Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Mar 2013

Vol. 222 No. 1

Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill 2012: Committee and Remaining Stages

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Section 2 provides that the number of Members of Dáil Éireann will be 158 on the next dissolution of the Dáil following the enactment of this Bill. I seek clarification from the Minister, Deputy Hogan, on this. Fine Gael committed prior to the last general election to reducing the number of Deputies by 20. In a previous debate in this House, the Minister stated the reason for the reduction from 166 to 158 was that a constitutional amendment would be required if a reduction of 20 were to be facilitated. The Government has made it quite clear that it is willing to hold a number of referenda and it has already done so. It has no difficulty in proposing to hold a referendum on whether this House should remain in existence without referring the matter to the Constitutional Convention for debate. Why is the Government not prepared to put an amendment before the people to reduce the number of Deputies by 20, as committed to by the Minister prior to the last general election, aided and abetted by the Labour Party in its electoral manifesto?

I remind the Cathaoirleach and Senator Wilson, my good friend, that the reduction by 20 is not in the programme for Government.

It is in the Fine Gael manifesto.

It is not in the programme for Government. We are part of a Government. Just as Fianna Fáil made many commitments before the last general election-----

One cannot get everything one wants in life.

Fianna Fáil might have made many commitments that it did not get an opportunity to include in its programme for Government. We have entered into coalition with the Labour Party and the reduction by 20 is not in our programme for Government. The commitment to have a referendum on the Seanad is in it.

With regard to section 2, is the Minister saying the reason the reduction of 20 Deputies is not in the programme for Government is that Fine Gael was not serious about reducing the number of Deputies by 20, as it stated in its manifesto prior to the last general election?

Senator Wilson knows, better than anybody, that when I make a solemn commitment to the people, I do my very best to honour it. I have done it in this House on many occasions with regard to political reform and local government reform. If there was no policy change regarding the number of people per Member in each Dáil constituency, the number of Deputies after the next general election would be 170. I put forward a range. The lowest number, without effecting constitutional change, was 153 and the range extended to 160. The commission independently decided on 158. It had the option of deciding on 153, if it had wished to do so. If it had proceeded on that basis, it would have been a net reduction of 17.

I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Senator Wilson indicated that he wishes to oppose this section.

Section 3 provides for the reduction of the number of constituencies from 43 to 40. It also means that County Cavan is being carved up. West and south Cavan are being put into the newly-formed Sligo-Leitrim constituency, disenfranchising over 13,000 people in County Cavan. South Donegal will be cut off from the rest of County Donegal and put into the same new Sligo-Leitrim constituency. That is not acceptable. While I welcome the fact that Leitrim is once again united as a county for Dáil election purposes, this should not have been at the cost of the people of Cavan and south Donegal. In addition, the name "Sligo-Leitrim" does not give ownership to the people of south and west Cavan and south Donegal who are affected by this carve-up. For those reasons, I oppose this section.

The difficulty we have is that we either accept the outcome of the independent Constituency Commission report of 2012 or we do not. We set out the terms of reference for the commission. It independently examined all the issues involved, particularly the distribution of electorate per Member. The number of the electorate per Member will be 29,040 at the next Dáil election, assuming this legislation is passed. What we are doing is consistent with established practice since the first independent commission was established and reported in 1980.

The specification of constituencies is the core of this Bill. In my constituency, I would love to have the eastern part of Carlow back in Carlow-Kilkenny, but that is the way the chips fall, as it were, in terms of numbers per Member. It is certainly an inconvenience for the people of Cavan that they were not kept together as a county, considering the affinity all people in Ireland have with county boundaries, but the people of Leitrim had to go through the same purgatory in a political sense on the last occasion. Their county was divided in two. They are the swings and roundabouts of trying to match electorate numbers with elected Members in line with the Constitution and the requirement to have these constituencies in place for the next general election.

I am sorry that I am unable to accommodate the Senator's sentiments. To do so would again invite the notion that I would interfere in an independent process.

The terms of reference set down for the Constituency Commission stated that it should, in observing the relevant provisions of the Constitution on Dáil constituencies, have regard to the total number of Members of the Dáil and the need to avoid, as far as practicable, the breach of county boundaries. It obviously did not adhere to this.

Of the 40 constituencies which will come into existence if this Bill is passed, 22 will breach county boundaries. Surely a better job should have been done in that regard. On the naming of the constituency of Sligo-Leitrim, was any effort made to recognise the fact that more than 13,000 Cavan people and 7,000 Donegal people will be in this newly formed constituency?

I welcome the Minister. I regret any reduction in the number of Deputies because when we were trying to resolve the problems of the country between 2008 and 2010, reducing the number of backbenchers would not have made any difference. We have much bigger problems of lobbying, the control of banks and so on. I would not have added to the democratic deficit but I accept what the Minister is doing.

In this section, the total reduction of Deputies is eight out of 166, or 4.8%. However, in Ulster, the parts for which we have responsibility, two of the 11 Deputies will go. There will be five Deputies for Donegal rather than six and four for Cavan-Monaghan rather than five. That is an 18% hit so the way the commission did its work was nearly four times more damaging to the three Ulster counties than it was to the country as a whole. I appreciate what the Minister said about its neutrality and independence but the fact Ulster did particularly badly this time might be borne in mind the next time. The way the cookie crumbled was bad for Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan, but that is how it worked out.

The province of Ulster had the fastest increase in population in the last intercensal period. The population of the three Ulster counties went up by 10.1%, in Connacht by 7.5%, Munster by 6% and in Leinster by 9%. It is strange that the province with the fastest increase in population lost, proportionately, the most Deputies. That is a pity as the Parliament should reflect the population movements. The burden fell unduly on those three counties.

I welcome the Minister. In the context of section 3, I raise the issue of the naming of the constituencies. My colleague, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, raised the issue of the renaming of Dublin South East as Dublin Bay South in the Dáil. I know the Minister gave him a full answer there but I thought it was worth raising it again in this House given that it is the constituency in which I reside. I reside in a part of the constituency which is very far from the bay - over in the west side, in the Portobello area. To call that area part of Dublin Bay South has little resonance for the people there. It is something we have raised numerous times at meetings in our constituency. I promised Deputy Kevin Humphreys I would raise it again in this House, knowing he already raised with the Minister.

My question probably more properly relates to section 4, so I might hold on until then if that is okay.

I welcome the Minister. I, too, am opposed to section 3 because, essentially, it gives effect to the legislation.

We have brought about the unification of Waterford.

The Minister has created a whole set of problems in doing that. If he really wants a debate on the merger in Waterford, I can have that with him but I want to stick to section 3. I agree with the arguments the speaker from Fianna Fáil made. We are against the reduction in the number of Deputies just for the sake of having a reduction in numbers. Essentially, this is about saving money. We made the point already that a raft of allowances paid to Oireachtas Members could be reduced or abolished which would save money without the need to reduce the number of Members of the Oireachtas.

The Minister was not here for all of the Second Stage contributions last week. Understandably, he is busy. In his absence, I made the point that merely reducing the number of TDs, abolishing the Seanad, merging - as he put it - the local authorities, for example, Waterford, reducing the number of councillors and reducing the number of local authorities is all subtraction. Cutting the numbers is the broad thrust of what the Minister has given us but he has not really dealt with the reforms, in terms of where the real problems are.

One of the big problems is that the Executive has far too much power. A small group of people have far too much power. The Government is to abolish the Seanad with the loss of 60 legislators, have fewer in the Dáil, have less scrutiny, have less oversight, and then reduce the number of local authorities as well. That is the main reason I cannot support this section and the legislation.

The terms of reference of the Constituency Commission lent themselves to some of the strange constituencies with which we have ended up. One Senator put it well last week when he stated that some TDs would be dealing with multiple local authorities, in some cases, four different local authorities, because of the changes being made. It makes no sense whatsoever to pull small fragments of counties into different constituencies, for example, parts of east Carlow into Wicklow, part of south Tipperary into west Waterford, part of east Meath into Louth and parts of west Meath into Meath West. Strange configurations and changes have been made, and then more profound ones of which we know in the Border counties, all because of the terms of reference with which my party does not agree.

My party would have preferred to see a move to have increased seat constituencies, for example, six-seat constituencies. That would achieve greater proportionality and there was an opportunity to do so in some constituencies. It is one of the positives at which the Minister has looked in the case of local government reform. There will be five, six and seven-seat wards, and perhaps even bigger, in local authorities and that will be good for proportionality and ensuring there is diversity in representation. We need that at national level as well. My party will support the Fianna Fáil amendment and opposing the section for the reasons I outlined.

The renaming of constituencies is an ongoing problem. In the Australian model, the constituencies are named after persons and there is no geography involved. One could have the Hogan or Cullinane constituency or, perhaps in Cork, a Keane constituency. It might take some of the parochialism out of it.

The Harte constituency.

I would not suggest my own name. It is not the big issue.

In Donegal, for example, we have lost part to Sligo-Leitrim. There were two three-seaters and Donegal South-West ended up almost in Inishowen, which is the most northerly part of Ireland. The people of St. Johnston - next door to Inishowen and where the border parish of Carrigans is in Inishowen - were being represented by three TDs who, with respect, were 70 miles away whereas the local TDs in the other constituency were ten or 12 miles away. In certain areas, the realignment will help. The fact that almost 90% of Donegal is now one constituency gives the people throughout the county a choice as to whom to vote for. An area such as the Finn Valley was split in two and kicked around politically for the past 30 or 40 years, and that has been regularised.

Sinn Féin is one of the opponents of political reform in the local authorities in Northern Ireland where they are reducing the number of local authorities from 26 to 11. It is one of the parties that has proposed this and is standing by it. One cannot say one does not want political reform or reducing the number of local authorities in the South when one has the power not to do so in Northern Ireland but is doing so. If one listens to Radio Ulster or RTE, one gets two different stories. The people must be aware of how constituencies are formatted.

The debate is moving away from the section.

As Senator Wilson said, there is a valid issue about the naming of the Sligo-Leitrim-Donegal-Cavan constituency. I am sure that the opposite side would be in favour of renaming it the Wilson constituency.

It would be appropriate.

I suppose that Senator Wilson started from a basis that 13,000 people in Cavan will not be represented at all.

That is the case.

They will be well represented between now and the next election with the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, Deputy Mac Lochlainn and Deputy Colreavy. I am sure they will be happy to look after the people whom Senator Wilson has looked after so well in Cavan, and the same applies to the people in Donegal.

They will hardly be around after the next election.

They will. There is no such thing as counties in the Constitution so the terms of reference were laid down in line with what the Constituency Commission created.

There are always swings and roundabouts. Senator Barrett said that there will be a much heavier diminution of representation for the Border areas. He presumes that the three Deputies I named who represent Sligo-North Leitrim will then unrepresent them, so to speak. It all boils down to population so the distribution of votes will always be difficult, particularly when the number of Deputies is reduced. An increase in the number of Deputies would solve a lot more problems. In this case it was always going to be difficult to avoid breaching county boundaries, particularly when changing to the new national average of 29,040 people per representative. On the next occasion Senator Barrett can make a submission to the commission to address some of the issues regarding the Border counties about which he feels strongly.

I thank the Minister.

I cannot do much about the naming of constituencies. As I said in the other House, if I changed the name of a constituency, it would be deemed that I had interfered with the independence of the commission and the right of its learned people. The commission panel comprises very independent people. If I change the name of a constituency, a Senator could also say that I had interfered with the independence of the commission's report in some way. I do not want to interfere with it.

Senator Harte addressed some of the issues about local government that were raised by Senator Cullinane. Local government is different depending on which side of the Border one is on. Senator Cullinane should demonstrate more consistency and less conspiratorial action regarding these matters.

I am not abolishing the Seanad. The people of Ireland will decide it they wish to change the Oireachtas and it is not my sole remit to do so. Every citizen will have an opportunity to have their say in whether they agree or disagree with the proposition in due course. That is the ultimate situation. I hope that I have responded to all of the issues raised by the Senators.

I thank the Minister for his reply. In the unlikely event that the three Deputies mentioned are re-elected following the next general election-----

Is the Senator authorising that?

-----they will have a difficulty.

Is the Senator prescribing the outcome? He is very arrogant.

I refer to three Deputies and I apologise to Senator Cullinane, as I did not realise. Some excellent candidates have been proposed for the constituency, no less than ourselves.

They were the last time.

A number of colleagues from the Minister's party here will offer themselves to the electorate in the constituency. I am sure they will have something to say about his comment.

There are three years to prepare.

I will deal with the matter again. During the Second Stage debate I made a point about the carving up of the Cavan and Donegal electoral region. I reiterate that whoever is lucky to represent the people of the constituency will have to deal with four county councils and at least three HSE areas. The point has been well made by Senator Barrett that a 25% reduction in the number of seats will have to be endured by the people of Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal. The cut will impact on the three Border counties of Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan. I do not accept that the proposal is fair and I hope that the Minister does not accept that it is fair.

I do not doubt the independence of Constituency Commission, but the result will depend on the starting point. To achieve a constituency that allows for the reunification of Leitrim, which I very much welcome, they chose to carve up parts of my county of Cavan and parts of County Donegal. I do not think that is acceptable. The membership of the independent Constituency Commission should be broadened in the future to include somebody with some practical knowledge of public representation. Anybody who would sign off on this Frankenstein constituency of Sligo-Leitrim has absolutely no practical political knowledge.

That is a fact. The very least the Constituency Commission could have done was to try to come up with a name that encompasses all the constituent parts of the new constituency, as it is certainly not just confined to representing people from Sligo and Leitrim. I ask the Minister to reconsider this constituency to see if anything can be done in this regard.

Several points were raised. Some were general points and not questions, but the Minister has failed to respond to any of them. The Minister responded, in the way that other Ministers respond to questions from Sinn Féin, by pointing north, which is the stock response. We can have a discussion and debate on political representation in the North but obviously it is completely different.

The Senator should try to be consistent.

We are consistent. As the Minister well knows, we are trying to compare apples and oranges. For a moment, let us deal with the issue at hand. The Minister is an elected representative, as am I, and we have a job to do in respect of the Bill before us.

The Sinn Féin Party is trying to gerrymander local government in the North.

That is a very strong charge to make-----

Gerrymandering.

-----and the Minister might regret it. I would be very careful if I was accusing any party in the North of trying to gerrymander the vote. What the Minister is doing is playing into the hands of a section of the Unionist community who will seize on what he said for their own ends. I think it is an appalling thing for the Minister to say. It is beneath him. It is not something a Minister in this State should say. If I were in his position, I would withdraw that remark.

It is true. Sinn Féin has held it up for ages.

If the Minister thinks that is true, it says more about him than about the issue itself. I think the Minister will deeply regret what he has said. It will be used in a sinister way by people. The point I put to the Minister-----

Threats again.

With respect, the Minister is trying to be smart but he is not being smart. He is trying to be funny and he is not funny.

I am sorry the Senator is inconvenienced.

Will Members please stick to the Bill?

Nobody is issuing threats. When I said it would be used in a sinister way, it will be used in a sinister way by people within the Unionist constituency who will seize on what has been said. I think the Minister will regret saying it for those reasons, but that is a matter for himself. The Minister can stand over what he says.

The central premise of what the Minister is doing is to save money. If that is the case why has he not looked at other ways to save money rather than reducing the number of elected Deputies? One can save money easily by abolishing a raft of allowances and reducing pay.

It is disingenuous to assert the Government is not abolishing the Seanad, and state the people will. Of course the people will have their say. I am sure that when the posters go up, there will be Fine Gael posters calling for a "yes" vote. The Minister may be able to tell me differently but I would imagine, given he is proposing to hold a referendum to abolish the Seanad, without looking at reform of the Seanad, that he will be supporting its abolition. It is a bit disingenuous to say it is the will of the people.

It would be different if the people had an opportunity to vote for a reformed Seanad, but they are not being given that opportunity. A simple proposition to abolish the Seanad will be put to the people in the referendum. Reform of the Seanad could have been considered, but instead the Government went for the simple option to abolish the Seanad. I think it is about saving money without coming up with alternatives.

I did not realise that we could deal with the name of the constituencies, as I thought this would be dealt with separately. I apologise for my late arrival. I support my colleagues who commented on the name of the constituencies. I am aware that a number of the Minister's colleagues in this House have also supported this, mainly in relation to Galway West taking in parts of south Mayo and naming the constituency Galway West-Mayo South. It might be more problematic for the Frankenstein constituencies because of the number of counties encompassed by them. It is important that the people from County Mayo who are now to become a part of this new constituency will be recognised. Recognition is of significant importance. The fact that they will not be recognised in the name of the constituency will be an issue for them and the Members elected to represent that constituency. It can be compared to the approach of Pontius Pilate of washing one's hands of any responsibility. Members of the Seanad may think they cannot do anything in this House. Of course we can. We can accept the amendments that are tabled in good faith.

I do not accept the Minister's arguments on the premise for these changes and in respect of the limitations on changing the names of the constituencies.

Does the Minister wish to respond?

I have answered already.

Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 4
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

I welcome the Minister to the House. I was listening to my colleague, Senator Cullinane, who I think has a point. When a decision is made to put an issue before the people, there is a certain implication that there is a desired outcome. Whether one has a referendum on an issue, such as gay marriage or the abolition of the Seanad or the reduction of judges' pay, the very decision to put an issue before the people involves the identification of it as an issue on which there ought to be a decision. That in itself implies a value judgment. My question relates to the decision to allow the people have a say on whether the Seanad will exist into the future, which as we all know can only be taken by a referendum. Given the initial commitment to reduce the number of Deputies by 20, and not by eight as is proposed in the Bill, what is the reason for that decision? Senator Cullinane said one can cut salaries and expenses and, in addition, reform the Dáil by cutting the number of Deputies. It is certainly arguable that compared with other countries of a much larger population we have a higher ratio of Deputies to members of the population. It has been advanced by Government that the reason the number of Deputies is to be cut by eight and not by 20 is that it would require a constitutional change to cut the number of Deputies by any more than eight because the Constitution provides that there must be a Deputy for every 30,000 and no more than one Deputy for every 20,000 people. If it is possible to ask the people to determine the future of the Seanad by way of a referendum, why was it not also possible to follow through on the promise to cut the number of Deputies by 20 simply by availing of the referendum means which the Government is already contemplating in the context of election reform?

The proposed reduction of the Members of the Dáil by 20 members was not included in the programme for Government, while the proposal to abolish Seanad Éireann is. That is the reason.

Why did that commitment not make it to the programme for Government? Did the Labour Party oppose it?

The Senator will have to ask the Taoiseach and Tánaiste to reflect on that on the third anniversary of the Government next year. That would be the appropriate time. That is the reason why, however. If there was no change in the proportion of the electorate to Members, as we have now, we would have 170 Members in the Dáil on the next occasion. We have gone to the limit of what we are allowed to do constitutionally - that is, to 29,040 per Member of the Dáil on the next occasion. We might have gone down from 158 Members closer to 153 to allow for that, but some latitude is given to the Electoral Commission to get over some of the difficulties that have been mentioned in the course of this debate. Notwithstanding that, in the context of reducing the number of Deputies, the commission found it difficult not to breach as many county boundaries. As Senator Wilson rightly pointed out, 21 were breached on this occasion. His own county and County Donegal were badly affected, but there is no easy way of doing it when one is distributing population under that criteria per elected Member, in line with the terms of reference, while remaining within the limits of the constitutional requirement.

I am open to correction by the Minister, but my understanding is that the reason given as to why it was not in the programme for Government was that it would require constitutional change. Is my memory right in that regard? If so, would that not be a rather nonsensical argument given that it was contemplated to have a referendum to allow for the abolition of the Seanad?

That is assuming that the Senator's assumption is right.

The Minister can confirm or deny it.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SCHEDULE

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 11, column 1, line 9 after "West" to insert "-Mayo South".

This amendment is self explanatory and seeks to add "-Mayo South" to "Galway West".

I can understand that, for some reasons, Members would like to have that reflected in the name of the constituency to demonstrate that they have more empathy for the constituency they will be in the future. We had a considerable population movement from Meath into Louth on the last occasion - twice as much as Mayo South going into Galway - and it did not change the name. It is still Louth. Senator Quinn would know that better than anyone.

I accept that one of the difficulties is to create the appropriate names. I did not subscribe to some of the names that came through the Electoral Commission. One of our Cabinet members said the names of one or two of them were more like a television soap than being representative of where the constituencies were actually located. Deputy Kevin Humphreys referred to one of them. However, if I were to change any word of this independent commission's proposals, people here would say that I was intervening, if even in a minor way. That would open up a debate on changing the boundaries of the commission. It could also lead to other suggestions being made that we were not operating in a spirit of total independence about these matters, including the names of these constituencies.

We are entitled to legislate about this matter.

I respect the people who have been involved in these constituency revisions over the years, which are laid down in law. We have moved away from some of the problems we had in the 1960s and 1970s on all sides of the House, concerning boundaries being predicated in advance. There was no such thing as an independent Electoral Commission then and they were drawn up by the Department and Ministers of all parties. It is great that the former Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, was in a position to bring forward the independent review of constituencies which has occurred since 1980. It was an innovative solution to a major problem in which the political classes have a strong vested interest.

The Minister can praise the position after 30 years have elapsed. Is that the rule around here?

I hope they will be around, but I will not.

In light of all the different constituency names, the Minister should have a discussion on whether they could be called names other than those based on geographical locations. I am sure parts of Dublin are confusing for Dubliners, such as Dublin North-East and others. The same applies to Donegal, Sligo and Cavan. Perhaps consideration should be given to this matter. I am sure it would be a source of amusement if people were asked to name constituencies after famous people from those areas or famous events that occurred there. People's imaginations may already be running wild in that respect.

The Minister may consider changing the names of some areas in future. In that case, while one may be crossing county boundaries, the constituency could be named Breifne. Would Senator Wilson be happy with that?

I would agree with that suggestion for the next time such difficulties arise. I have no doubt, however, that Cavan will be united after the next revision because we are going to mount a campaign from now on until we are reunited. Would the Minister consider appointing somebody with practical knowledge of politics to the next Electoral Commission? The independent commission's structure has been in existence for over 30 years. Surely it is time that its membership should be examined. I think somebody with practical experience of politics should be on the commission because there is no way that anyone with that experience would have signed off on such a carve-up. I have no doubt about that.

The Minister referred earlier to Deputy Heather Humphreys.

I referred to Deputy Kevin Humphreys.

I am sorry. However, Deputy Heather Humphreys from County Monaghan - who is in the Minister's own party - along with Deputy Joe O'Reilly, Deputy Brendan Smith and Deputy Ó Caoláin, referred to the carve-up of County Cavan as ludicrous. It is on the record of the Dáil. It is ludicrous, in my opinion.

Senator Wilson will probably appreciate this more than most. He can imagine the conversation the Taoiseach had with me concerning Mayo when he discovered it was the first time in the history of the State that a Taoiseach's constituency was losing one seat. It shows how genuinely independent the commission was. I can think of a few people in Senator Wilson's own party who would be glad of the opportunity to be on an independent commission.

I am not referring to people in my own party.

I am talking about independent people with practical knowledge of politics.

I am sure they are very practical people.

Schedule agreed to.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Is that unanimously agreed?

Does Senator Wilson wish his objection to be noted?

I want it to be noted, yes.

I am recording a "No" vote.

Is Senator Crown also opposing it?

Anything which makes the talent pool even shallower for appointing Ministers is to be regretted.

I thank the Minister for coming to the House.

Question put and declared carried.
Top
Share