Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Jul 1995

Vol. 144 No. 9

Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1995: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Ms McManus)

Under Article 16 of the Constitution a revision of constituencies must be carried out at least once every 12 years. However, it also provides that the ratio between the number of Members to be elected at any time for each constituency must, as far as practicable, be the same throughout the country. The practice now is that the constituencies are revised whenever a census of population shows significant change in the total population or in its distribution. Over the past 35 years a revision has taken place after each census.

The census taken in 1991 showed a decrease of almost 15,000 in the population since the previous census in 1986. While the overall change was not significant the degree of change in some areas since 1986 was quite substantial. 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 it. In the Dublin area, for example, the average number of persons per Member in Dublin North was 23,718 while in Dublin South-Central the average was 20,056. In other parts of the country the situation was also far from satisfactory in areas such as Tipperary, Galway and Mayo.

Following the now established practice, an independent commission was set up by the previous Government last November to advise on the formation of constituencies. The terms of reference given to the commission were, essentially, the same as those given to previous commissions. The commission is purely an advisory body; the Constitution places the responsibility of revising constituencies on the Oireachtas.

Mr. Justice Richard Johnson, a Judge of the High Court, was appointed chairperson of the commission on the nomination of the Chief Justice. The other members of the commission were Mr. Kevin Murphy, the Ombudsman; Mr. Brendan O'Donoghue, Secretary of the Department of the Environment; Mr. Kieran Coughlan, Clerk of the Dáil and Ms Deirdre Lane, Clerk of the Seanad.

The commission was independent in carrying out the task given to it, constrained only by the Constitution and the terms of reference. I am glad of this opportunity to thank the members of the commission for the conscientious and even-handed way in which they did their job. The commission reported at the end of April, the report was accepted in full by the Government and published. Copies were given to each Member of the Oireachtas.

The purpose of the Bill is to fix the total number of Members of Dáil Éireann and to revise the constituencies to bring them into line with the provision of the Constitution regarding equality of representation. The Bill proposes to implement in full the recommendations in the commission's report. An explanatory memorandum has been circulated with the Bill and maps illustrating the proposed changes in constituencies have been lodged in the Oireachtas Library. A set of maps to a smaller scale has also 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 and the number of constituencies will remain at 41. The proposed new constituencies are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. The new constituencies will come into force on the next dissolution of the Dáil. Until then, the present constituencies continue in force, for example, for the purposes of by-elections.

There will be no change in the number of different sized constituencies. The scheme provides for 12 three-Member constituencies, 15 four-Member constituencies and 14 five-Member constituencies. Mayo and Tipperary will each lose a seat and Galway and Kildare will each gain a seat. The Bill will restore the county boundaries of Mayo, Galway and Kildare as constituency boundaries. The new constituencies will involve breaching county boundaries in Carlow, Clare, Tipperary South Riding and Waterford. The Clare and Waterford county boundaries are already breached under the existing arrangement of constituencies.

Twenty of the constituencies are identical in name, area and representation with an existing constituency. There are three new constituencies — Kildare North, Kildare South and Mayo. The remaining 18 constituencies retain the name of an existing constituency but are subject to boundary changes to one degree or another and in two cases, Galway East and Tipperary South, to changes in seat allocation.

In the Dublin area, the number of seats will remain at 47 and there will be no change in the number of Members to be returned for each of the existing 11 constituencies. There are boundary changes in every constituency with the exceptions of Dublin North-East and Dublin South-West. The general pattern of constituencies in Dublin will, nonetheless, remain very much as it is.

In the rest of the country, the principal boundary changes stem from the adjustment in seat allocation. County Mayo will become a single constituency with five seats. The parts of County Galway currently in Mayo constituencies will be returned to Galway. Galway East, which will be extended westwards, will get an additional seat and will become a four-seater. An area of Tipperary South will be transferred to Tipperary North. A part of the area of County Waterford which is currently included in Tipperary South will be returned to the Waterford constituency. A part of County Carlow will be added to the Wicklow constituency but the area of east Kildare, at present in Wicklow, will be restored to County Kildare. In Cork a small area of the Cork NorthWest constituency will be transferred to Cork South-West.

At this stage I would like to refer to a related development which will put future commissions on a more formal basis. The Electoral Bill, 1994, which is currently awaiting its Second Reading in the Dáil, provides for the establishment, on a statutory basis, of an independent constituency commission to prepare proposals for the revision of Dáil and European Parliament constituencies. That Bill provides that the commission will be set up on the publication of the Census Report following each census of population, with the same membership and essentially the same terms of reference as the Dáil commission which has just reported. The statutory commission will be required to invite and consider submissions and to report within six months of its establishment. Implementation of its report will continue to require legislation. The debate on the Electoral Bill, 1994 will provide an opportunity to review, on a comprehensive basis, the experience of constituency commissions over the period of almost 20 years during which they have functioned, and to consider any changes of a procedural or other kind which may be appropriate.

I do not think that the Seanad would wish me to comment in detail on the scheme of constituencies proposed in the Bill. The commission has provided us with a pretty full report, in several instances spelling out the different options which they examined in particular areas. This is useful in helping us to understand why a particular arrangement is recommended rather than another. Apart from what is contained in the report, no further information is available to me in relation to the work, procedures or decision making process of the commission.

As I said, the commission's role is purely advisory; under the Constitution the ultimate responsibility rests with the Oireachtas. However, the practice of appointing an independent commission to advise on constituency revision has been universally welcomed and is now the accepted procedure. The scheme of constituencies in the Bill is the product of an agreed process, operated in accordance with acceptable rules by a manifestly independent and impartial body. In the Government's view, the commission's recommendations constitute a package which should be accepted in its entirety without any change.

The Government is proposing in this Bill to implement the commission's recommendations in full. I trust the Seanad will accept this view and give the measure a speedy passage.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I regret I was not present for all the Minister's speech. I was attending the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs where we had the privilege of being addressed by the Ambassador of the People's Republic of China.

I support the provisions of this Bill to the extent that they give effect to the independent commission's report on the constituency revisions in the light of the 1991 census report. I also feel obliged to support it for another reason, that I was a member of the Government under the former Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, who initiated and introduced the highly desirable principle of an independent commission to establish a fair and equitable constituency designation throughout the country.

We came to that conclusion after serious consideration of what we saw as the damaging effects of the Minister of the day, whoever that Minister might be, in reaching decisions for what would be perceived to be, and sometimes intended to be, party political advantage.

The last constituency revision was undertaken exclusively by a Minister for Local Government without the benefit of an independent commission's report and ironically, had consequences which were far different from those intended.

At this remove, it would be inappropriate to make any political capital or criticism of the 1975-76 constituency revision by the late Minister for Local Government, Deputy James Tully, during the 1973-77 Coalition Government. Suffice it to say that the landslide victory for Fianna Fáil in 1977 — and I was subsequently a member of the Government — could never have occurred if it had not been for the fact that the calculated designation of three-seat constituencies exclusively in Dublin and in the greater Dublin region backfired in the election results. It proves that even when we set about pursuing political advantage we sometimes achieve the very opposite.

The intention of the Bill is that an electoral system should always have as its first priority the efficient and fair functioning of parliamentary democracy. The current system of multi-seat constituencies designated by an independent commission is fair, but experience has shown that it is far from efficient. In many ways it actively obstructs the effective discharge of democratic parliamentary responsibility.

As a young Senator I was privileged to be a member of the 1966 constitutional committee which was established by the then Taoiseach, Seán Lemass. A casual reading of the report of that all party committee representative of Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fáil, discloses that even then all the Members had a distinct preference for a single seat transferable vote system of election balanced and combined, if necessary, by a list system. The arguments produced by that committee in favour of that change are even more relevant and cogent today than in 1966.

One of the things the committee mentioned in its conclusions was that, significantly, the system had not given rise to a proliferation of small parties and independents. If it interfered with what they saw as the efficient and effective functioning of Government and parliamentary democracy, the view was expressed that the system should be looked at again.

An electoral system should give rise to efficient representation where the energies and abilities of the representatives can be channelled into a healthy and vigorous parliamentary democracy. That is the only test of an electoral system. Our fundamental role in this Oireachtas is to act as legislators. If we are honest we must acknowledge that that responsibility — the fundamental role of legislator — as a priority under our current system is very low indeed in the priorities of the vast majority of Members.

We must acknowledge that the current multi-seat constituency requires Members to devote their time almost exclusively to internal constituency competition to accommodate their personal needs and priorities on the basis of the demands of their individual constituents, not necessarily the national needs and priorities. The courts regularly refer to the intention of the legislation as framed and written in the laws we pass as the basis for their decisions. The intention of the Legislature as the court sees it is often more a matter of fiction than fact as far as the input of representatives to the text of the laws is concerned. How much time do we have to devote to the basic details of the legislation, even with the new committee system? Is it not fair to say that the parliamentary draftsman who is not directly answerable to the people can have a much greater input into our laws than elected representatives in either the Lower or Upper House? We are elected to represent the people in Parliament and not just to respond to individual requests.

An old usher in Leinster House in 1969 when I was about to enter Dáil Éireann for the first time said: "Remember this. I have seen many people go out of the Dáil because they said too much but I cannot think of one who went out because he did not say enough." My experience vindicates his assessment. It calls into question our system of parliamentary democracy. Incidentally he might have made the same comment in respect of the panel system of election in Seanad Éireann. The more time one devotes to scrutiny of proposed legislation, the less likely one is to be rewarded by electoral success which depends on individual attention to constituents, in this instance local authority members. We can all use that system but can we honestly say that as a group we are serving the fundamental purpose of parliamentary democracy in the Dáil or the Seanad?

There is evidence of growing public cynicism about politicians and this is an unhealthy trend when major social and economic principles demand our attention. The competition between Deputies from the same party under the multi-seat constituency system leads to a negative and wasteful expenditure of the representative's time and of public money. Some representatives are lucky enough to be the only representative from their party in a constituency. The minority parties have not yet, and maybe will not, experienced the real test of the PR system.

If we were honest we would acknowledge that political representatives in multi-seat constituencies are obliged to devote far too much time to protecting "my seat". There is far too much chat, comment, shrewd manoeuvring and intense competition between party colleagues in the same constituency. It is time we told the public how that undermines the exercise of parliamentary democracy in the Oireachtas. It gives rise to unnecessary personal tensions and sometimes bitterness which does nothing to serve the cause of parliamentary democracy. It also involves so-called tactical voting. Canvassing is encouraged by elements who support one member of a party over another and people are dissuaded from their voting intentions to achieve a result. They are asked to give their preference votes to someone other than the person they want to support in the interest of the party. Is this how we want democracy to function?

I have played the system as much and probably more than the majority of people in the Oireachtas for 30 years and that is why I feel compelled to refer back to the conclusions of 1966. It is time people were told the unvarnished truth about the current multi-seat system and its damaging effect on parliamentary democracy. I accept that the single seat transferable vote, with built in balances and protections if necessary, cannot be introduced under this legislation. However, I urge the constitutional review committee, set up by the Taoiseach and the Government, to look at this issue as a matter of urgency to ensure we will not suffer the frustration of another 30 years of wasted, ill directed energy for personal rather than national political priorities.

I support this Bill for the two reasons I gave initially. I hope I have encouraged the Minister to look, in the national interest, at a system which of the many systems in the democratic world encourages and promotes internal division and tension within parties in our parliamentary system.

Mr. McDonagh

It would be remiss of me not to start by welcoming the Minister. I wish her well in her new portfolio. It would also be remiss of me not to note that the Dáil constituency commission was established on 2 November and was asked to report within six months. At the end of that short period the Electoral (Amendment) Bill is before the House to give effect to the commission's recommendations. The commission must be complimented for the way in which it set about its work and the speed with which it reported. Credit is due to Mr. Justice Richard Johnson and his team and we must also mention the contribution of the Clerk of the Seanad, Deirdre Lane.

As somebody from Galway, I am glad that for the first time in a long time all County Galway voters will vote within the boundary of the county. There is much rejoicing in Galway because we have gained an extra seat. I regret that seat comes at the expense of our neighbouring county of Mayo which is a large sprawling county, the representation of which will be an enormous task. Galway has the extra seat but I am afraid the commission has not been kind to me because I have been left like John the Baptist crying in the wilderness.

My electoral area is situated about one mile from the borderline of east Galway while most of my council area stays in west Galway. We all know of major decisions over the years about crossing borders. When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he said: "I came, I saw, I conquered". We would all like to cross the border and be able to write back to our leader and say: "I went, I saw, I conquered". I am sure a modus operandi will be put in place and the problems of people like me who are left in no man's land will be temporarily resolved.

In general the extra seat in Galway must be welcomed. We deserve it because of the population explosion in the county. It is great for me to be in a position to welcome this Bill and we look forward to the next election. In any discussion regarding electoral Bills the provision of the best facility to allow the population to vote and the most appropriate voting day could be mentioned. Voting at weekends, possibly on Sunday, might be a better idea since it might bring out more people and increase the poll. I am involved in education and literacy and I would like to see the photograph of the candidate inserted on voting papers. This has been promoted by literacy groups throughout the country over the years and it could be addressed in future discussions or papers which may issue on this subject.

In this discussion on boundaries it would be no harm to mention the Seanad voting system which is the most difficult in the world and tests the ability and endurance of any man or woman who is destined to go on that campaign. I do not know where this should be addressed but I am sure the Minister in her reply will guide me on that matter.

The time has come to bring in a regionally based Seanad voting system. People are asked in all types of weather at different times of the year to travel thousands of miles right around the country in search of votes. A much better system could be established. I hope that this could also be looked at in the future and that a more compact, viable and realistic system could be introduced. Seanad voting could be introduced on a regional basis. I am sure every Senator would welcome the setting up of such a system.

In the context of local government elections some of the council areas could also be looked at. For example, I represent Galway rural district. Most of that area is in north Galway and part is on the other side of Galway city in south Connemara. I am sure this type of situation prevails in many other counties. I hope that could also be looked at in future revisions. The Seanad voting system could be examined with a view to improving it and the county council electoral areas could be examined with a view to making them more compact.

I welcome the Bill and commend the members of the commission for the way in which they have expedited their work. I am very pleased that it is an independent commission which sets out the recommendations for the boundaries for the next general election. I hope that the commission will always remain independent. I commend the Bill to the House.

Professor Lee

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Tá súil agam go bhfeicimid go minic sa Teach seo í, mar Aire, ar ndóigh, agus ní mar Sheanadóir. I had not intended speaking on this Bill but I found myself so interested in Senator O'Kennedy's opening remarks that I came across to the Chamber. I missed what he was saying in the interim, naturally. I hope I will not repeat him.

This is potentially a very important subject, almost one for a long lecture. I will confine myself to a couple of minutes of quiet observation, however. I concur in the congratulations on the speed with which the commission discharged its responsibilities, but I hope it is the last time that a commission has such limited responsibilities because the time has come for fundamental reform of the electoral system, as Senator O'Kennedy intimated, and not for simply modifying its operation in accordance with demographic change from time to time, worthy though that objective is.

Since we shifted from what one might politely call the massaging of electoral boundaries by whoever the incumbent party was to the independent commission we have achieved much greater objectivity and fairness. This new objectivity has also been a significant contributory factor — this is not the commission's fault — to electoral instability, because the Government of the day has not been able to make provision for those extra few seats which would have changed what has usually been a fairly evenly balanced election result to enable one party Government — we know which party historically that was. The failure of any party to form a single party Government since 1981 has been not unrelated to the introduction of a commission of this type, which I welcome despite that. We did not fully contemplate the implications of that spinoff, however. This instability has further implications down the line for the way our Government will be conducted in future years.

I hope this is the last time that a commission with these restricted terms of reference will find itself operating in this manner. The commission points out that the terms limited it to providing for between 164 and 168 Members in the other House, although the Constitution would have permitted any number between 117 and 176. One could have reduced membership of the other House by one third at a stroke if one so wished. I do not believe that one should so wish although I know there is a view among some members of the public that we have too many TDs.

I could align myself with more austere members of the public in demanding fewer public representatives but the problem, as Senator O'Kennedy has identified, is that the system by which the Oireachtas manages its own affairs prevents individual Members giving of their best. It has been one of my persistent complaints about Irish performance in general going back to independence that while on a one to one basis we can compare with any in the world, we manage our individual talents badly in a collective sense. I can think of nowhere to which that applies more than to the Oireachtas.

There is a large number of very able people in the Oireachtas. My opinion of politicians has risen since I have come here. Perhaps there is a self serving element in that but my opinion of them has risen as I have come to know them better. However, I am also convinced that many of them are trapped and are not allowed by the system to deliver of their own full potential. As long as the electoral system remains as it is, as long as we have the multi-Member seats, we will shackle Deputies and suffocate them and will not permit them to deliver of their full potential in terms of public service.

We will all always remain children of original sin or of whatever the current theological equivalent may be. No electoral system in the world will prevent tensions arising or prevent the usual blood sport of politics operating from time to time but I am convinced that the PR system in multi-Member constituencies has now served its purpose. Historically it was very important that in times of much more acrimonious relations between parties there should not have been a system where the winner took all because in very bitter situations that would have driven whatever party was the loser to near despair and might have driven more extreme elements on either side into activities which would not have been conducive to civilised government.

We have now reached a stage, through evolution and electoral fortunes, where the positive potential of the current electoral system has been largely exhausted and where the more negative features are increasingly coming into prominence. It is high time that a root and branch review of the electoral system took place with a view to achieving the full potential of our public representatives. I am convinced that however much internal Oireachtas reform takes place, it will be inhibited, and rendered null and void, by the very natural concern of Members to protect the electoral base that is inflicted and imposed on them by the system they operate.

The first Private Members' motion I put down in this House dealt with improving research facilities for Members of the Oireachtas. Those research facilities still seem to be primitive and, even if Members wanted to, would not allow them to pull their full weight. I am convinced that, even with the best facilities in the world, our electoral system would still impose a primacy of other considerations on elected Members. I hope that the Whitaker Commission, the Constitutional Review Committee, will take this dimension into account. It cannot decide it or make proposals for the Oireachtas to determine. However, as a result of the impetus it provides, I hope all-party agreement will be achieved on moving in the direction of the Norton amendment — as it was known 25 years to 30 years ago — to retain proportional representation of a kind but in single member constituencies.

Making allowance for all the legitimate concerns involved, I hope it will be possible for our political system to arrive at an agreed measure of electoral reform which will allow members of all parties to do themselves full justice. That requires consensus which has not been hitherto noticeable in our parliamentary system. However, we are increasingly moving toward a form of consensus politics which has its own advantages and disadvantages. If, out of that consensual dimension, agreement could be achieved on electoral reform it would be a major gain in the evolution of our institutions and political culture. While I welcome this report, and agree with the plaudits it has justifiably received, I hope it will be the last of its type before a new electoral system is put in place.

Mr. Belton

I welcome the Minister. I agree with Senator McDonagh's point in relation to Sunday voting which should be considered by Government. Younger voters are not getting the opportunity to cast their vote since the reduction of the voting age to 18 years. The huge increase in numbers receiving third level education means that they are usually in school. If voting takes place on a Thursday, students from my county can be in Galway, Letterkenny, Dublin, etc., and cannot return home. This defeats the element of democracy.

Another point referred to earlier was that of one-seat and multi-seat constituencies. I guarantee that if ten people in the street were asked to explain the PR system they could not do so. One of the reasons is that it was never explained to them. PR should be explained at school level because it is the fairest system. It has been admired by democracies across the world as a fair system. Senator Lee is a man of extreme——

Professor Lee

Erudition?

Mr. Belton

——caution in his wording and opinion.

Mr. Manning

That has never been said before.

Mr. Belton

He settled for the best of both worlds, with the PR system in a one-seat constituency.

Another matter which has always intrigued me is that in a general election it may take 5,000 to 6,000 votes to elect a Member to the Dáil. In the case of a by-election it might take 20,000 to elect a Member to the Dáil from the same constituency. This is an anomaly in our system which has never been considered or explained. Four out of the past five by-elections have been won by Members who had previously held a seat or who had done very well in the previous general election. There is a continuance of opinion among the electorate which must be honoured and respected.

I was elected to the Dáil from the Longford-Westmeath constituency in 1989. That constituency was divided up by the Independent Commission in 1992 and became the constituency of Longford-Roscommon. Under the current commission, the situation remains the same. I do not know if it is in order to comment on this issue. However, I will do so without casting any reflection on the individuals involved. We were given the opportunity to make a submission and were not sworn to secrecy as to its content.

I informed the commission that County Longford is part of Leinster, comes under the remit of the Midland Health Board, is part of the European constituency of Leinster and that there is not one inch of land connection between counties Longford and Roscommon. The only connections are two bridges and a lake which is ten miles wide. The commission's terms of reference pointed out that natural boundaries were one of the factors which had to be taken into consideration. I understand, from the commission's report, that it took county boundaries as the priority and it succeeded in many cases. For example, County Galway is divided into two constituencies and County Mayo forms a single constituency. While some of the directives laid down were breached in relation to my constituency of Longford-Roscommon, I can see that — if County Longford remained in Leinster — it would have a roll on effect across the province. With decisions such as this the commission has to decide to go one way or the other. Unfortunately, County Longford was chosen to halt spin-offs in other areas. It has been the topic of conversation and has caused anger in County Longford. Many people do not understand the reason for this, although they would if they read the report.

Another interesting point on the electoral system relates to urban and county councils, in particular. When a member dies or retires from a county council, councillors from the county have a say in who fills that vacancy, which is unfair. The electorate in that area is denied the opportunity to select a replacement. I suggest that the political party to which the member belonged should get the seat. In the case of independent or non party members, they should nominate at the time of the election a replacement candidate. It would be a fair system and would represent democracy at local level.

Mr. Manning

The Bill is based on a report put together by a group of impartial objective people who have done their best within the terms of reference given to them. I do not believe we should have any complaints. I feel sorry for some Members of this and the other House who have found that certain areas have been cut off. It brings home to us that politics can be a brutal business at times where, through no fault of his or her own, a Member may find that an area in which they have worked for many years disappears from their constituency. We cannot blame the commission for that. Judge Johnson and the commission, which included the Clerk of the Seanad, Ms Deirdre Lane, did as good a job as possible.

As I said, it brings home to us the more brutal side of politics. We have seen this in Westminster where not only have there been changes in constituencies, but constituencies have been swept away. A Member could find that his or her constituency is wiped off the map and they must look for another one. The situation here is not as bad as that. We all subscribe to the idea of an independent commission. Mr. Jack Lynch, having seen the results of earlier political attempts to redraw boundaries, decided that never again should this type of power be exercised in that way.

I would like to comment on a point raised by Senator O'Kennedy in his interesting speech and by Senator Lee in his speech, which centred on the same topic — electoral reform. A great deal has been written about the problems caused by the multi-seat constituency, the concentration on internal party fighting and that between parties and the demands this makes on TDs time at the expense of other work which they might do. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of wasteful duplication and competition.

Like Senator O'Kennedy, I hope the question of parliamentary reform is placed firmly on the agenda of the Whitaker Commission. I do not know what would be the ideal electoral system for this country. There may be strong arguments that proportional representation is best suited. On two occasions the people have been asked to change it. The second time more emphatically than the first, the people said that PR was the system they wanted.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I agree. However, the people were not given a fair choice. The recommendation of the constitutional committee was not put before the people the last time. I say that about a Minister from my party.

Mr. Manning

That is a valid point. There was an element of winner take all about the options put to the people who were not, as Senator O'Kennedy rightly said, given a wide choice. We may follow the line taken by New Zealand which recently had a national debate on what its electoral system should be after which a referendum was held. People may prefer to keep the system they know and which, in many ways, has served this country well over the years.

Nobody here would advocate that we adopt the British system which is, in effect, one of disproportional representation. Mrs. Thatcher, for example, was allowed to dominate British politics, although her party never received more than 50 per cent of the vote — indeed, it frequently received well under 50 per cent. She was allowed to implement major, almost revolutionary policies, as if she had a clear mandate which, for the most part, she did not have. In large areas of the country the feeling against her was the contrary.

The Norton amendment was mentioned by Senator Lee. It may have been one of the great mistakes in our history that the people were not given the opportunity to vote on the Norton amendment. It might have been the system which enabled strong parties to emerge while preserving the rights of smaller groups, their ability to be elected and the idiosyncrasies of individual areas. The best system for this country may be the list system as advocated by Dr. Garret FitzGerald, based on the German model which is a mixture of proportional representation and a straight votes system where people are selected from the list. I know the bad systems, but I am not sure which is the best one.

I hope that when the Whitaker Committee carries out its work it puts the question of parliamentary reform and the options open to us on the agenda. If we are to have a debate, I hope it will not be the type of crude debate we had in 1959 and 1968, which became partisan. The motives of those seeking change were easily suspected of being partisan and the people were not given a wide choice. There is probably divided opinion in all parties as to the best system. I recommend this Bill and I hope it has a speedy passage, which will give people time over the next two years to prepare for the election and to get their constituencies in order. I would like the Whitaker Commission to heed the views expressed by a number of Members.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Ms McManus)

I thank Senators for participating in this debate and for raising many points, some of which are not directly related to the Bill. I welcome the fact that there is general consensus on the wisdom of an independent commission and not tinkering with its recommendations. It was an enlightened decision to take at the time and it has proved its worth. Some of the points raised as regards its terms of reference will be debated when the Electoral Bill, 1994, which will put the commission on a statutory footing, is discussed.

I listened with interest to Senator O'Kennedy's and Senator Lee's strongly held views on the multi-seat system. It is important to put on record that there are opposing views. I am concerned that in changing the multi-seat system we might lose the possibility which exists to allow for the wide range of political parties and representation of a diversity of views inherent in the multi-seat system. I would argue that there is no empirical evidence that TDs who do a lot of constituency work are necessarily poorer legislators.

I understand and recognise the tensions in larger parties which the multi seat system generates. While it raises a question about the multi-seat system, it also raises one about the ethos of political parties and their function and nature. Much material for debate may well arise following the work of the expert group on the Constitution, with regard to electoral reform and the Seanad. I hope we can continue to look at the question in the future.

Senator McDonagh raised the issue of Sunday voting, to which there is no statutory bar, although it has not happened. Doubtless, many school children would be upset at the notion. The proposal could be made to the Dáil from the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs, which was asked to look at various items relating to electoral law and procedure.

The expert group to review the Constitution will consider the Seanad and electoral reform for the Seanad. It would be difficult for it not to do so considering the provisions for the composition of the Seanad in the Constitution.

We could not accommodate the points made on the Bill because they are not relevant or appropriate. The Bill is specific and its proposals are understood by Senators. It results from an independent commission, the members of which I thank for their conscientious work. It is not possible to satisfy everybody. They did minimum damage with regard to altering county boundaries and the nature of the constituencies that have developed over the years. I look forward to further debate in future on this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendments, received for final consideration and passed.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Burke)

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Manning

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.