Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Feb 2009

Vol. 193 No. 16

Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2008: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages.

SECTION 4.

Question again proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Senator John Ellis

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Kitt, back to the House. Like his senior colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Minister of State probably feels that very little can be done to address the points that were raised the last time we considered this section of the Bill. It is clear to everybody that the terms of reference given to the constituency commission have not been fulfilled. What has been produced here is a Bill that is based on a flawed report, to put it mildly. Everyone is aware that the terms of reference stated that, where possible, county boundaries should be kept sacrosanct. In terms of keeping county boundaries sacrosanct, we are all aware that local government, and many other groups, works on a county basis. The former health boards operated on the basis of counties.

The terms of reference given to this commission were broken by its first decision. I again highlight what the Minister said with regard to this issue when he came to the House. On the commission report he clearly stated:

The main features of the commission's report on Dáil constituencies are as follows. First, there should be no change in the existing level of Dáil membership, that is, 166 seats.

In taking that as its first decision, the commission broke its terms of reference. There is an onus on the Minister to ask the President to refer this Bill to the Supreme Court because that is where it will finish up. The terms of reference have been broken on the first decision taken by the commission.

The follow on to that is simple. If the first decision taken was to limit the number, it then made sure that it would break all the other terms of reference. County boundaries are strictly mentioned in the Bill yet parts of County Meath were put into the Louth boundary. The other part of it is in the Westmeath boundary. The county of Meath would have a sufficient population for approximately seven to eight seats. The terms of reference were then broken.

The terms of reference are also broken in that part of west Limerick is being put into the Kerry boundary. The acting chairman is aware that Kerry had the exact population for a five seat constituency. Limerick had sufficient numbers for it to be divided into constituencies. These are cases of the terms of reference being broken by the commission.

The most annoying aspect is that when it came to dealing with my county of Leitrim the commission decided to divide it — half into Roscommon and half into Sligo. The Sligo-Leitrim-Roscommon population justifies six seats. I accept its terms of reference did not allow the commission to go beyond five seaters but it could have left Leitrim as one constituency, put it in with Cavan as a four seater, put Sligo and Roscommon together and made another four seater, which would have been justified and the numbers would have worked out exactly.

The commission did not adhere to its terms of reference regarding county boundaries under any circumstances. That brings us back to what was said by the Minister here, namely, that that was the position. It took the decision to stay with 166 Members of Dáil Éireann rather than fulfil its full terms of reference by looking to preserving county boundaries.

I asked the Minister on Second Stage if he had sought an opinion from the Attorney General with regard to this issue. I do not know if the Minister of State can tell me whether it has been determined by the Attorney General but this Bill is based on a flawed commission report from a commission that did not adhere to its terms of reference. If that is the case, the Bill should be referred to the Supreme Court.

We have all heard the Murphy-McGrath case being used as a mechanism for justifying what was done. It is easy to draw lines and decide it should be proportional to numbers but somebody in Dublin who represents a four seat constituency could travel from one end of it to the other in 15 or 20 minutes. Someone representing a five seater like Mayo——

Senator John Paul Phelan

Like Carlow-Kilkenny.

Senator John Ellis

Senator Phelan is right.

Senator John Paul Phelan

Waterford to Tullow.

Senator John Ellis

Yes, Waterford to Tullow but if we take Mayo as an example, and having to travel from Blacksod to Cong, what is being done is unrealistic. In terms of rural areas, a case will have to be made with regard to the tolerance for membership of the Dáil. We must be fair about it.

When the Constitution came into operation in 1937, there were approximately 16,000 people per Member of the Dáil. It has now increased to 25,000 or 26,000. Where is the justice in terms of representation for people? People will say it costs too much money to run this House and attacks will be made on every Member on a continual basis. We have seen that in the past number of weeks with regard to Members' entitlements in these Houses but the people who are making the attacks do not live in the real world. They do not have to do what public representatives of all parties and none have to do, which is service their electorate. Some of the "perks" given to some of us in these Houses that have been talked about are crucifixions in my opinion because they are no benefit to us. People say we get milage but there is no mention of us having to travel 40 or 50 miles three or four times a week to a funeral. That is taken for granted. They say we would be going anyway. We would not be going but for the fact that one is a public representative and we have dealings with people outside our circle of friends and relatives.

I notice the Minister did not refer this Bill to the Attorney General to determine its constitutionality. This Bill disenfranchises people. It prevents them from being represented by their own local representative and in doing that the commission has broken its terms of reference. The Minister can say what he likes but when I asked him as a point of order on Second Stage if that was the first decision taken he said "yes".

That begs another question. How could the Minister be aware of that? I made freedom of information applications to get the documentation that was used. I explored every avenue, right up to the Ombudsman whose office should not be in a position to determine a freedom of information request because——

Senator John Paul Phelan

She is a member of the commission.

Senator John Ellis

——she is a member of the commission. This issue can be fought on several legal points and it will have to be fought because it is not just something that affects us currently in County Leitrim but something that affects the entire system with regard to freedom of information. That comes into this because there is no way anybody in the Ombudsman's office could have a right to become involved in this issue. They could not determine it. It is determined in the Act that once the commission ceases to function, it has no further obligations. That might be the case but I wonder if the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which was the lead Department in this issue, destroyed the documentation used for its preparation. The Minister of State might indicate whether the documentation has been destroyed. If it has been destroyed, the whole process is a farce and if it is retained, it is a bigger farce in that we cannot get it under FOI or it is not available. I guarantee the House that it is held because whoever wrote the Minister's speech put in the line that stated the first decision taken by the commission was that there should be 166 Members of Dáil Éireann. They could not write the speech without having access to it. Therefore, these sections of the Bill dealing with the constituencies, not the sections dealing with the European or other elections, are flawed. They have been prepared in a flawed manner.

I am trying to determine from the Minister, rather than having the courts determine, first, that the decision was taken that the number would be 166. The Minister confirmed that to me. If that is the position, the terms of reference were broken because those terms stated that if it were at all possible to maintain county boundaries, the number of Deputies could be raised to 168. This is the position in which we find ourselves.

The second issue we must look at is that this information is not being made available. If the documentation is available — the Minister of State's speech could not have been prepared without it — it should be laid before this House so that we might see how people came to these conclusions. For example, we might put Meath West and north Westmeath into the one constituency. The proposal now is that Kells will be put into Meath East and part of Meath East will be put into County Louth. That is totally farcical. If one were to take counties Monaghan and Louth, two three-seat constituencies might have been created that at least adjoined each other.

This is crazy stuff. Who did the calculations? Another issue is that we do not know who prepared this. We know the Secretary General of the Department sat on the commission. I wish to know the name of the statistician who prepared the figures. My information, from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, is that it is the same individual who replied to my freedom of information request. The way in which this has been prepared is a total and utter farce. Transparency must come into play. If we do not bring in transparency we delude the electorate and the public. Something must be done in this regard. Nobody should imagine that people will accept this and they cannot be expected to accept it. Will the people of west Limerick who are to be kicked into County Kerry, with all due respect to the acting Clerk and the acting Cathaoirleach, appreciate this? It is the same with the people of County Meath. No doubt many of them will not appreciate being sent to County Louth. The people of south Offaly definitely do not wish to play with Tipperary.

This is part of what we confront. Here is a commission that was given the flexibility to live within its terms of reference. However, it broke every one of them because of the first decision it took. That decision was confirmed to be the first one by the Minister, Deputy John Gormley, in this House in his Second Stage speech. I asked the Minister about this matter at the time but I believe he did not understand the consequences of what I asked. However, I pointed out that if this were to be the first decision taken, the commission would be in breach of its terms of reference.

Who were the back-up people of Ms Tallon, the Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? My understanding is that the person who replied to my FOI request, or who prepared the letter, was the person who did the calculations. That is wrong, just as it would be if the Ombudsman's office were required to take a final decision on my rights. It is wrong and it is unconstitutional as far as the people are concerned. There are so many points to consider here that I believe it is the Minister's duty — I know the Minister of State can only carry back the message — to ask the President to refer the relevant sections of the Bill for review. These sections are those relevant to the Boundary Commission in respect of Dáil elections. This must be done. Public interest is involved and there is a lack of transparency such as we have not seen in a long time.

There has been negligence in the preparation of this. I say that with a sense of horror because I do not believe there was negligence on the part of all members of the commission. The Clerks of both Houses sat on it and I do not believe they were the people who prepared the figures. As I said, I would love to know the opinion of the chairperson, the Right Honourable Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill. The commission received a huge number of submissions, 75% of which came from County Leitrim and concerned the prospect of having the county placed as a single unit into the one constituency. Is it possible that anybody who gets such material — 75% of submissions from a national basis — does not realise something is going on? People did not sit down and write e-mails or letters or make submissions to the commission for the good of their health. They could find far better things to do than that but they had an interest in protecting their own county and homeplace. They saw what had happened before.

I cannot understand how the Constituency Commission could have come up with such a report if it had fully explored its full terms of reference. It could not have done so. One can take it that its terms of reference were very clear. These state that the commission had the right to go to 168 Deputies to fulfil its terms of reference.

We have all seen the Bill. It was prepared from information supplied to the Department but in taking this position the Bill has left behind its general purpose which was to provide representation to people. This means representation not only on a local basis, which might not be the proper way to express it, but on the basis of where people come from and what they do. We can easily read the terms of reference, which state:

2(1). Following the publication by the CSO on 26 April 2007 of Volume 1 of the Census 2006, population classified by area, the Constituency Commission was established that day under Part 2 of the Electoral Act 1997. The Commission's remit is to make a report in relation to constituencies. The Constituency Commission is the third commission established since 1997. The report of the first two statutory commissions together with those of five earlier non-statutory Dáil commissions, and reports on European policy are listed in the appendix to it.

This report contains the commission's recommendations in respect of constituencies for the election of Members to the Dáil and the European Parliament. The commission's terms of reference are set out in section 6 of the 1997 Act, which is clear in what it states, namely:

That county boundaries should be adhered to where at all possible and that the total membership shall not be less than 164 and not more than 168. Each constituency shall have three, four or five members. Breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as practicable. Each constituency shall be composed of contiguous areas. There shall be regard to geographic consideration, including significant physical features and the extent of and the density of population in each constituency.

This brings us to the issue of density of population. If these are the terms of reference issued, how does the report stand following the case brought by former Deputy Catherine Murphy and Deputy Finian McGrath? Mr. Justice Clark stated there was little doubt that the results of the census conducted in 2006 show very substantial changes. He said further that both figures must be seen against the fact that on a national level the ratio of population to seats is in the order of 1:25,000. In addition, five constituencies deviate more than 10% from the national average.

In preparing this report the commission was aware of this judgment and by taking it into consideration, which it obviously did, it again broke its terms of reference. That was not included in and was post the issue of its terms of reference. All the regulations put in place regarding the commission have been broken by the report. The terms of reference given by the Minister when it was established were to ensure it would continue and that counties would have representation. One item is missing from the terms of reference, that it should be mandatory that the minimum number of people transferred from one county to another for electoral purposes would be 30,000. That would ensure if part of a county was put somewhere else it would have sufficient people and votes to elect somebody. In the Leitrim case we are divided exactly 15,000-15,000, and no one can tolerate this disenfranchising of the people of Leitrim.

The Minister of State is duty bound to ask his senior colleague to seek an opinion from the Supreme Court on the validity of this report because it is out of synch with the terms of reference of the commission. I hope the Minister of State might be able to tell us, before we deal with further sections of this Bill, the position regarding whether his senior colleague has sought advice from the Attorney General on this. The Attorney General would have given advice on the preparation of the Bill but has the Minister sought advice from him on where he sees this in view of the points raised in the House. If the Minister has not sought it, the Bill should be adjourned and we should ask him to return with the Attorney General's opinion before we take it any further. It is wrong that some citizen will have to challenge this in the courts, putting further expense on the State, rather than have it clarified in the House by the State's legal advisers.

In what I have said here today so far there is definite confirmation that this Bill has not been prepared from a proper commission report. This commission report's legitimacy regarding its terms of reference is in doubt. It is out of context with what is happening. The Minister of State might clarify that point and I will come back in later.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Michael P. Kitt)

I was here for some of the debate on the Bill and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, has been dealing with this Bill. As Deputy Ellis said, one of the aspects this debate shows very clearly is that there is a very strong attachment in Ireland to county boundaries. That is understandable and I have the same issue in my county. The Minister made the point that the terms of reference of commissions are subordinate to the relevant constitutional provisions, which do not refer to counties. He quoted the High Court judgement of Mr. Justice Budd in the O'Donovan case and I have also quoted it previously in the Seanad and will do so again:

Although a system in the main based on counties has in fact been adopted, there is nothing in the Constitution about constituencies being based on counties. The Constitution does not say that in forming the constituencies according to the required ratio, that shall be done so far as is practicable having regard to county boundaries. There is no absolute prohibition on the breaching of county boundaries. Indeed, the experience has been that at times the constitutional provisions require such action, difficult though that may be.

That is on page 146 of the High Court judgement. The 2007 commission report is no different in that regard.

The House will be aware that the Minister is taking the opportunity in this Bill to update and improve the consultation processes followed by a commission in the course of its work. The Bill requires a commission to allow at least three months for the making of a submission to it. A commission has discretion as to the length of time allowed and this inevitably is influenced by the six-month time limit on a commission to produce its report. With future commissions commencing work on the basis of preliminary data, greater time can be made available for consultation with interested organisations and individuals and this will ensure a fuller opportunity for political and wider public input to the revision process. With the commission starting work on the preliminary figures there will also be under the Bill a longer time for the commission to develop and reflect on its proposals for constituency revision.

Senator Ellis raised the point about the Attorney General's advice. As he rightly said, there was advice on the preparation of the Bill. However, the Minister said he was accepting the commission's report in its entirety. There was no question of further advice. Senators raised other concerns and I understand the difficulties and concerns. The Minister has stated that constituency formation is not a perfect science and people do not always live in the areas which would enable constituencies to be drawn up which meet with general approval. The overriding constitutional requirement of equality of representation means breaches of obvious boundaries are unavoidable in certain cases. In examining the commission's recommendations I am in the same position as every Member of this House. I have no information over and above that set out in its report. In the revision process, someone's interests inevitably must be affected and that is the price we must pay for our democratic system.

We are all agreed that the job should be entrusted to a commission. It has done the job in the way it thought was best for it. Difficult choices had to be made. The commission marshalled the available options and made informed and reasoned recommendations. Members of this House and the Dáil would probably make a different choice, but we would all agree we will not return to the so-called gerrymanders of the past when a Minister revised constituencies. It will be a commission and I hope that will be acceptable to the Senators.

Senator Camillus Glynn

I have already spoken on this matter but I wish to add further that I am disappointed with the commission's report. Being primarily a Celtic race, we in Ireland identify very much with parishes and counties. When that principle is breached, certain situations obtain which are not consistent with what I would consider the keeping together of communities. In Leitrim a very bad job was done. As I have already said, it is one of the smallest counties in Ireland and has seen mass emigration over the years. To sever the county in two, as has been done, does not make any sense and flies in the face of the concept within the terms of reference of the commission of trying to ensure that, where possible, county boundaries should not be breached.

No one has explained to me how cutting Leitrim in two made sense. If that is sense, I would like to know what nonsense is, because it makes no sense. It is no surprise there is not a Dáil Deputy for County Leitrim. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to work out why. It is consistent with what one would expect. As the ninth beatitude of the wise man said, blessed are those who do not expect, they shall never be disappointed. No one expected a Dáil Deputy to be elected in Leitrim and that is precisely what we got — no one.

There is a similar situation in north Westmeath, where a portion of the area went into making a three seat constituency in Meath. Part of Meath has been put into the Louth constituency, while people in Limerick have been put into a Kerry constituency. I do not know from where the rationale for that came. Perhaps I am out of step and wrong, but I do not think so. If I am wrong, so is the rest of the nation as the same opinion has been expressed by anybody I have spoken to about this matter.

Everybody knows what it means to keep a community together, and we know what it means when a community is severed. The cohesion of a community is extremely important. We know what happened with the redrawing of the electoral areas and the adverse reaction to it at local and constituency levels. Towns have been divided in two. Mullingar, for example, has been divided into Mullingar east and Mullingar west by a railway line. Was sense employed in that? No, it was not. As the old adage says, by their deeds shall you know them. It is not a question of what people say but what they do.

This redrawing is a bad job. The commission has not fulfilled the expectations of those who charged it with that responsibility. As I said previously, when politicians redrew constituencies or electoral areas, it was called gerrymandering. This is commission-mandering or commie-mandering. It makes absolutely no sense. I fail to see how it could justifiably find its way onto the Statute Book. I support the view expressed by Senator Ellis regarding its constitutionality. I have serious doubts about it. I am no lawyer but would one want or need to be? If one employs the concept of commonsense, this makes no sense. Commonsense in this report appears to have been a scarce commodity. I am not trying to denigrate the characters of the people who produced it but, at best, poor judgment was employed. At worst, it is a disaster for democracy. It does nothing to conserve communities or to keep intact communities in Leitrim or north Westmeath.

North Westmeath is one of the few areas in County Westmeath which experienced a population decrease in the good times. There are no marks for guessing that it is a disadvantaged area. Severing it to make up the constituency of Meath West was not the best thing to do to conserve that community. It is an area where a number of parishes must join forces to produce a football or hurling team, whereas in the old days each parish could field such teams in their own right. I am not saying there is a panacea to resolve those difficulties but it gives an indication of the situation.

To echo the words of Senator Ellis, I urge the Minister to consult with his colleagues in Government and to seek a view from the Council of State on this matter. It should be referred to the Supreme Court. I doubt it has a legal basis. I could be wrong but if so, I will stand corrected. I cannot add more to what was said by Senator Ellis and others. I am disappointed with this for the reasons I have stated. I hope that at some stage a chink of light will emanate from behind a cloud to confer some degree of commonsense on this report, which at this point it lacks.

Senator Paudie Coffey

As I said on Second Stage, I sympathise with Senator Ellis and the people of Leitrim. In the Irish psyche there is a huge affinity with county boundaries. People in a county who do not have a public representative from within the county to represent them at a forum consider themselves at a disadvantage and disenfranchised. If any other county did not have a public representative in the Dáil, its people would feel the same as Senator Ellis and the people of Leitrim.

However, Fine Gael respects the independence of the commission. It is an independent commission that was set up to analyse the census of population and the demographics of this country and to recommend, independently and outside the political institutions, how the constituencies should be constituted. How seriously did the commission take the submissions made to it? That is the key issue. Time, money and effort went into making submissions to the commission. How seriously did it analyse those submissions? Did it make any responses that are available to the public? Can one view them? This is an important point. There must be an understanding of the reasons for making such decisions.

My constituency is Waterford. The north of County Waterford on the Clonmel side of south Tipperary has been lopped off into the constituency of Tipperary South. I represented that area on the county council. The people there feel disenfranchised and that, in a way, they fall between two stools. They vote in the Tipperary South constituency in a general election but in a local election they vote in the Waterford local electoral areas. They feel they fall between the two and are not taken seriously. Regardless of how strongly their public representatives seek to reassure them, they do not consider it right. From that point of view, I sympathise with the points made by Senator Ellis.

I draw the Minister's attention to page 40, the Schedule referred to in section 4. I seek clarification of the reference to Waterford in line 30. It states: "The county of Waterford, except the part thereof which is comprised in the constituency of Tipperary South; and the city of Waterford". Perhaps the Minister would clarify why it states "except . . . and the city of Waterford". My understanding is that the constituency consists of the county of Waterford and Waterford city, except the part in Tipperary South. I suspect there might be a mistake in the provision. If not, I am happy to be corrected.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson

I concur with the comments of Senator Glynn, Senator Coffey and particularly those of Senator Ellis about the people of County Leitrim who feel disenfranchised as a result of the outcome of the commission's report. It should be noted that the constituency commission consisted of the following members: a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the Chief Justice, the Ombudsman, the Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Clerk of the Dáil and the Clerk of the Seanad. The function of the Constituency Commission was:

. . . to make a report in relation to the constituencies for—

(a) the election of members to the Dáil, and

(b) the election of members of the European Parliament.

(2) In preparing a report [it states quite clearly] under subsection (1)(a) a Constituency Commission shall, in observing the relevant provisions of the Constitution in relation to Dáil constituencies, have regard to the following:

(a) the total number of members of the Dáil, subject to Article 16.2.2° of the Constitution, shall be not less than 164 and not more than 168;

(b) each constituency shall return 3, 4 or 5 members;

(c) the breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as practicable;

(d) each constituency shall be composed of contiguous areas;

(e) there shall be regard to geographic considerations including significant physical features and the extent of and the density of population in each constituency; and

(f) subject to the provisions of this section, the Commission shall endeavour to maintain continuity in relation to the arrangement of constituencies.

On subparagraph (c), the breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as practicable, as Senator Ellis pointed out, both on Second Stage and on Committee Stage, the commission, by virtue of the answer that the Minister gave Senator Ellis on Second Stage, was clearly in breach of the terms of reference as laid down. I believe Senator Ellis has independent legal advice which indicates that as a result of the breach of terms of reference of the commission, this Bill is unconstitutional and if challenged, will fall.

I join with Senator Ellis and other colleagues in appealing to the Minister of State, Deputy Micheál Kitt, to ask the senior Minister in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to have the Attorney General check this legislation and, if necessary, bring it before the Supreme Court. The last outcome we want prior to a general election, which will be taking place in three and a half years' time, is any challenge to this Bill or the ramifications that such would entail.

It is appalling that any member of the general public who requests information under the Freedom of Information Act on how the commission came to its decisions should be refused it. It is outrageous that an elected representative of this House should have to request this information in the first place under the Freedom of Information Act, but it is appalling that when he requests it he is refused. On what basis was Senator Ellis refused this information?

There was clearly a conflict of interest because the person refusing him the information was part of the commission that came to the decision to disenfranchise the people of County Leitrim and the various other counties that have been outlined here by my colleagues on both sides of the House. I ask the Minister of State to get clarification on the matters raised under this section.

I welcome one part of the Bill, that which enlarges the north-west constituency for the European elections, the old constituency of Connacht-Ulster, or the three counties of Ulster and the province of Connacht and the County of Clare. We are now joined by the counties of Westmeath and Longford, and I very much welcome that. It gives a realistic possibility of somebody from the part of the country from which I come, that is, Cavan, Monaghan, Leitrim, Longford, Westmeath, being elected to the European Parliament, and I very much welcome that. However, the Bill is flawed in respect of the areas I outlined, and my colleague, Senator Ellis, outlined here previously, and I would very much welcome the Minister of State's comments in that regard.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

I thank the Senators for their contributions. First, I want to empathise with what Senator Glynn stated about parish boundaries and, indeed, county boundaries. He gave a good example in the case of the GAA and the pride of the parish. Indeed, that issue of the great empathy there is with parishes and with counties comes up quite a good deal in elections, whether in general elections or local elections.

On the issue Senator Coffey raised where he spoke of the way Waterford is described in the Bill, I understand these are two administrative areas, the county of Waterford and the city of Waterford. I would liken it to the description of Galway West, which the Bill refers to as "The county of Galway, except the part which is in Galway East; and the city of Galway". There is a borough in Galway and in Waterford, and two administrative areas in each of those counties.

He asked how serious were the submissions treated by the commission. Obviously, we all have different views on that. I and the Minister hope that, as the Senator stated, as it is an independent commission all submissions made would be treated seriously. As I stated, there is more consultation provided for in the Bill and I hope that will be welcomed by all sides of the House.

On Senator Wilson's point, I understand the Minister has no more information other than what is in the report. For that reason, the Minister is not disposed to accepting amendments to the Bill which would alter the scheme of the constituencies recommended by the commission.

The Minister's reasons are well known. He spoke about establishing a commission to advise on constituency revision and the implication that these recommendations would be implemented in full. In addition, to reject some of the commission's recommendations would be to revert to the partisan approach of the past, of which Senator Glynn spoke, when constituency revisions were perceived as framed to secure political advantage for the Government of the day. Also, if the Minister were to comment on particular commission recommendations, he feels it would undermine the independence of a statutory commission which has carried out its task in compliance with all the relevant constitutional and legal requirements.

The Government's view is that the commission's recommendations are a package which must be accepted or rejected in its entirety and the Government has decided to follow the established practice of implementing in full the recommendations of the independent commission.

Senator John Ellis

I note the Minister of State's reply. He did not state whether or not he was going to ask his senior colleague to seek clarification from the Attorney General on the position concerning the preparation of the commission report. If we are to progress this further, this clarification must be got. The Members of this House are entitled to get information from the chief law officer, as far as the Government is concerned.

I want to make quite clear that it was with the senior Minister, Deputy Gormley, that the matter was raised. I cannot understand why he has not sought clarification from the Attorney General and I cannot understand why his officials did not ensure he did so because that was the point we raised on Second Stage. I understood that he would do so. I raised with him on Second Stage the point that if the decision taken was, first, that there were only going to be 166 Members, the commission had broken its terms of reference which stated it was to explore all avenues, up to 168 Members, to ensure the county and geographic boundaries were not broken. These boundaries have been broken right across the board.

Another matter which arises is that section 6(1) of the Electoral Act 1997 states:

It shall be the function of a Constituency Commission to make a report in relation to the constituencies for—

(a) the election of members to the Dáil, and

(b) the election of representatives to the European Parliament.

Section 6(2) states:

In preparing a report under subsection (1)(a) a Constituency Commission shall, in observing the relevant provisions of the Constitution in relation to Dáil constituencies, have regard to the following:

(a) the total number of members of the Dáil, subject to Article 16.2.2° of the Constitution, shall be not less than 164 and not more than 168.

That decision was taken when the population was 20% less than it is now. Therefore the terms of reference for the 1997 Act are questionable. If that were to be followed through, proportionally we should be heading towards a figure of 180 Deputies. I am not saying some members of the public might not appreciate this but there is definitely a question mark over the entire electoral basis on which this commission reported. It is out of date. As I said earlier, the commission used a judgment which was handed down after its establishment and after the terms of reference were in place, as part of its justification for doing what it did. I wonder whether one could have a situation whereby terms of reference might be amended by a court decision. That needs to be looked at.

The Act makes it quite clear that "the breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as practicable". It says that "each constituency shall be composed of contiguous areas" and "there shall be regard to geographic considerations including significant physical features and the extent of and the density of population in each constituency". That confirms what I have said that the terms of reference of the commission were not adhered to. It also says, with reference to the famous Murphy-McGrath judgment, that the commission would not have been entitled to consider that as part of its deliberations. It is obvious, however, that it did because that has been said here and it has been confirmed.

The provision, "there shall be regard to geographic considerations" goes without doubt. As for density of population, either it is sacrosanct or one must consider the geographic spread or the density. One cannot have the two. One can have one but not both because one cannot have the density of population in each constituency and the geographic spread. In rural Leitrim, for instance, there is no comparison in the density of population vis-à-vis Dublin. I said earlier that if one wants to move from one end of a constituency in Dublin to another, it takes about 15 or 20 minutes. From Tullaghan to Arva is about 70 miles, and that is the length of County Leitrim.

Representation as far as the need of the public is concerned is not considered at all. The Electoral Act 1997 states clearly in section 6(2)(e): “there shall be regard to geographic considerations including significant physical features”. Physical features mean mountains and rivers and everything else. Whenever our predecessors determined the counties, some people in Leitrim wondered how they ended up with one half cut off by County Cavan. One cannot go from one end of Leitrim to another and stay within the county unless one travels by water. One can only travel on the River Shannon if one wishes to remain within the county. On the southern side one must go via County Roscommon and on the northern side one must go through County Cavan if one wants to get from one end of County Leitrim to the other. People wondered at the time why we were not put somewhere else, but what was done was done.

It goes back to what I have been saying. We are trying to debate something on Committee Stage where the clarifications that were sought on Second Stage have not been given by the Minister. I do not blame the senior Minister for this because the officialdom in his Department should have advised him to obtain the official position from the Attorney General's office. That was not done and it means we cannot finish the business today one way or another. We will have to get a report from the Attorney General and the Minister before we can progress to Report and Final Stages. I am definitely convinced this will have to be done.

I note the Clerk is present and while I do not expect the Clerk to say anything, the Clerk was privy to what went on. I know officials are sworn to secrecy and one must live with that, but if it was first decided by the commission that there should only be 166 Deputies, then its report is negligent and flawed. If the Department says that everything is shredded, and it is a pity it did not shred other things as quickly as its seems to have shredded these files, perhaps the only way this can be determined is by access to the full report. I am convinced the full report is still available because whoever wrote the Minister's speech must have had access to it. It is as clear as night following day.

The main feature of the commission's report on Dáil constituencies was to the effect that there should be no change in the existing level of Dáil membership, namely, 166 seats. I specifically asked the Minister after he made his speech in the House whether he could confirm for me that this was the position and he said "Yes". If that is the position, the commission report is flawed because it did not consider all the options open to it. That is the point I definitely want to make as far as this whole business is concerned. The commission should have examined the possibility of going to 168, or going back to 164 if need be in order to live within its terms of reference regarding the representation per member. We should not take this business any further until such time as we get a definitive legal opinion from the Attorney General on the method that was used. Otherwise will it mean that I or someone on my behalf will have to decide to give lawyers another €200,000 and call on members of the commission to give evidence? It should be remembered that they will have to give evidence on this if it goes to court for the simple reason that it was they who took the decision. If the decision was that the figure should be 166 and that was the first decision taken, then the commission report is flawed because all other avenues were not explored.

As far as I am concerned I will oppose this Bill going through all Stages today on the basis that we should wait for Report Stage to get a report from the Minister.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I thank Senator Ellis for his contribution. He has done the Oireachtas a great service in the amount of work he obviously has put into this debate. I agree with many of the points he raised. I am especially concerned with some issues, not just areas such as Limerick, Leitrim and elsewhere but also the north east, specifically the constituencies of Louth, Meath East and Meath West.

The last constituency commission report expanded the five-seat Meath constituency because of the population growth experienced in the county over the past ten years. I concluded from a demographic study I conducted last year that the population of the county doubled between 1996 and 2007. Significant increases also occurred in County Kildare, the seats of which were increased from six to seven by the report. Meath was transformed into the two three-seat constituencies of Meath East and Meath West. To boost the population of the latter so that it met the criteria set out in legislation, the Coole electoral area of Westmeath was transferred to it.

Louth has been a four-seat constituency for many years but for some reason the Constituency Commission decided to move across county boundaries to include Louth with Meath East and Meath West in the mix of constituencies. The population of Louth has also increased over the past ten years, not only due to people moving there from Dublin but also through natural growth and immigration. When the population of Louth, Meath East and Meath West is added together, the need for an additional seat can be justified. Indeed, many of us called for an extra seat for the region. However, we expected the commission to take account of the legislation, which clearly states that respect must be paid to county boundaries.

The county boundary between counties Louth and Meath has always been defined by the River Boyne, which flows from Mornington and Baltray as far as Newgrange before the boundary moves across the river. That reflects the historic ecclesiastic boundary between the Diocese of Meath, which is bounded by the River Boyne in Drogheda, and the Diocese of Armagh. As a southsider, I tend not to cross the river often. Although the 10% of Drogheda which lies on the south bank of the river is part of the Diocese of Meath, it is included in the constituency of Louth. The reason for this is because the 800 year-old town of Drogheda cannot be split merely by the presence of the river even though it straddles it.

However, as one moves further from the town to the countryside of east Meath, a clear green belt exists between the town's boundaries and settlements such as Laytown, Bettystown, Julianstown and Gormanston. These areas possess different characteristics and the people and families who have grown up in them consider themselves part of County Meath. During the time of Jimmy Tully, who represented Meath as a Deputy for almost 40 years from the early 1950s to the 1980s and who was a deputy leader of my party, the cry was "not an inch of Meath will go to Louth". People were concerned about the potential loss of representation and did not align themselves with Louth in their daily lives. They took pride in being constituents of Meath, their football team and their land. They have always fought to retain their distinctiveness from Louth. I do not mean to detract from Louth, which is a fantastic place. It has a good football team which last won the all-Ireland a mere 52 years ago. That is not a long time in the overall scheme of things.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

The referee was a Galway man.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I appreciate that and thank the Minister of State for the help. Rather than criticise Louth, I merely want to identify the proper approach to take. More respect should have been paid to county boundaries. I have been told by people in Bettystown and Laytown they no longer intend to vote because they feel little allegiance to County Louth. Members of the Minister of State's party, including the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and Deputy Kirk are respected for the tremendous work they do on behalf of their constituents in Louth. That is demonstrated by the poll results they achieve at elections. I believe Deputy Kirk was elected on the first count at the last election. However, many people in the east Meath region are concerned about being represented by people from outside the constituency and would prefer to remain within Meath East. This report caused considerable consternation among local residents.

The entire issue of county boundaries is being thrown aside and replaced by a different rationale for grouping electoral areas. Areas of County Westmeath have been included in the three seat Meath West constituency. The Leader has raised concerns in that regard and I am sure people of that county would prefer to vote in the Westmeath constituency. In the north west of County Meath, Kells has previously been combined with Navan, Trim and Athboy but is now being wrenched out of Meath West and moved to Meath East. The constituencies of long-serving Deputies such as Deputy Johnny Brady are being torn apart. While many of his constituents will remain in the constituency of Meath West, others will be in the Meath East constituency. Five years ago, Kells was in the Meath constituency. Last year, it was in the Meath West constituency and it is now expected to move to the Meath East constituency.

People become familiar with their local representatives and with voting for them. Five years ago, the people of Kells were forced to choose a new representative to support. This changed again two years ago and they are now being asked to vote for a completely new set of representatives. Many people who supported the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, for years were forced to vote for a new representative in their area. There will be much confusion as a result of this. People are concerned about the transfer of towns and villages to different constituencies, in particular when there are other ways of achieving our goal, namely, ensuring representation is proportional to the population in an area.

Approximately 17,000 people are who were in the constituency of Meath East will now be in the Louth constituency, thus increasing the population of the Louth constituency to the extent that it will become a five-seater rather than four-seater constituency. Later, I hope to speak to an amendment I have tabled on constituency size. We would like larger constituencies as they are more democratic in that smaller parties are less well represented when constituencies are smaller in size. I have some interesting statistics for the House which I will go into in detail at a later stage if we get to my amendment. I will not deal at this stage with the issue of three-seater or four-seater constituencies.

As I stated, as a result of these changes the Meath East constituency will no longer include Laytown, Bettystown and an estate called Grange Rath, which comprises almost 1,000 houses, accommodating approximately 3,000 people. Many of these people, who recently moved to the area from Dublin and are only getting to know their local representatives, will be in a different constituency requiring them to find out once again who is representing them. In these challenging times, people need to know where to go with their complaints and from whom they can obtain information in regard to benefits and so on. People who have been living in this area for three years will know their public representatives. However, following enactment of this legislation they will contact the wrong public representatives. This will create confusion and will diminish people's trust in the electoral system.

Approximately 20,000 people from places such as Grange Rath, Laytown, Bettystown, Gormanstown and Julianstown in the Meath constituency will now be in the Louth constituency. The impact of this will be that the goals as set out in the advice given to the commission will be met in terms of overall numbers. While this addresses the variance of percentage of population to seats, it clearly does not, as other Senators stated, respect county boundaries. A person who resides eight miles from County Louth will be in the Louth constituency. One could argue, if one decided to ignore the issue of county delineation, that those people should be included in the Dublin North constituency. As Members will know, the Dublin North constituency has been revised. Many people who moved out from places such as Balbriggan to Laytown, which is only three or four miles away, knew five years ago who were their representatives. Many of their families remain living in Balbriggan and many of those people continue to work there. I do not understand why, when it came to determining what made sense in terms of to what constituencies particular towns and villages should be aligned, a place like Julianstown, which is nearer to Dublin North than Louth, was not included in the Dublin North constituency when reviewed and changed. People cannot make sense of what is being done.

For whatever reason, the commission has decided to put aside the issue of county boundaries. As long as we are not told how this came about and what is the rationale behind it, people will continue to ask questions. Last week Senator Ellis gave this thoughts on why the commission came back with these findings, not alone in regard to Meath but in regard to Limerick, Kerry North, Kerry South and other areas. Senator Ellis appears to have concerns about due process. I have no evidence to suggest anything untoward has taken place. However, many of the recommendations in this report are strange. I am at a loss to understand why the commission chose to go down this particular route. It is clear from the legislation that county boundaries were to be respected. However, this appears to have been left by the wayside. There is no justification for why the commission ignored that advice.

We need to see the relevant information. It is information the Minister could make available if he chose to do so. However, I could be wrong and would appreciate clarification on the matter from the Minister of State. I know Senator Ellis has tried to get this information under the Freedom of Information Act but has been unsuccessful in doing so. The Cathaoirleach will recall that only a few short months ago this House debated the issue of freedom of information — Senator Buttimer will recall that debate. Not enough is covered by the Freedom of Information Act. There appears to be too many exclusions, which is the reason we sought a debate on the issue.

I believe we need more information from the Minister if we are to go along with the passing of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2008. We need to know why county boundaries have not been respected and what is the rationale for ignoring that advice.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, to the House. All of us are representatives of the people. I am concerned at the drift in politics. The commission may have played its part in this regard. While I acknowledge Senator Ellis's great remarks in the House in regard to Leitrim, he is not the only representative promoting Leitrim. Former Deputy and Senator Gerry Reynolds and other councillors on the Fine Gael side have been active and vocal in that regard.

I have a major concern regarding the way in which the Bill and the commission report disenfranchise people. By this, I mean we in this country have become fixated on being politically correct about everything. The Cathaoirleach gets a hard time from me on the Order of Business and he tries to rein me in.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is right first time.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

There are members of the media who parade virtues everywhere. The commission is going by the boundary review as laid out in the census of population. The terms of reference were slightly askew, however.

I have concerns in a number of areas, including with regard to the number of people who have left Cork and the west, and Senator Coffey spoke about Waterford being part of Tipperary South. We are not giving people the representation they deserve. I am not blaming the commission, I am blaming the terms of reference. By its nature, there is a drift towards the capital and the periphery of Dublin. If we want to go back to the Pale mentality of long ago, that is fine, let us do it, but the rest of Ireland loses.

As I said on another Stage of the debate, I do not subscribe to the view that the N7 at the Red Cow is the beginning and end of Ireland. I am a Cork man and proud of it. I believe Cork is the capital of Ireland and we should not be losing TDs as we have been — a TD was taken from Cork North-Central following the second last commission, which was a wrong move. To take the Cork area strategic plan, CASP, area of metropolitan cork as an example, one could have a very good constituency boundary for the wider Cork area which would take cognisance of the division made by the River Lee and would take in emerging communities in Carrigaline and Douglas, and put them with Bishopstown and Ballincollig in Cork South-Central. In Cork North-Central, one could take Glanmire and Blarney and put them in different constituencies. This would make for very attractive constituencies. I have some concerns in this regard.

With regard to the role of parliamentarians, I subscribe to the view that people should know, interact with and regularly meet their TDs, Senators and councillors — in this case TDs, as the boundary commission report concerns TDs. If we want to become like England or America, that is fine. We will all stay in Dublin four days a week and then drive down in the car and nod the head at the weekend. Personally, I do not want to do that. I am concerned we are heading in that direction in some of the constituencies we are creating, particularly in the Dublin area.

To digress — I crave the indulgence of the Cathaoirleach——

An Cathaoirleach

We are dealing with section 4.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I will be brief. Given all the clamour regarding politicians' expenses in the newspapers every day, I would like to tell the Minister for Finance and other members of the Government that no Member of this House or the other House are pariahs. We are being branded in the media almost as criminals. Some of us, who have no income other than what we receive as Deputies and Senators, are working very hard. I challenge any journalist to come out with me in Cork South-Central for the four days a week I am there, or to stay here with me in Dublin, to see the work the members of different parties do — I include all of us in that.

We are getting wrongly blamed for representing the people. If the commission wanted to change the terms of reference for all of us, it should have done so. However, the media should stop hounding politicians and blaming us for the ills of the world. I feel strongly about this, while it might not be politically correct to say it. I accept there must be a tightening of the belt and I put my hand up in that regard. However, politicians on local councils and town councils, and Members of this House and the other House, should not be cast as bad people. We are not. We work damn hard for the people. I challenge any journalist to come out with me.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the number of officials employed by Ministers and Ministers of State has gone beyond a joke, although that is a different issue which I will not go into now. I crave the indulgence——

An Cathaoirleach

We are on section 4. We are dealing with constituencies.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

It is relevant to the section. If a Minister has 12 officials working for him or her, and Deputies and Senators have nobody, it is very hard to compete.

An Cathaoirleach

That is not relevant to the Bill. We are on section 4.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I am on section 4. I am curious with regard to Senator Ellis's remarks on legality and constitutionality and I look forward to the Minister of State's response. We have missed an opportunity to create new boundaries in the city and county of Cork, which would have been exciting and innovative and would have moved away from the old Cork South-Central and Cork North-Central division. It is important that people have representation and know their politicians.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

The whole process starts with the census results, which are the starting point for the consideration of the proportionality of votes in each part of the country. In discussing the commission which gave us the constituencies under discussion, we are talking about a Government decision to draft a Bill. That decision was made and, as I said, it included a decision to accept the commission's report in its entirety.

On a general point, some Senators suggested alternatives to the scheme of constituencies that was recommended by the commission in its report and I know some are clearly unhappy with the recommendations — I said I might do it differently, as would other Senators. However, there is a long-established practice of implementing the recommendations of the Constituency Commission in full.

Senator Hannigan referred to the late Jim Tully, a former Minister, whom I knew. When he had the power to make changes, he told me he was doing me a favour. He did not do me any favour, but that is the way politics goes and one has to take the consistency one is faced with. If we reject some of the commission's recommendations, we are reverting to the partisan approach of the past, where, irrespective of which Government was in power, Governments tried to take advantage of the situation in which they found themselves. Even minor changes to the commission's recommendations would represent the first step back to that unsatisfactory situation.

Mr. Justice Clark, in his 2007 judgment, emphasised the urgent obligation on the Oireachtas to revise constituencies as soon as it becomes clear from a census that the existing constituencies no longer have the level of proportionality the Constitution requires.

We have had a very good discussion on the section. We have dealt with parishes and counties, and Senator Hannigan even talked about dioceses, which covers everything. As Senator Glynn said, the parish is something to which we are all very attached and happy to see promoted, whether it is with regard to the GAA or other developments. My key point is that we are here to implement the recommendations of the commission in their entirety.

Senator John Ellis

The Minister of State said in his reply that we cannot make any change to the commission's recommendations. I accept totally that we do not have that right due to the independent nature of what has been recommended. However, that is not when the crisis arose. The crisis arose at the outset when the commission's terms of reference were not adhered to. The Bill is before the House but it is based on a flawed commission report, flawed because it did not take into consideration all the options. It took the specific decision to have 166 Members and this was confirmed to the House by the Minister. If this is the case the commission report, on which sections of the Bill are based, is flawed. That has been my point since day one and since the Minister informed the House of that fact.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

I made this point previously, as has the Minister, Deputy Gormley, when he quoted the High Court judgment of Mr. Justice Budd. The judgment argued that although a system in the main based on counties has been adopted, there is nothing in the Constitution about constituencies based on counties. The Constitution does not provide for the formation of constituencies as far as practicable having regard to county boundaries and according to the required ratio. That argument is on page 146 of the High Court judgment and it is the point I made at the beginning. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, also argued that the Constitution does not state that constituencies should be based on counties. We all have different views on the matter.

Last week the Minister published a detailed report on the establishment of an electoral commission in Ireland. The report was produced by a team in UCD. It refers to issues such as the registration of political parties, the electoral register, constituency revision — the matter under discussion today — running elections and referenda, funding, and research and awareness activities. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, stated that the electoral system belongs to all of us. He is determined to take forward change in this area on a consensual basis. For that reason he will invite interested organisations and individuals to provide their views on the important issues raised in the report. In this way there will be a firm basis for the implementation of the changes signalled in the programme for Government. Formal invitations will issue to interested parties shortly and the deadline for sending views to the Minister will be 26 June. That is a very welcome announcement from the Minister on the establishment of an electoral commission and it allows some time to deal with such issues as constituency revision.

I have made some points dealing with the direction in which we intend to move with the report. The Government decision is to accept the report in its entirety.

Senator John Ellis

On a point of order the Minister of State quotes the decision of Mr. Justice Budd. However, at that stage the representation ratio was 20,000:1.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

A point of order must relate to procedure. The Senator may speak on the relevant section.

Senator John Ellis

The procedure is very simple. The Minister of State made a statement in the House. If the statement is incorrect we should have the right to question it. I am not saying the Minister of State did not provide what was before him, but he did state that the decision of Mr. Justice Budd was taken when the representation ratio was 20,000:1. The ratio is now is 25,000:1 and the judgment is, therefore, irrelevant.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

Senator Ellis has made a very good point. The north east of the country has seen significant changes since the publication of the report. Much of the population increase was as a result of new arrivals to the country coming to benefit from and add greatly to the economy, which has now taken a turn for the worse. One consequence of the downturn has been the decision of many people to seek their fortune elsewhere. I can name countless towns and villages in the north east and the commuter belt which are affected by this change. One need only visit a housing estate in Ashbourne and call to people's front doors to realise the number of empty houses now compared with only two years ago. This is because people have moved away. Any estate agent in the north-east region will confirm that properties are becoming cheaper to rent because the demand that existed two years ago no longer exists. As a result, the population in many of these areas has fallen.

I realise the next census is some time away but perhaps the Bill may be based on information already a good deal out of date. The Minister of State might consider re-examining the issue of demographic changes. There has been a fundamental change in the population in many areas. Some villages and towns have seen a 10% or 15% reduction in the number of people, purely because of the flight of foreign workers back home. In some cases such people may not go back home but may go to London to take advantage of jobs that may be available there to help with the building programme for the Olympic Games in 2012. Many people have moved on because the Celtic tiger economy is no more. I am not sure how well that fact has been represented in these figures. We may be adopting legislation based on information already some way out of date.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

The comments of Senator Hannigan are very interesting. I made the point before he arrived in the House——

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I may have missed it.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

The electoral commission announced by the Minister last week arises from a commitment in the programme for Government that refers to an independent electoral commission which would take responsibility for electoral administration and oversight and the implementation of modern and efficient electoral practices. In addition to a revision of constituency boundaries, it also proposes to take charge of compiling a new national rolling electoral register and to take over the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission relating to election spending. It also proposes to examine the issue of financing the political system. In the light of the changes in population and the demographic situation outlined by the Senator, this is something the electoral commission will do and the Minister hopes the views of people and interested parties will be received before 26 June.

I agree with the comments of Senator Hannigan. However, irrespective of the demographic changes, there is a commission in place. That has been the practice for a long time since the late Mr. Jack Lynch established the first commission. The commission is allowed to carry out its work independently and we accept its recommendations in their entirety. Every Government has done so since the first commission was appointed.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

We all respect the work of the commission. However, we wish to know more about the rationale involved. There should be more transparency, which is the topic of the month in the Houses at present. The publication of the rationale would help and go some way in this regard. I welcome the fact there will be a review of the management of the electoral register and I welcome also the potential of having a rolling electoral register. I am a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which has spent quite some time in the past year and a half examining how best to improve the electoral register.

During the previous general election in 2007 I remember calling to a house in which 17 people were registered to vote but which had only two residents. I called to four houses which between them had 51 votes yet only eight people lived there. The local authorities were clearly unable to manage the electoral register because of the sheer scale of the resources required to keep an up-to-date register and because so many people were moving in and out of the area. I was heartened to see the report published by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on which the Minister of State's Department is acting, suggesting that we move towards a rolling system. That will increase transparency and mean that the register is more up to date and reflects the population in our towns and villages. I am sad that it will not be in place for the local elections on 5 June but this is a way forward. I am grateful for the work the Department is doing in this area of electoral reform and compliment the Minister and Ministers of State involved.

I look forward to seeing a rolling register in place as soon as possible, as long as it is adequately funded. The Minister of State will have to fight to ensure that the new authority responsible for the register is adequately funded and does not suffer from cutbacks. A hell of a lot of data will have to be carefully managed. There have been problems around confidential data, for example, the Bank of Ireland lost the details of hundreds of thousands of customers last year. We need to be sure that those in charge of maintaining and updating the electoral register are given sufficient resources to do the job well and accurately, and most important, to ensure that data is confidential.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Senator Paudie Coffey

Section 5 states:

A constituency specified in the Schedule shall return the number of members set out in respect thereof in the third column of that Schedule.

There has been much debate about constituency boundaries but we are familiar with the buzz words ‘balanced regional development' in the national spatial strategy and other reports planning Ireland's progress. The emphasis in other EU countries, however, is on regional governance. In Ireland the model is central government feeding down to the local authorities and constituencies. I was a chairperson of a regional authority and know that while authorities do good work on policies they do not have the necessary teeth or funding and legislative backing to properly promote balanced regional development.

Four Deputies represent my area, Waterford, which includes one of the national gateway cities identified in the national spatial strategy. A total of 18 Deputies represent Waterford and the other constituencies covered by the regional authority area, Tipperary South, Wexford and Carlow-Kilkenny. My colleague, Senator Buttimer, rightly mentioned his disappointment that Cork lost a representative in the second last commission. A total of 19 Deputies, however, represent Cork city and county alone while 47 Deputies represent Dublin city and the greater Dublin area. By comparison the representatives from the country punch above their weight here. No Government programme involving capital spending, whether the national development plan or other, involves proper balanced regional development because the regions are inadequately represented. I understand that the commission operates within its terms of reference and bases its recommendations on population but this is a small country and geography and regional development should be considered seriously. Government policy and plans refer to balanced regional development but do not recognise that in the number of representatives from the regions. I am not saying that we should have as many Deputies in Waterford and the south east as there are in Dublin where the population is big. Taking proper regional development into consideration, however, we need to consider the numbers of representatives in the regions and address that issue properly and fairly.

Senator Ellis spoke about rural versus the urban areas. People feel disenfranchised and under-represented and need to know their representatives and to have a voice in the Parliament. Balanced regional development needs to be backed up by adequate, fully supported representation in the constituencies. The hard facts are that Waterford and the south east have 18 Deputies, Dublin has 47 while Cork city and county have 19, which compares with the number for the whole south-east region.

I support Senator Hannigan's comments about the electoral commission. I too welcome the fact that the Minister is bringing this forward. The sooner he does so the better because all parties in the House have acknowledged that the registers are deplorably inaccurate.

I am a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Under our Chairman, Deputy Seán Fleming, we have examined other jurisdictions to determine how best the registers should be managed to ensure that we have an adequate and accurate electoral system. The rolling system is to be welcomed. I presume that the Minister has taken on board many of the committee's recommendations on the electoral commission because we have done a lot of ground work and have made good cross-party recommendations. I hope he will take most, if not all, of our views on board. That will benefit democracy and the electoral system in general.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I agree with Senator Coffey about balanced regional development. He seems to be calling for a system of representation like the Senate system in the United States whereby there are two Senators from every state, regardless of the size of the state. That might be worth considering.

I am not from Dublin but I am from within the Pale. There are anomalies at county council level of which the Minister is probably well aware and on which he needs to act. There is an imbalance between county councillors in Dublin and the numbers they represent and those in places such as Senator Ellis's home, Leitrim. I had the pleasure of spending time last night with Councillor Dermot Lacey, one of my party's candidates in the south of the city in the forthcoming local election. He is in a six-seat ward, around Rathmines and Ranelagh where the population is approximately 65,000. That is the size of a Dáil constituency but with twice the number of representatives. Each councillor is almost like a super-councillor or a semi-Deputy. A total of 28 people represent Leitrim which probably has a similar population. Senator Wilson can tell us the population of Cavan but it is probably approximately 60,000.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson

It is 60,000.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

There are probably 28 or 29 councillors.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson

There are 25.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

In Cavan, 25 councillors represent 60,000 people, while six councillors represent 65,000 people in a part of Dublin, which is four times the ratio of councillor to population. That is probably not the way we should be operating as a democracy, so the Minister and the Minister of State should look at that again.

I have been calling for reform of the Senate on numerous occasions, but one of the implications of having more councillors from Leitrim and Cavan is that there is a greater likelihood that candidates from those areas are elected to the Senate, when compared to Senators from Dublin. Therefore, this anomaly does not just impact on council constituents in south Dublin, but it also means that when electing Members to this House, candidates from rural backwaters — not that Cavan is a backwater — such as Cavan or Leitrim have a higher chance of being elected to the Senate than the poor Senate candidate from the Dublin region.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Hannigan has lost the rural vote.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

We should look at this again when it comes to reforming the Senate. That is not part of this Bill, so I will not dwell on it, but we need to see movement on the issue of Senate reform. It is something that has been lacking, and I know the Green Party has been keen to see something done on this. I would like to see some legislation on the issue before the beginning of the summer recess.

Senator Paudie Coffey

It is important to debate all these issues, because we are certainly getting views from different representatives. I do not agree with everything Senator Hannigan has said, and I suspect he represents essentially a largely urban area. It is quite logical to understand that in places like Dublin and large urban centres, there are huge population densities, which is stated in the commission's terms of reference. However, there are large swathes of rural areas in the regions. The population may not be as dense, but all of those individuals are entitled to representation. The fact they are living in a sparsely populated area does not mean they should have less representation.

Some speakers mentioned the conundrum between geography versus density. I appreciate it is hard to square that circle, but there should be some weighting system to allow for large geographical areas with lower population densities, as there are still infrastructural needs for those rural areas. There are also issues regarding rural areas that affect our national performance, such as our water quality. As water is predominantly sourced from rural areas, there are protection issues involved. There are also issues about how we get funding from the Government to install the necessary systems, be it waste water treatment plants and so on.

We are going away from the debate to some extent, but it is all related to how areas are represented. The more power representation provides, the more resources will be provided for a constituency or region. There is a big debate on regional development versus central Government, but there is another debate on representation and the density of population versus rural areas. It is not good enough to state there is one councillor representing 6,000 people. That same councillor down the country could be representing 600 people, but his workload could be every bit as onerous as the councillor representing 6,000 people, because those 6,000 people can be well catered for with infrastructure and facilities. A councillor in a rural area could be out there fighting day and night for that infrastructure, even if it is for a smaller population.

It is not necessarily all one way, and I am looking at this as a regional representative. Knowing that the regions have large deficits in infrastructure, we need proper representation. There are 18 TDs in the south-east region, versus 47 TDs for the greater Dublin region. There is an imbalance there in my view.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I thank Senator Coffey for his comments. I agree with him, but I would like to point out that I am not actually an urban representative.

Senator Paudie Coffey

He sounds like one.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

It is fair to recognise that Dublin is under-represented, even though I do not represent Dublin. My constituency of Meath East is quite rural. Last week, I had the pleasure of meeting many people at their doorsteps. Last Thursday, I was standing in a milking parlour while the farmer milked his cows, and a fine herd of cattle he has. That might only be 25 miles from where we are sitting, and there are rural areas in many parts of Meath which I try to represent to the best of my abilities. I do not know the exact split between urban and rural dwellers in my constituency, but I estimate that about 55%-60% of people there live in urban areas. I am sure the Senator has been to Meath, and he is very welcome there.

As the party spokesperson on community and rural affairs in the Senate, I keenly keep an interest in issues that affect rural communities. I have spoken on issues such as rural post offices and the need to keep them open, on suckler grants——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think we are straying from the debate on the section of the Bill.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I just wanted to clarify the situation for Senator Coffey. I agree in essence with what he is saying. Rural councillors, TDs and Senators have a huge post-box——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

By the time we finish this section, it will be milking time.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

One could learn much from visiting rural dwellers in one's constituency, but one needs to spend proportionately more time there because the issues are so diverse. The issues could be about water, sewerage, education, health and so on. I do not want to take away from Senator Coffey's well made point, which is that we need to make sure every citizen has adequate representation.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

Even though we are straying from the Bill, the question of balanced regional development is a very interesting debate. One of my areas of responsibility is related to local services, so the point made by Senator Hannigan is a good one. We must ensure local services are promoted and protected, especially in some of the most rural areas.

Dáil seats are based on population, and that is the bottom line. We must go with that and we give the commission its terms of reference based on the population per seat. The Government's national spatial strategy is important to ensure that regional development is evenly promoted throughout the country. A project I have been anxious to promote is the western rail corridor, which would stretch from Sligo to Limerick, and onto Senator Coffey's County Waterford. Now that we have spent much money on road development, it is important to have rail development as well.

Senator Coffey made the point about the register of electors and the work that his committee is carrying out under the Chairman, Deputy Seán Fleming. I compliment the committee on that important work. It is important for certain issues such as the fact that some people's names are on the register twice or more to be examined in the context of the rolling register. I am glad the committee is working on it.

I would like to mention an interesting fact in response to Senator Hannigan's point about the work of Members of the Dáil who represent Dublin constituencies. It is somewhat ironic that many of the Deputies in question are people from rural Ireland living in Dublin. For example, my brother, Deputy Tom Kitt, and the late Séamus Brennan both moved from County Galway to the same part of Dublin. Both of them were elected for the Fianna Fáil Party to represent the Dublin South constituency at many elections. There is a bit of rural Ireland in every one of us. Senator Coffey rightly pointed out that Dublin is represented by 47 Deputies. It is obvious that the population of Dublin warrants such a degree of representation under the terms of reference given to the constituency commission.

I take all the points that have been made. It is probably a good debate for another day. Section 5 sets out the number of Members of the Dáil who should be elected to represent each constituency. I note that the number of Deputies decreased from 147 in 1923 to 144 in 1969 before increasing to 166 at the present time. As Senator Ellis said, the first decision made by the constituency commission related to the number of seats each constituency should have in the next Dáil.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, line 23, after "members" to insert the following:

"and 3 member constituencies shall only be recommended where there are exceptional circumstances requiring 3 members".

This amendment proposes that three-member constituencies be allowed in exceptional circumstances only. I am not sure that the current constituency commission has been forced by exceptional circumstances to propose so many three seat constituencies. I am surprised the Minister, Deputy Gormley, has not taken action in this regard. He is on record as saying he favours the elimination of three seat constituencies and a movement towards four seat and five seat constituencies or in some cases six seat and seven seat constituencies. It has been proposed to have many more six seat and seven seat constituencies in this year's local elections. Such constituencies offer a fairer form of proportional representation to the electorate.

I will give the House an example to prove that is the case. The quota in a five seat constituency is 16% of the vote, whereas the quota in a three seat constituency is 25% of the vote. In theory, a candidate could get 24.5%, or almost a quarter, of the vote, but he or she will not be elected if he or she fails to attract transfers. In such circumstances, almost a quarter of the electorate would be completely unrepresented because they live in a three seat constituency. That would not be the case in five seat or six seat constituency. The use of bigger constituencies ensures that 80% of the people and up to 90% in some instances have a direct say in who gets elected. We need to provide for more seats in each constituency if we are to maximise the representation of the people. That is necessary not only in the interests of transparency but also to ensure smaller parties are represented. As things stand, the two main parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, probably benefit from the current situation.

Senator Paudie Coffey

The Senator's party is nearly on top now.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I place no credence in opinion polls.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

Good.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

As someone who studied statistics in college, I would prefer to take the recent poll, roll it up into a ball and throw it into the nearest bin. As we all know, only one poll matters. One will not get any votes if one does not work hard, get out there and do one's job. While I appreciate Senator Coffey's good wishes, I assure him opinion polls do not excite me for one minute.

I would like to comment on the manner in which Deputies are elected from the smaller parties. Following the 2007 general election, Sinn Féin is represented in Dáil Éireann by four Deputies. Deputy Ó Snodaigh was elected in the five seat Dublin South-Central constituency. Deputy Ó Caoláin was elected in the five seat Cavan-Monaghan constituency which was reduced to four seats at the previous general election because the then Ceann Comhairle, Deputy O'Hanlon, was automatically re-elected to the Dáil. Deputy Morgan was elected in the four seat Louth constituency. The only Sinn Féin candidate to be elected in a three seat constituency was Deputy Ferris who replaced Dick Spring in the Kerry North constituency in 2002. Most of Sinn Féin's seats were won in five seat and four seat constituencies.

If the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, were here, I am sure he would agree that similar problems are encountered by the Green Party. He represents the four seat Dublin South-East constituency. His colleague, Deputy Cuffe, was elected in the five seat Dún Laoghaire constituency. Deputy White was elected in the five seat Carlow-Kilkenny constituency. The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, comes from the five seat Dublin South constituency. The Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, was elected in the four seat Dublin North constituency. The only exception to the rule in the Green Party is Deputy Gogarty, who was first elected to the Dáil when his constituency, Dublin Mid-West, had just three seats. It has become a four seat constituency since then. Most Green Party Deputies are elected to represent five seat or four seat constituencies. Three of its six Deputies represent five seat constituencies and the other three represent smaller constituencies.

Most of the Deputies elected to represent my own party, the Labour Party, are elected in four seat or five seat constituencies. Our party leader, Deputy Gilmore, comes from the five seat Dún Laoghaire constituency. Deputy Ciarán Lynch represents the five seat Cork South-Central constituency. When Deputy Kathleen Lynch returned to the Dáil in 2002, she was one of five Deputies to be elected in Cork North-Central. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Howlin, represents the five seat Wexford constituency. Deputy O'Shea was elected in the four seat Waterford constituency. Deputy Penrose was elected in the four seat Longford-Westmeath constituency. Deputy Quinn represents the four seat Dublin South-East constituency. Deputy Upton was elected in the five seat Dublin South-Central constituency. Deputy Higgins was elected in the five seat Galway West constituency.

The manner in which proportional representation works means the Labour Party is more adequately represented than other parties. The party's number of Deputies is much more in keeping with the share of the vote it gets. That is not the case in three seat constituencies, however. If a Labour Party candidate gets 20% of the vote in a three seat constituency, he or she might not be elected to the Dáil. The fairness of this aspect of our system needs to be considered. I do not think it is fair.

I am glad the Minister has made changes to local electoral areas. Some electoral areas in County Meath now have seven seats. We have no complaints about that. The outcome of the local elections in such areas will reflect the share of the public vote achieved by small parties. We have no real complaints. We welcome the changes to local electoral seat arrangements. We do not accept that each of the three seat Dáil constituencies recommended by the constituency commission and provided for in this Bill is necessary. We suggest that a greater number of seats be provided for in a smaller number of constituencies to represent more adequately and fairly the demographics involved.

I will refer to the proposed constituency arrangements in the north east, for example. It is proposed that Meath West and Meath East will both have three seats, with Louth having five seats. The Louth recommendation has been put together by removing 17,000 people from the County Meath constituency and placing them in the Louth constituency. The reason they have been removed from the Meath East constituency is not clear. It would have been much more transparent if they had been retained in Meath East and an extra seat given to Meath East. In that way there would be three in Meath West, four in Louth and four in Meath East. Not only would that have been more transparent, it would have gone along with the recommendations given to the constituency commission that county boundaries should be respected. The position now is that there are more three seaters than may be necessary. That is, first, less representative of the way people vote and, second, county boundaries are being split. The problem is that there appears to be no rationale for that being done.

Senator Ellis referred last week to the transparency of the entire process, and people ask questions. If people do not understand the rationale they ask questions. They ask whether somebody has been got to, so to speak. They want to know the reason this is being done. Is it to suit somebody or to nobble somebody else? We are unclear about it because no rationale has been published. Despite requests from Senators for information to be released, the freedom of information rule does not appear to apply in this case. I am led to believe the Minister could make these papers available quite easily and if he did so it might clear up some of these issues.

Our amendment is seeking better representation for people. We want the result of any election to be more reflective of the way people vote and we believe the best way of doing that is by minimising the number of three seat constituencies, except in exceptional circumstances. I will not try to define what is an exceptional circumstance. The term "exceptional circumstances" defines itself. From what we have seen in the proposals contained in this legislation, no exceptional circumstances have been outlined as to the reason this should be the case.

I will give an example of what could be defined as an exceptional circumstance. If there were 65,000 people living on one of the Aran Islands, it might be decided to keep that as a three seater because it might not make sense to move them to another constituency. It might make more sense to give them their own identity. Identity, therefore, could be an issue that would define exceptional circumstances. If people spoke a different language than those in the remainder of the constituency or if a Gaeltacht area had a sufficient number of people for a three seater constituency, that might be an exceptional circumstance.

There is nothing exceptional in the proposals before the House. If anything, the opposite is the case. We are taking people out of the Meath constituency whose families have lived there for generations. They are used to voting for Meath TDs and going to see Meath play at football matches. A total of 18,000 of them are being taken out of that constituency and put into a different county. There is no sense to that and we have seen no rationale for the Government to do that. This amendment seeks to enshrine in law that that cannot be done in the future unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as those I have outlined.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

It might be helpful if I outlined the law and practice in the area. I will start by quoting the Constitution. Article 16.2.6° states no law may be enacted by the Oireachtas providing for less than three members for a constituency. The relevant part of the Electoral Act 1997, which is being largely re-enacted in Part IV of the current Bill, provides that the constituency commission's terms of reference are limited to recommending three, four or five seat constituencies. In the early years of the State there were seven, eight and even nine seat constituencies but constituency size has been restricted to three, four and five seaters since 1947.

The current Bill provides for 17 three seater constituencies. In the 13 previous constituency revisions, that number has been exceeded on five occasions, including by the 18 three seaters enacted in 2005. On the other hand, there were eight occasions on which there were fewer or the same number of three seaters.

It is the Minister's view that it would be too rigid to restrict a commission to two constituency sizes, that is, four seat and five seat constituencies. That would be the substantive effect of this amendment. There must be a reasonable choice of constituency sizes to produce constituencies that make sense to people on the ground by, for example, enclosing entire communities or adhering to obvious physical features.

Restricting in this way the options available to future constituency commissions could result, in particular, in more breaches of county boundaries. For example, if the population in a county determines that an allocation of six seats is appropriate, in the absence of the two three seat options the county boundary must be breached to achieve the constituencies with four seats or five seats. Donegal is such a case at present. The knock-on consequences of that could be significant across neighbouring constituencies.

The amendment before the House gives no guidance, and Senator Hannigan accepted this, on what would amount to the exceptional circumstances that would permit three seaters. The nature of the task of constituency revision calls for a workable menu of different sized constituencies. The amendment does not provide that and I do not propose to accept the amendment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Senator Dominic Hannigan

It is being pressed.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 36.

Tá

• Hannigan, Dominic.
• McCarthy, Michael.
• Norris, David.
• Ross, Shane.
• Ryan, Brendan.

Níl

• Boyle, Dan.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Brady, Martin.
• Burke, Paddy.
• Butler, Larry.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Callanan, Peter.
• Carty, John.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Coffey, Paudie.
• Coghlan, Paul.
• Corrigan, Maria.
• Cummins, Maurice.
• Daly, Mark.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Ellis, John.
• Feeney, Geraldine.
• Glynn, Camillus.
• Hanafin, John.
• Healy Eames, Fidelma.
• Keaveney, Cecilia.
• Leyden, Terry.
• MacSharry, Marc.
• McDonald, Lisa.
• Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
• Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
• O’Malley, Fiona.
• O’Reilly, Joe.
• O’Sullivan, Ned.
• Ormonde, Ann.
• Phelan, John Paul.
• Phelan, Kieran.
• Quinn, Feargal.
• Walsh, Jim.
• White, Mary M.
• Wilson, Diarmuid.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Dominic Hannigan and Michael McCarthy; Níl, Senators Fiona O’Malley and Diarmuid Wilson.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Senator John Ellis

I would have preferred to raise this under section 7 but it had passed. It is very unfair that the Clerks of the two Houses of the Oireachtas and the Ombudsman are on the commission. It should be composed entirely of members of the Judiciary, with somebody who would do the statistics for them. The Judiciary should decide this because there are vested interests. I do not refer to anybody in particular, but it is open to vested interests to become involved. I say that because whatever documentation is produced is gone once the commission finishes, whereas if the Judiciary made the final decision it would be in a position to deal with the matter fairly with a non-vested interest. There could be vested interests and we would not know it, whereas the Judiciary has always been accepted as being above reproach and it should do this. It is very unfair.

Earlier I pointed out that the Ombudsman had to give a decision on my freedom of information application for documents. This meant the person who sat on the commission decided whether I should get documentation under the Freedom of Information Act. That is wrong. Those people are put in an invidious position by being on the commission. The Supreme Court is made up of a number of judges from the various courts. In this case one could take one judge from each of the Supreme Court, the High Court , the Circuit Court and the District Court. If one wanted an odd number one could add a fifth member. It is wrong that civil servants make the decision rather than somebody who is separate from it.

Senator Paudie Coffey

I add to what Senator Ellis said and speak to the Bill in general. I do not doubt the independence of the commission as it is recommended in the Bill. My party takes the view that each individual on the commission is totally independent and is entitled to be on the commission. A section of the Bill refers to the Central Statistics Office, CSO, and the staff who will assist the commission in its work. It is very important that this facility is available to the commission. The director general of the CSO and the chief executive officer of Ordnance Survey Ireland, OSI, will assist the commission in reaching its recommendations on Dáil and European Parliament constituencies. I wonder what level of engagement might have happened heretofore with those two agencies, the CSO and the OSI, and whether there was real engagement with them in the commission arriving at its recommendations. I hope there was.

This Bill refers to the fundamentals of our democracy. It deals specifically with constituencies, whether Dáil or European Parliament, and the numbers and demographics in those constituencies. It is important that the information the commission uses is fully up to date and endorsed by the agencies responsible for those statistics. I have not read the report but I wonder if it makes specific mention of engagement with those agencies, the CSO and OSI. If so, will the Minister comment on the extent of that engagement and the advice the agencies might have given to the commission? That is an important point regarding having accurate information for any recommendations or reports by the commission. The information and levels of engagement by those agencies should be clear and transparent.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

We are discussing the nomination of candidates for the European Parliament elections. The Electoral Act 1997 sets out membership of a constituency commission, as follows:

(a) (i) a judge of the Supreme Court, or

(ii) following consultation with the President of the High Court, a judge of the High Court, nominated by the Chief Justice, who shall be the chairperson of the Commission,

(b) the Ombudsman,

(c) the Secretary of the Department of the Environment,

(d) the Clerk of the Dáil, and

(e) the Clerk of the Seanad.

While we might not agree with the commission, we value its independence — I have been saying that all afternoon. I put the case that we accept in its entirety the work and results of the commission.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 11 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."

Senator Paudie Coffey

Section 15 is very topical with the local elections coming up in June. There are regulations set down here which we will not oppose. They are recommended and Fine Gael will support them. If an individual wants to offer his or her candidature for local elections, it should be encouraged by all political parties. The elected representative reflects society and the public which he or she represents. In these difficult and trying times it is most important that all institutions of the State, including the Upper and Lower Houses of the Oireachtas, have proper regulations in place regarding candidacy in elections. It should be seen by the public that there are no unnecessary barriers to a person's candidacy for election to represent his or her local area. For that reason, I welcome these regulations.

Line 10 in the section refers to: "The requirement on candidates referred to in article 14(7) to secure 15 assents or make a deposit in accordance with article 15". Heretofore, the number required was much higher. That is welcome for independent candidates who wish to offer themselves for election and do not have a party structure to support them. As a democrat, I welcome this. They will not have to bus in 30 or 40 people — I believe 50 were required at one stage — to support their candidacy. It can be an unnecessary burden for somebody who wishes to participate in elections. I would offer encouragement to any person, from whatever party or none, who would put their head above the parapet by putting their name on the ballot paper to go before the electorate. Anybody who enters the political process, be it at town council or county level, is to be admired. All parties and Independent Members in this House would encourage people who offer themselves as candidates in the forthcoming local elections.

The Bill is quite detailed with regard to the regulations. I have read them and they appear to be in order. Fine Gael welcomes them. In these trying times, we are seeking leadership. We are also looking for people who might have aspirations in the political sphere to step up to the mark, put themselves before the public and let the public scrutinise what they stand for in the local elections. I am sure the public will elect people who will show leadership in town, city and county councils throughout the country. I wish the candidates who go forward, and many of them are out canvassing already, well in the forthcoming elections.

Senator Paddy Burke

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government recently announced spending limits for the local elections. He said he would underpin the announcement with legislation that could not be included in this Bill. What is the position with the promised legislation mentioned by the Minister? There are 14 weeks to the local elections and it is only two or three weeks to St. Patrick's Day. The Houses take that week off. The legislation must be introduced but it has not yet been published. It is of the utmost importance that the promised legislation either be included in this Bill or be published and put before the House as soon as possible. We are nearly at the run-in period to the local elections.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

Some points were raised regarding the assentors for non-party candidates. I understand that currently, the number of assentors required for a county council election is 15 but that it is higher, possibly 40 or 50, for a Dáil election. That is when one sees busloads of people being brought through the county to county hall. I have a question about the assentors. My understanding from the last occasion, in 2004, is that the assentors had to turn up in person. Is that a misunderstanding? Will the Minister clarify if that will still be the case?

It is difficult for a non-party candidate to get 15 people, especially if they have young families, to take time off and turn up at a place that is, perhaps, 30 miles away. During the last local elections I spoke to a non-party candidate in the Meath electoral area. She had driven almost 30 miles to register at the place of registration. Bringing 15 people makes it more complex and difficult for non-party candidates to put their name on the ballot paper. While I would encourage people to join my party, I respect the fact that non-party candidates can add to the overall electoral process.

It is not clear from the Bill whether the Minister intends to issue guidance on this matter. Section 15(c) refers to “the time and place at which nomination papers may be obtained”. Presumably, in this day and age these could be downloaded from computers. It would save people the trouble of having to get in the car and travel to county hall or wherever to get copies of the nomination papers. Surely they could be downloaded from a pdf file from the Internet. Perhaps the Minister would give advice in this regard for local returning officers. We should seek to minimise the distances travelled by candidates and assentors in the local election process and make it as easy as possible so as to encourage more people into the electoral process.

Senator Coffey mentioned people who raise their heads above the parapet. It is a scary place, and once one decides to run there is no going back. We should encourage people to get involved. It is good for democracy. We can do that by making the process simple. I accept that everybody cannot run; one cannot have 4 million people running in the local elections. However, if there are serious potential candidates, we must do what we can to make their path as simple and stress free as possible. We must encourage more people into the system. I hope that after the passage of this legislation the Minister will issue guidance to make matters easier for prospective candidates.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

Section 15 amends the local elections regulations of 1995 by inserting articles 11 to 20 in substitution for the existing ones. These articles cover the nomination of non-party candidates at local elections, bringing the procedures into line with those enacted for Dáil elections in the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2007 and proposed in this Bill for European Parliament elections.

The new articles provide for two alternative mechanisms to regulate the nomination of candidates at local elections who are not in possession of a certificate of political affiliation confirming that he or she is a candidate of a political party registered on the register of political parties. The first mechanism is by way of assents, requiring the completion of a statutory declaration by 15 assentors, registered as electors in the relevant local electoral area, which may be witnessed by one of five categories — a commissioner for oaths, peace commissioner, notary public, a garda or a local authority official. The alternative is by way of the candidate or somebody on his or her behalf lodging a deposit of €100 in the case of the election of members of county or city councils and €50 in the case of any other election. A total of 30 assentors are required for a Dáil election and 60 for elections to the European Parliament.

With regard to the assent procedure, the proposal to use statutory declarations provides for a more flexible system. Previously, every assentor had to travel to the local authority office to sign the candidate's nomination paper. Assentor signatures will now be on documents attached to the nomination paper, not on the actual paper. The process will not involve the busloads of people mentioned by the Senators.

In reply to Senator Burke's question about spending limits in local elections, the Minister has stated he will shortly publish a Bill to introduce the spending limits that will be in force for the local elections scheduled to take place on 5 June 2009. There is a sliding scale for the 34 county and city councils, with four separate spending limits based on the population within each electoral area. An upper limit of €15,000 will apply in the most populated electoral areas with a population of 32,501 persons or over, a limit of €13,000 will apply in the county and city electoral areas where the population is between 22,501 and 32,500 persons, and a limit of €11,500 will apply to county and city council electoral areas with a population of between 12,001 and 22,500 persons. The lowest limit of €9,750 will apply to county and city council electoral areas with a population of 12,000 persons or less. A standard spending limit will apply to all 80 of the borough and town councils. Candidates standing for these elections to local authorities will be subject to a spending limit of €7,500. That is the position on the spending limits and the legislation will be published shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 16.

Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I want to be clear that I understand this. It is important how we distribute the surpluses when it comes to the election. Section 16 states:

The Local Elections Regulations are amended by substituting the following sub-article for sub-article (8) of article 83:

"(8) The returning officer shall not transfer the surplus of a candidate deemed to be elected whenever that surplus, together with any other surplus not transferred, is less than both the difference between the quota and the number of votes credited to the highest continuing candidate and the difference between the numbers of the votes credited to the two lowest continuing candidates and, in cases where the lowest candidate, or someone on his or her behalf, made a deposit in accordance with article 15 at the election concerned, either—

(a) the number of votes credited to the lowest candidate is greater than one quarter of the quota, or

(b) the sum of the number of votes credited to the lowest candidate together with that surplus and any other surplus not transferred is not greater than one quarter of the quota.”.

I would be concerned that such guidance will be difficult to implement or explain in the heat of an election count, especially, for instance, on the eighth or ninth count. In some cases it might be very late into the night or well into the morning when two or three votes here or there could be the difference between being elected or eliminated or not being elected. I would be concerned about how understandable such clauses are. This can make or break an election. It can swing on the presence or absence of a comma, and in that sentence of 100 or 110 words there is one comma. I would ask the Minister of State for an explanation of what that means merely so that we can be crystal clear on the record about what this will mean when it comes to transfers of surpluses.

As he will be well aware, one of the reasons we withdrew the electronic voting machines was because questions were raised about how they distributed surpluses. I could be wrong here and if so, I stand corrected. I am getting a nod from Senator Ellis. I remember at the time going through the technical issues and it is quite a tedious process to work out exactly how these things are done. We paid experts in mathematics, statistics and computer programming to design these systems, processes and codes in the first instances, and they got it wrong. In the heat of the day when people's blood is up and they are concerned that they are about to win or lose a seat, we expect the poor returning officer to go to his briefcase, pull out this legislation and read this out.

I am sure the Minister of State has a great deal more experience than I have of elections. Having looked at his electoral history, I would say at this stage he has contested in the order of ten general elections.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

Yes.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I am sure he knows exactly to what I am refer. I would be concerned that this is not clear. We have some very bright returning officers and no doubt they will make it their job to understand this, but I am concerned more about how the councillor who feels very much under pressure at the eighth or ninth count of the day or the candidate who thinks he or she is about to get elected will react to this and how we will explain this to them. I would like the Minister of State to talk me through it.

Senator John Ellis

Senator Hannigan has a point. Where surpluses are used as part of the vote transfer in a general election, it is up to the returning officer who can select from any bundle and it is not pure proportional representation. I experienced this many moons ago when the bundles from the surplus selected to be gone through were not balanced across the constituency. It is a matter that should be looked at in the context of further electoral reform that the transfer of surpluses is dealt with in a proper manner, as is done in the case of Seanad elections where they are proportioned out fully. In the case of general elections the bundles chosen by the returning officer are those used for the transfer of surpluses and it does not always give a equal balance on how the electorate was thinking.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I am disappointed the commission did not get the job of overseeing elections. That matter should be transferred out of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government into a specific election department. I do not say that against any official. It is time that we had an independent electoral commission dealing exclusively and solely with elections.

I agree with Senators Hannigan and Ellis on the issue of the transfer of surpluses. It is imperative. If the Minister of State does nothing else today, we need to educate people about the proportional representation single transferable vote system. We have not done that despite the most elaborate concoctions ever in the Department.

We need to go back and review from where the ballots come to be distributed. The Seanad system is probably a fairer one——

Senator John Ellis

The fairest.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

——where there is an equitable distribution of votes across the board. That might lead to all sorts of mathematical permutations and it might mean the Clerk of the Seanad would go on tour throughout the country to educate all the returning officers. There are anomalies in the system. We have seen them and they are undemocratic.

The other matter with which I am disappointed is one which the Acting Chairman will roar at me for raising.

Acting Chairman (Senator Geraldine Feeney)

I never roar.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

The commission should have been given the power to tell the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government get rid of the electronic voting machines and consign them to history. I do not say that as a political point.

I love the cut and thrust of the count. I have been beaten and I have been director of elections on count day. I remember ringing a great friend of mine, former Senator Cregan, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon to say he was finished and at 2 o'clock in the morning he won by six votes. The ballot box, as my mother used to say, is a great leveller. One knows who one's friends are.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

One does not.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

One does.

Senator Paudie Coffey

One knows how many one has.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Exactly. The electronic voting machine is like Murphy's law. It is like going in to Dunnes Stores and getting a receipt. It is cold, uninviting, non-participatory and, dare I say it, takes away from the cut and thrust of the old blood battle. I say that unashamedly. One cannot beat being in Neptune Stadium or City Hall on the day of a count and we are all there in all our emotions, in good and bad, winning and losing. That is part of politics, especially local politics because that is about community.

I would be a little concerned regarding the issue of nomination for elections. I do not want to make it exclusive. I spoke earlier about the issue of expenses. I have a genuine concern that we will make politics the preserve of the rich and of a few when democracy is not about that. Democracy should be about all of us participating, be it running for office or being involved in or organising campaigns.

Acting Chairman

As it is now 4 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order voted on by the Seanad of this day.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I want to raise a point of order.

Acting Chairman

I am sorry.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

This is an important debate and I have not finished what I wanted to say.

Acting Chairman

I am putting the question. I am sorry.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

On a point of order, what is the rush?

Acting Chairman

I cannot let the Senator make a point of order,

Senator Jerry Buttimer

What is the rush? On a point of information——

Acting Chairman

I must ask the Senator to resume his seat. I cannot allow him a point of order. I must put the question. I ask Senators to resume their seats. The Chair is not allowing a point of order. I am putting the question.

Senator Maurice Cummins

So much for democracy.

Acting Chairman

The question is: "That in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Schedule and Title are hereby agreed to——

(Interruptions).

Acting Chairman

——the Bill is, accordingly, reported to the House without amendment, the Fourth Stage is hereby completed, the Bill is hereby received for final consideration, and the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 17.

Tá

• Boyle, Dan.
• Brady, Martin.
• Butler, Larry.
• Callanan, Peter.
• Carty, John.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Corrigan, Maria.
• Daly, Mark.
• Ellis, John.
• Feeney, Geraldine.
• Glynn, Camillus.
• Hanafin, John.
• Keaveney, Cecilia.
• Leyden, Terry.
• MacSharry, Marc.
• McDonald, Lisa.
• Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
• Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
• O’Brien, Francis.
• O’Malley, Fiona.
• O’Sullivan, Ned.
• Ormonde, Ann.
• Phelan, Kieran.
• Ross, Shane.
• Walsh, Jim.
• White, Mary M.
• Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

• Bradford, Paul.
• Burke, Paddy.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Coffey, Paudie.
• Coghlan, Paul.
• Cummins, Maurice.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Hannigan, Dominic.
• McCarthy, Michael.
• McFadden, Nicky.
• Norris, David.
• O’Reilly, Joe.
• Phelan, John Paul.
• Quinn, Feargal.
• Ryan, Brendan.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paudie Coffey and Maurice Cummins.

Question declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

For the information of the House, when the Chair has started putting a question no point of order or point of information can be raised.

Senator Paudie Coffey

On a point of order, we held a useful debate on this Bill, but the way in which it was guillotined through the House is an affront to democracy. This is a parliamentary democracy and Senators were on their feet when this Bill was guillotined from Committee Stage to its finish. It is a shame that the Government is practising democracy in this way. This is about the fundamentals of democracy and shame on the Government for guillotining this Bill.

Senators

Hear, hear.

An Cathaoirleach

The time for debate was agreed on the Order of Business this morning and I, or whoever else is in the Chair, must abide by that.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald

It is a disgrace.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

We did not have an opportunity to debate certain sections of the Bill. We should have returned to it.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

Wait until Fianna Fáil councillors hear about this.

Senator Paul Coghlan

Some of them have already become Independents.