there was a major debate on this issue.

I say this with the greatest respect to my parliamentary colleagues in the Dáil. I know it would involve a reduction in the number of TDs in order to make it work effectively but I am very grateful to those people in the Department of the Environment who went to the trouble of giving me some information in relation to the composition of the Dáil from the foundation of the State. I was interested in what the composition of the Dáil was numerically at the foundation of the State and at what point in our history had the numbers reduced to such an extent that it became noticeable, as distinct from the odd changes.

The House may be interested to know that the first Dáil returned for Ireland in 1919 had 105 Members, the second Dáil, following the Treaty, had 138 Members and, keeping in mind that the current composition of the Lower House is 166 Members, it may be of interest to the House and to the Minister to hear that in 1935 the composition of the Dáil had gone down to 138 seats. It seems as if the decline was effected over a period of only two or three years from 140 to this lower figure. The reason I am quoting these figures is that in the event of there being reform and a resultant reduction in seats it would not be creating a precedent. This country has gone through periods over the last 50 or 60 years when there were substantial reductions in the number of seats to tie in with the electoral boundaries and with the census of the time.

It is interesting that the population in the thirties was higher than it is now and yet it had substantially fewer seats in the Dáil. I am only using those figures to enforce my argument. The point has been made on a number of occasions that these reforms would lead to better Government, better legislators, less competition, less inter-party rivalry which has been referred to from all sides of the House. Most TDs would be in favour of a situation where once elected as a Member they would not have to contend with the competitive urges of their colleagues as they do at the moment. They would be able to concentrate fully and exclusively on furthering the interests of their constituents, which they do, but would not have the handicap of concerning themselves about what the other members of their party were doing, irrespective of what the people on the other side of the House were doing.

If such a reform were to be introduced and if a debate were to be started on it the Seanad would not be excluded. It might lead to a strengthened Seanad because with the emphasis on the legislative role of our TDs the spotlight would be put on the Seanad. It is interesting that in 1935 when there were only 138 Members of Dáil Éireann, as far as I know the Seanad was going through its finest hour. President de Valera was not at all happy with the independent stance that the Seanad at that time was taking in relation to a number of issues. Whether that was a coincidence or not at a time when there was lower representation in the Dáil is something historians could answer but it is an interesting point.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the registration process. This is a matter for which the Department of the Environment are responsible and for some reason it is always a source of criticism. I fail to understand, in this computer age, with a population of three and a quarter million, with an electorate of two and a half million, that we still manage to end up at each election with substantial numbers of the electorate disenfranchised. I fail to understand why this is the case.

I am not necessarily pointing the finger at the Department of the Environment because although I live in Drumshanbo, County Leitrim, I have residence here on a temporary basis. Although my vote is in Leitrim I am aware that there are at this time of the year several visits by members of Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council to the apartment complex where I stay, seeking out numbers of people who are residents. On the one level, there seems to be a tremendous amount of activity at ensuring that people are registered yet, on the days leading up to an election, one hears of people being disenfranchised. I wonder if the Minister has anything to say in relation to that. As well as that, some people are left off the register after the revision courts. I do not know why this happens. For the benefit of Members of the House who may not be involved in this process, such as the Independent Senators, at local level these revision courts take place as the final process before the actual registers are published. There have been instances each year where people find themselves off the register. I wonder if the Minister, or whoever the responsible authority is, might consider writing to those voters who were on the register in one year and who have been taken off, to establish whether they are resident or whether they have left the country. That might go some ways towards minimising it. I accept there is a cost factor involved but there is a cost factor involved in the initial process of registering voters. Perhaps the Department might consider a follow through on this to minimise it. It should be eliminated.

My last comment is in relation to the question of the reform of the voting system. I am disappointed that the newly elected Leader of Fine Gael opposed in the Dáil the proposal for a debate on single seat constituencies with a transferable vote on the basis that the time was not right. I was disappointed because I had believed that the Leader of Fine Gael was a reforming politician. He has published several dissertations on reform of our parliamentary system and if the Leader of the main Opposition party is not on the side of those who would like to see that type of reform the chances of it happening in the short term would seem to be nil. It would be interesting to note whether in their further deliberations the Fine Gael Party would have any comments to make in that area.

I am one of those who have not been directly involved in any way in the changes that are being proposed in this Bill. Thank God for that. To those of you who have, God speed you and I hope you will achieve whatever political ambitions you have set yourselves. I support the Bill.

Mr. Norris

I found Senator Mooney's contribution, as usual, interesting, stimulating and challenging. I would like to disassociate myself from his last comments, not that I wish any of my colleagues ill but it is inappropriate for them to vaunt their ambitions to the Lower House so flagrantly and so frequently in this House. I speak as one of a group of people from all sides, including the Government side, whose primary and total commitment is to this Chamber. It is rather a pity that, although we are properly interested in this Bill as Members of the Oireachtas, there is what I would call an unhealthy interest on the part of some because they appear to wish to escape from this august body——

Mr. Cassidy

Senator Fallon is getting through at last.

Mr. Norris

With regard to the question of the revision of constituencies, traditionally these are regarded as opportunities for gerrymandering. Historically, this is the way in which they have been seen. This appears to be considerably less of a gerrymander than previous revisions by all parties. I am not going to tread too much into this dangerous territory because I would hate to be accused of gurrierism by the Minister, Deputy Flynn, who is a man of extremely refined sensitivity in these areas and I wish neither to insult him nor to be insulted in turn.

It is of interest in terms of language that the Minister referred so frequently to the fairness, even-handedness and impartiality of the Members. I will leave that on the record. People may take from it what they will. In other words, the Government are extremely anxious that we should be aware of how even-handed, impartial and fair were the members of the commission. I have just looked at their names and those I recognise are quite impeccable. They include Mr. Justice Hamilton, Dr. Whitaker and Kieran Coughlan, recently departed Clerk of the Seanad. I do not know the other two people but I am quite happy to accept they are also persons of impeccable character. However, an innocent, unsophicticated mind like my own may be unaware of the machinery by which various pressures are brought to bear.

An Cathaoirleach

I remind the Senator that remark has inherent in it an implication that it concerns the commission and its independence in its advisory capacity. I must remind the Senator that he cannot be allowed to make such a remark.

Mr. Norris

In that case, I am happy to withdraw it. I will leave my remarks concerning the unusual insistence by the Minister on the fairness, even-handedness and impartiality of the commission, which we all accept, on the record.

The unusual feature of this is mathematically the point from which the calculations begin which produce a curious re-division of the Longford-Westmeath constituency. I will not comment any further on it but I will point out that it is a complicated mathematical calculation which has some unusual characteristics. I am sure persons who are gifted in the analysis of these electoral systems will do some work in this area and draw their own conclusions.

The Minister gave an example of distortions in constituencies. I agree with him on this. He stated:

Taking extreme examples, the average number of persons for a member in Dublin South-West was 26,712 while in Dublin Central the average was 18,346.

This interests me because I am one of those 18,346 voters living in Dublin Central. Underneath that statistic is a very interesting point about which I am sure the Minister is aware, that is that the central area of our capital city has the highest rate of decline in population terms of any city in Europe, apart from Reykjavik. I wonder if the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment is happy that this population decline should continue. I am sure he would agree that this decline is catastrophic for our city and is something the Government should reverse. I would leave that point for the Minister to ponder.

I would like to refer to the question of votes for Irish citizens living abroad. This is a continuing matter of concern to many of our constituents, particularly in the university seats, because so many of them are abroad working and bringing honour and credit to the country. Yet, usually among countries of the European Community, they are deprived of the right of participation in elections in Ireland. I wonder if the Minister will consider addressing that urgent problem on which I receive a steady stream of letters.

The question of reform has been introduced and Senator Mooney's contribution was extremely interesting on this. I do not think I am talking inadvisedly or out of turn but there was an event in the Dáil bar about ten days ago when the political quiz book for the year by Deputy Gay Mitchell was launched by a former Minister for the Environment, John Boland, from Fine Gael. Mr. Boland said that he had come into Dáil Éireann as a firm advocate of the existing PR system and having worked here for over 20 years as a firm advocate of the existing PR system and having worked here for over 20 years and experienced the pressures, he has now to completely re-assess the position and would be in favour of a quite radical change for precisely the reasons that Senator Mooney indicated — the sort of pressures that are brought within the party structure by competition and the development of clientelism where the unfortunate Deputy is forced by the exigencies of the situation to pander to the immediate domestic needs of constituents. This is not necessarily always bad but the principal function of legislators is to legislate, not to get medical cards, dentures or glasses, however humane this may be or however rewarding in terms of votes individual Deputies may feel that this is.

I found it interesting that Senator Mooney referred so discreetly to a little party that gets 6 per cent of the vote. I imagine Senator Mooney was referring to the Progressive Democrats.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Mooney)

I was not referring to them.

Mr. Norris

I withhold my fire on that.

Acting Chairman

It was The Worker's Party.

Mr. Norris

It would be inappropriate for me to talk too much about. The Workers' Party since they are not here to have their own say. I know how paranoid Fianna Fáil are about The Workers' Party which in a way is a tribute to the strength of that party.

Mrs. Honan

We are not paranoid about anyone.

Mr. Norris

I thought it was the Progressive Democrats. It is even more interesting that Senator Mooney has kindly clarified that he was thinking of The Workers' Party, he mentioned that getting 6 per cent of the vote was having an undue influence on the composition of Government and on Government policy. I sincerely hope that The Workers' Party, now that they have been clearly identified, will read the record of Seanad Éireann because I have no doubt that they will be heartened by the kind comments of Senator Mooney and that they will redouble their efforts in this regard because this form of co-operation in Government is to be welcomed.

Senator Mooney complained about the fact that they got 6 per cent of the vote. It was almost as if there was a feeling that this was too small. I would remind the House that in Germany, for example, there is the operation of the 5 per cent rule where a party must achieve 5 per cent nationally before they can take seats. So I think 6 per cent comes within the margin of appreciation there. I would not be too contemptuous of a party that can get 6 per cent.

I was very interested in what Senator Mooney said about the Norton amendment, in particular the reduction in numbers. He is perfectly right because the Senator, obviously having done a lot of research on the Irish situation is also aware, as I am sure the Minister is, that we have an unusually high representation per capita of the population in European terms. We have more Members of Parliament than any other country in Europe. I would hesitate as one of them, even though a modest Senator, to suggest we were suffering from an embarras de richesse in this regard because I might then be carved out of the body politic of Ireland and sacrificed. I would hate that to happen but in real terms we could do a more efficient job with fewer Members, particularly in the Lower House.

I hope I will be excused for following the lead of Senator Jackman in making a few observations about the Seanad itself because it is appropriate within the broad scope of the Bill to make these comments, but I will keep them brief. Reform of the Seanad would be welcomed almost universally. Different reforms will be proposed by different Members and different interest groups. Like Senator Jackman, I would welcome the inclusion of the two new universities, the University of Limerick and the University of Dublin. They should be made part of the voting structure for the university Seanad seats. Dublin City University should come in with Dublin University and Limerick University should either go with NUI or also be brought in with Dublin University, the reason being that Dublin University is much the smaller constituency although with a higher proportional vote so the disparity is not quite as obvious or glaring as it may seem. I would like the House to be aware of the value the universities place on this representation. Although our contribution is not always universally popular or welcome, in our own way we add something quite special to the debates in this Chamber as does every other group in this House.

The way to reform the electoral system for Seanad Éireann is not by extinguishing the university seats but by taking them as a model. I know other Members will not agree with me on this but, despite their unusual constitution, the university seats are the most democratic of all the seats because they follow the original intention of the framework of the Constitution for a vocational element in the Seanad in that the nominating body is enfranchised and the people who nominate university Senators are permitted to vote for them. I have an electorate of 20,000 and my colleague Senator O'Toole from the NUI has an electorate of 75,000, which is considerably more than the 900 and whatever it is who elect the other Members. I am not in any sense disparaging the quality or the contributions of those Members. It is an extraordinary thing to regard the quality that is thrown up in this House by a system that is completely and utterly wrong. What I would recommend——

Mrs. Honan

On a point of order, I ask that Senator Norris withdraw that last remark. It is quite clear he did not hear the earlier contributions because I spoke about how university Senators were elected and how we were elected by the people of the nation. The 43 Senators who are elected to this House are not thrown up by anybody.

Acting Chairman

The point has been well made but in fairness to Senator Norris, he should not be interrupted in the course of his contribution as Members on all sides have an opportunity to put forward whatever point of view they wish whether one agrees with it or not. Senator Norris, without interruption.

Mr. Norris

I used the phrase "throw up" in the neutral sense. There was no vomitus connotation in it. I intended it to be completely neutral. The strength of the Seanad would be greatly enhanced if there was provision for the enfranchisement of members of the nominating bodies of all the panels. I know the argument can be made that this is some form of deferred universal suffrage but nobody really wears that. There has never been one Independent or one non-party person elected through the panel system.

Mr. Manning

On a point of information there was. Senator Brosnahan the predecessor of Senator Joe O'Toole, was elected on the panels and he was Independent.

Mrs. Honan

On the Labour panel.

Mr. Norris

Are there many others?

Acting Chairman

I ask Senator Norris not to invite comment in order that his contribution may be heard by all sides of the House.

Mr. Norris

That information was very refreshing to hear but I think the House would agree that this is a very unusual phenomenon and one which I would very much like to see repeated. It is one which would be made possible by the kind of measure I suggested which gives the nominating body the capacity not merely to nominate people who are almost invariably, although I take the correction of Senator Manning, not universally party members.

Acting Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt the Senator in the course of his interesting contribution but he has strayed quite considerably from the subject. I gave him a certain latitude so I would be grateful if he would get back on the rails.

Mr. Norris

The Chair has given me so much latitude that I have managed to get all the points I wanted to make onto the record and I am very happy to sit down.

Mr. Cassidy

In order to avoid repetition I will be brief. Before Senator Norris leaves the Chamber I want to remind him that as a Senator for the past number of years I consider myself elected by the people. The people who elected me are those who are elected by the people. We are the true representatives of the people. As county councillors, Deputies and Senators are elected by the people we are definitely the true representatives of the people of Ireland in our various capacities and on our various panels. I am not taking from the respectability or the credibility of the university Senators. We do not try to denigrate them or be superior because we are elected by the people.

This Bill is long overdue. As we all know, constituencies must be revised from time to time. It is a Bill that was expected and had to come before us sooner rather than later. I agree with the comments made in relation to the wisdom of looking again at the single seat constituencies. I see all the advantages of having a single seat constituency and I see all the disadvantages of continuing with our three, four or five seat constituencies. We are living in a technological age, in the age of efficiency and in the age of speed.

Under the present system of three, four and five-seat constituencies I see the single seat representation being at least five times more efficient and rewarding for the area one represents. If it were 25,000 people, one would know practically every household in that area.

In my own county, I would know exactly half the houses in the county of Westmeath. I would know personally most of the families in all of those homes. From that point of view, I would be able to give a much better service if I were representing such a Dáil constituency than if I were in a five-seat constituency where there were 100,000 people such as the one I am now in until this Bill is signed by the President. A representative would be more efficient and better able to plan his or her work schedule. They would not have to look behind them to see if someone was at home trying to gain a few votes extra. We are elected by the people principally to be legislators but, as we all know, constituency work takes up to 80 per cent of our time and there is not enough time left to devote to important legislative work.

I now turn to the basic problem of the Boundaries Commission changes and to the area of the two constituencies that were affected, my neighbouring county and the county where I live, that is the proposed new constituency of Longford, Roscommon and Westmeath. I am in the Meath constituency since 1978. North Westmeath is in the Meath constituency since 1978. We all know what it is like to live in a partitioned country. It has a lot of minuses. We all look forward to the day when this island will become a 32 county Ireland. In north Westmeath we felt something similar. We had 5,000 voters in north Westmeath voting in the Meath constituency. You could drive for an hour and a half and you would not be out of your constituency. It is a highly populated area with well over 105,000 or 108,000 people. I got on well with most people in the Meath constituency. As the song says, in the words of Patsy Farrell, "Where is the man who does not love the land where he was born?" Well, it is the same for me in relation to the County Westmeath. I know the Acting Chairman advocates County Leitrim and the nation knows that. I pay tribute to the public representatives in County Meath. They have served and worked well over the 12 year period but I live only five miles from the Longford border. The constitutency of Longford-Westmeath was a constituency on its own for as long as I can remember. For a time, Athlone was not included but the rest of Longford-Westmeath was together.

It gives no pleasure to anyone living in Longford, or on the Longford border, to lose neighbours and see their community split in two. Westmeath and Longford have probably the poorest land and are underprivileged parts of Leinster. This is an area which was under-capitalised and underdeveloped until recently. The best thing that happened in Longford-Westmeath in years was Deputy Albert Reynolds being elected as a TD in 1977 and the Taoiseach, having a vision of his extraordinary talents and ability, appointing him Minister in 1979. From then on, things started to happen in our part of the country. There was the great appointment of Deputy Mary O'Rourke as Minister for Education and then things really started to happen on the double. As we all know, when everything is settled and evenly divided between all areas, there is always a small surplus at the end and, naturally enough, it comes home to roost. If there is any little thing extra that can be done, it is always your constituency that benefits. Deputy Reynolds has been a very fair Minister. He is an extremely popular and dynamic man——

Mr. Manning

On a point of order, the Chair called the last speaker to order for straying. The personal qualities of the Minister, about which we all agree, are not really relevant to the Electoral (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. Cassidy

I accept the Senator's point of view but, with the greatest respect, it would be for the Chair to decide what is relevant and what is not. I take the Senator's point.

Mr. Manning

The Chair was being less than even-handed.

Acting Chairman

I advise Senator Cassidy that perhaps he could also get himself back on the rails and address the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1990.

Mr. Cassidy

At no stage did I think I was straying. Senator Manning must have thought I was speaking for this Government proposal, it is quite the contrary.

Mr. Manning

The Senator will join us in the vote?

Mr. Cassidy

I am governed by the Whip. I am known for my loyalty, just as Senator Manning is. I thank the Chair for his understanding of the parochial situation in which I find myself. I just hope that putting Longford into a different province is only a small temporary arrangement. Having Westmeath as a three seater is something I have waited for over the last 12 years. Twelve years ago we in Westmeath were shocked and horrified to realise that not alone was the Coole electoral area being split in two and separated from Longford-Westmeath but in Castlepollard, the parish and the main street of the town was divided in two. My own family, living 400 yards from my home, had to vote in a village three or four miles down the road in Coole for the candidates of Longford-Westmeath. We voted in Meath. From the point of view of Westmeath we are back together as a three seater and that is good news for us as Westmeath people. We have the parishes of Delvin, Clonmellon, Fore and Collinstown and Castlepollard back in Westmeath.

I welcome the Bill with those reservations. I know the commission had to do a job. It will not please everyone. Some people will be aggrieved by it. The commission should be congratulated in relation to the job they did. I do not see any political party gaining from this. It is a most fair-minded proposal. Various speakers said that it is the best job that could be done and at the end of the day I do not see any party being favoured by it.

Mr. Hourigan

I echo the comments made about the single seat PR vote. That is extremely important. Rather than calling this the Norton amendment we should describe it as a proposals for a single seat transferable vote. The Norton amendment is the same thing, but it goes back many years. A number of speakers on both sides of the House support the views put forward which are in line with a single seat transferable vote system. I propose that we should take this proposal emanating from this House in December 1990, on board and hopefuly have it implemented for all the valid reasons stated. It would remove many party anomalies, discrepancies and in-fights. With the multi-seat PR system, we have within parties a certain amount of conflict and disagreement which is not to anybody's advantage. I formally propose to the House that we put forward this proposal from the Seanad in this session to be considered and reflected upon for future consideration.

Secondly, I want to mention very briefly that there are a number of changes which we are all aware of in the Dublin, Limerick-Clare, Mayo and Galway areas. Most notable — and I must relect for a few moments on this — is the change in the Longford-Westmeath area. In the realms of reason, there is no case for having Longford-Roscommon as one constituency now replacing the old Longford-Westmeath Constituency. If there were shortages of numbers in Roscommon that could have been made up by transfers from parts of Galway, Mayo or wherever. There is no natural common denominator in the Longford-Roscommon constituency as proposed. By and large, having two counties together is not necessarily a good thing, whether it be Laois-Offaly, with which the Minister is very familiar, or Longford-Westmeath up to now, or Monaghan-Cavan. There are different ideologies, beliefs and way of life to a certain extent in counties. For that reason the county boundary is probably the most basic and correct one if we are to have a multi-seat situation.

I formally propose that the Seanad today put forward the view that the whole concept of this single seat constituency with the application of PR should be considered in depth.

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

First, I would like to thank Members of the House for their kind remarks and their courtesy during the debate. I fully understand their views and their concerns because I have a good knowledge of how things work out at grassroots level. I would hate to be the Minister for the Environment in the context of this measure because I would offend somebody or walk on somebody's toes. I have said that, no matter what arrangement was made in regard to constituencies, some Members of both Houses would be affected. I have no doubt about that.

Senator Cassidy referred to his area. I can understand his views in that regard because he sees part of his area going back into Westmeath. The Senator is on the Westmeath County Council but for the purpose of a Dáil election he would be in the constituency of Meath. Now that is back into Westmeath. The Senator is possibly breaking loyalty with Longford and I understand that also. The constituency is Longford-Roscommon now.

Senator Mooney referred to the register of electors. He could not have raised the issue at a better time because it is being compiled at this time. I would advise that the draft register be examined at all the usual places such as the council or corporation offices, Garda Síochána stations, libraries and post offices throughout the country. That is most important because some names may have been omitted which would be most annoying.

Senator Norris referred also to the independence of the commission. I will leave it to the House here to judge all of that. As far as I am concerned they are excellent people. I have know them all for many years and I would say they carried out their duties in a fair manner.

Senator Jackman referred to the Limerick and Dublin universities in regard to representation in the Seanad. The Senator's views will be noted by the Government.

Senator Manning referred to the Norton amendment. I have no hard line view on that. Many have said in both Houses that it was an opportunity missed by the elected Members at the time. Many say it should have been taken on board but I will leave it to the Judgment of all concerned. Of course, if we want to go about that again, any review or reform have to go to both Houses for approval. From a personal point of view, before I would go down that road I would like to be sure of all-party agreement because there would have to be a referendum. I would like the timing to be right for that and there would have to be a consensus. As many know and I will not elaborate, the Irish people are very slow when it comes to a referendum to make changes or to alter the status quo.

Senator Dardis referred to Mayo, the constituency of the Minister for the Environment. The Minister is from West Mayo and as far as I know, and I am fully aware of the situation there, he did not interfere in any way in the commission or in the report.

Mr. Dardis

I never suggested that.

Mr. Connolly

It was put in a subtle way because I am very quick to take up things. I am too long in the game.

Mr. Manning

Is there a rift?

Mr. Connolly

I have been around a long time.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Connolly

What I want to say is that the commission made this report and nowhere in the report is there anything to say that it was a majority report. It was a report made by the commission and accepted by the Government and by Dáil Éireann and it is here today for approval also. I have great sympathy for Senator Hussey because he has been involved in this before when land in his home base was taken into another area. I fully understand his position.

Mr. Hussey

The Minister is only expressing sympathy now. He is not telling me why it was mutilated.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McKenna)

Could I ask the House to allow the Minister to continue without interruption, please?

Mr. Connolly

The commission made the decision on that and it was accepted because, irrespective of who the Minister of the day was, it was alleged by many that it was not done properly. Now we have a commission and some say it is not right either. As I said in my opening remarks, I knew that there would be Members of the Houses hurt by this new arrangement and there will be Members hurt in the future. It could knock on my door. If it does, I will have to face up to it.

(Interruptions)

Acting Chairman

I ask the Senators to allow the Minister to continue without interruption.

Mr. Connolly

I think I have drawn a lot of debate on myself, unfortunately.

Acting Chairman

I also ask the Minister to stop drawing this debate on himself.

Mr. Connolly

I understand the position. There has been talk about reform and about both Houses not meeting more often. It should be made clear to the people outside and to many commentators that on Mondays Deputies and Senators have council meetings and constituency clinics to attend. On Fridays they attend health board meetings. It would be foolish not to realise that if you do not look after your constituency when an election comes around the result may not be too nice. We have to understand this.

Mr. Hussey

How can you look after your constituency when it is lumped into another one?

Mr. Connolly

I appreciate the situation quite well. I understand it. Whatever the future may be, I would like to wish well to the Members of both Houses. I have had a very good relationship down the years with all Members of both Houses.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Connolly

Wexford is OK. I think there is a brighter future for Senator Doyle in the other House. The Senator should be thanking the commission for leaving her county alone I thought the Senator would make a contribution.

Mrs. Doyle

My next constituency will be on the west coast of America.

Mr. Connolly

It is my personal view that whatever way the boundaries go, at the end of the day it is the people who will decide who will represent them. Long may the democratic system in this country continue as it is.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 11.

Tá

• Bennett, Olga.
• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Hugh
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Dardis, John.
• Fallon, Sean.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Foley, Denis.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Honan, Tras.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Lydon, Don.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McGowan, Paddy.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• Murphy, John A.
• Norris, David.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Donovan, Denis A.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Ryan, Eoin David.
• Wright, G.V.

Níl

• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Hourigan, Richard V.
• Jackman, Mary.
• McDonald, Charlie.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Ó Foighil, Pól.
• O'Reilly, Joe.
• Raftery, Tom.
• Staunton, Myles.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and McKenna; Nil, Senators Jackman and Neville.

Question declared carried.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.