Amendment No. 27 and amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendments Nos. 27, together with amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are related, and amendments Nos. 31 and 42 are consequential on amendment No. 27. All may be taken together.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 8, lines 28 to 44 and in page 9, lines 1 to 8, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) 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;
(b) each constituency shall return three, four or five 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.
(3) In preparing a report under subsection (I) (b) a Commission shall have regard to regard to the following:
(a) the total number of representatives to be elected in the State to the European Parliament shall be 15 or such other number as may be specified for the time being pursuant to the treaties governing the European Communities;
(b) there shall be reasonable equality of representation as between constituencies; and
(c) the matters specified in paragraphs (b) to (f) of subsection (2).".
This amendment involves substituting an expanded provision for section 5(2) to clarify that the detailed terms of reference for the Dáil Constituency Commission are subordinate to the overriding requirement of equality of representation set out in Article 16.2.3th of the Constitution. Thus, the amendment provides that in observing the relevant constitutional provisions, a commission must take account of the statutory terms of reference.
The amendments also set out the terms of reference for Dáil and European constituencies in separate subsections because European constituencies are not subject to specific constitutional provisions. The amendment does not change the detailed terms of reference set out in the Bill as published, rather it tightens the terms of the text of the provision to reflect the primacy of the constitutional provision.
The other two amendments update the reference in the Bill to section 5(2), which is the subject of the substantive amendment. The Opposition amendments, Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 27, propose to include additional terms of reference in the Bill. It must be remembered that the commission must have regard to the overriding constitutional requirement of equality representation, together with the six terms of reference set out in the Bill. The Opposition amendments propose to add a further five parameters for the commission's work. The sheer weight of criteria then to be dealt with by the commission, would make the commission's job unworkable.
Some of the proposed additions run counter to the overriding constitutional requirement. To move an election quota of population from one constituency to another would in some cases push the average representation outside the national average.
The terms of reference proposed in amendment No. 27 have been tried and tested by past commissions. Given the constitutional requirement and subsequent court rulings, there is little scope for changing them, and the Opposition amendments would be well beyond what is permissible, according to the advice I have received under Article 16 of the Constitution.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 42 propose to revise the terms of reference set out in the Bill. The Constitution sets out the parameters to be taken into account by constituency commissions. The main point is that each Deputy must represent broadly the same number of people. This cannot be changed except by changing the Constitution by referendum.
While I could agree with the sentiments in some of the amendments, the High Court decision in the 1960s was clear. There is nothing in the Constitution about constituencies being based on counties. The same applies to provinces and regions. There is no point in adding potentially unconstitutional terms of reference which a commission would then be forced to ignore, because of the primacy of the Constituency.
The reports of commissions to date illustrate that, where possible, they have noted the regional dimension of their deliberations. It is not necessary or practicable to formally require the commission to consider this additional aspect of its work. The terms of reference proposed have worked well in the past and are as far as we can go in giving directions to the commission and still be appropriately focused on our constitutional requirement. I therefore ask the committee to accept amendment No. 27 and reject the Opposition amendments.
I call on Deputy Dempsey to move amendments No. 1 to amendment No. 27.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 27:
In subsection (2)(c) after "breaching of" to insert "provincial and".
With regard to my amendments to amendment No. 27, the court can only judge cases before it and whether there was compliance with the law. I understand the constitutional difficulties, however, many of the court cases addressed legislation rather than the Constitution.
When terms of reference become statutory law they become inflexible. They should not be put into such a straitjacket but should be discussed and reconsidered from time to time. Many of the provisions in our amendments have been adverted to in previous boundary commission reports, such as those of 1980, 1988 and 1995.
The purpose of legislating for the principles set out in former reports of the commission is to create a benchmark for future commissions. Given that the boundary commission is now to be given permanence we should expand on the terms of the reference under consideration.
With regard to amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 27, it is ludicrous that both the county and provincial boundaries are breached by the Longford-Roscommon constituency. It is not suggested that provincial boundaries cannot be breached, rather it is suggested that they be breached only where necessary. There are distinct cultural differences between provinces, and there are a number of differences between Counties Longford and Roscommon. By contrast, Counties Longford and Westmeath have more in common.
Deputy Penrose may have something to say about that.
County Longford never returned a Labour Party Deputy.
Did County Roscommon?
Yes.
I disagree with the Minister's proposal. The amendment involves other matters, such as provincial boundaries, the history of previous association for constituency purposes and trying to contain proposed changes within the areas immediately affected. The most important aspect, involving breaching a county boundary, was discussed earlier. There should be a substantial move of population into a new constituency.
My constituency suffered up to 1977 when half of my electoral area for county council elections was in the Kildare constituency. Following that, half of the neighbouring Kildare electoral area was in County Meath and a section of Westmeath was joined with County Meath to make up the difference. I was new to politics when part of Meath was in the Kildare constituency but people who were involved at that time said they felt totally isolated. They did not feel they were represented. They went in one direction for national politics and a different direction for local politics. Deputy Penrose might agree in relation to the fine people of Westmeath. There are very good Fianna Fáil supporters in north Westmeath. Approximately 4,500 voters came into the Meath constituency and they had nothing in common with other people there.
I ask the Minister to consider expanding the terms of reference and including the amendment in relation to the breaching of provincial boundaries. It only involves taking this matter into consideration and avoiding it if possible. In relation to paragraph (j) in the amendment, involving the breaching of county boundaries, a substantial number of people should be transferred to ensure they have some electoral clout in the new constituency. As the Chairman said earlier, people in the Tipperary constituency feel totally isolated as a result of the way the boundary has been drawn. The Minister is familiar with the position which pertained in Kildare and Carlow up to the last election. Will he consider including elements of the amendment if he cannot accept it all? Is he open to persuasion?
I am aware of the difficulty involved in drafting constituency boundaries for the country as a whole. However, the more requirements that are included in the terms of reference, the more difficult the job becomes. There must be a starting point which is followed by a ripple effect where one must be mindful of urban areas, counties, provinces, national geography and maintaining quotas. The amendment suggests a range of other imperatives, such as a history of previous association and the volume of people who will be transferred between constituencies. This will make the job impossible. The commission is mindful of the logical aspects and does not set out to be disruptive. However, it is difficult to do the job and have proper regard to new population changes. I do not want to make the job impossible and the solid terms of reference, which have been supported by successive Governments, are the way to proceed. I am not inclined towards including a new layer of requirements which will frustrate the commission's efforts in doing a difficult job.
I intend to press amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 27.
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 12.
|
Tá |
|
|
Byrne, Hugh. Dempsey, Noel. Keaveney, Cecilia. |
O'Hanlon, Rory. Wallace, Dan. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Connaughton, Paul. |
Kenny, Seán. |
|
Connor, John. |
Mitchell, Jim. |
|
Creed, Michael. |
Mulvihill, John. |
|
Finucane, Michael. |
Nealon, Ted. |
|
Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly). |
Penrose, William. |
|
Howlin, Brendan. |
Ryan, John. |
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 27 not moved.
Amendment No. 27 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 28 to 30, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 9, subsection (3), line 9, to delete "subsection (2)(d)" and substitute "subsection (2)(c)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.