Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 22 Jun 1995

Vol. 454 No. 8

Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1995: Second Stage.

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

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of the Bill is to fix the total number of Members of Dáil Éireann in pursuance of subsection 2 of Article 16.2 of the Constitution and, in pursuance of subsection 4 of the same Article, to revise the constituencies in respect of which Members are elected to the Dáil.

The constitutional requirements in relation to membership of the Dáil and in relation to constituency formation may be summarised as follows: the number of Members must be fixed from time to time by law; there must be at least one Member for every 30,000 of the population and not more than one for every 20,000; the ratio between the number of Members to be elected for each constituency and the population of each constituency as ascertained at the last preceding census shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country; the Oireachtas must revise the constituencies at least once in every 12 years with due regard to changes in distribution of the population; and the number of Members to be returned for any constituency must not be less than three.

These constitutional provisions were considered by the courts in two well known cases in 1961 — the High Court case of John O'Donovan v. the Attorney General, and the Supreme Court reference case relating to the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1961. In neither of these cases did the courts quantify the precise degree of equality of representation which is required by the Constitution, although the judge in the O'Donovan case appeared to suggest that a departure of about 5 per cent from strict mathematical parity would be acceptable.

Dealing with the question of equality of representation in the subsequent reference case, the Supreme Court stated that it could not lay down a figure above or below which a variation from the national average is not permitted. The court stressed that the practical considerations which ought to be taken into account, and the weight that should be attached to them in departing from strict equality of representation, are primarily matters for the Oireachtas and should not be reviewed by the courts unless there is a "manifest infringement" of the relevant Article of the Constitution. The court concluded that the test to be applied is whether the failure to maintain the ratio between the number of Members for each constituency and the population of each constituency involves such a divergence as to make it clear that the Oireachtas has not carried out the intention of the relevant constitutional provisions.

In each revision of constituencies effected between 1961 and 1980 the limit of 5 per cent, suggested in the O'Donovan case, was adhered to. However, in the revisions carried out in 1980 and since, which have been based on the recommendations of independent commissions, more substantial departures from mathematical equality have been provided for. The maximum departures in schemes recommended by previous commissions were 7.6 per cent above the national average in the Louth constituency in 1990 and 7.9 per cent below the national average in the constituency of Mayo East in 1983.

The census taken in 1991 showed that in some constituencies the number of persons represented by each Dáil Member was considerably above the national average while in others it was well below that average. In Dublin, for example, the departure from the national average in Dublin North was approaching 12 per cent above that average while the departure in Dublin South-Central was almost 6 per cent below. The situation was also unsatisfactory in other parts of the country, notably in the Tipperary North and South constituencies which had departures from the national average representation per Member in the region of 9 per cent. There were also serious disparities in Mayo, Galway and Kildare. Thus, a revision of constituencies is now mandatory under the Constitution.

A constituency commission was set up by the previous Government in November 1994 to advise on this matter and its recommendations have been accepted by the Government. The recommendations are being given effect in this Bill. They represent a package of proposals the Oireachtas is invited to accept by passing the necessary legislation.

I take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the commission, Mr. Justice Richard Johnson, and the other members, for the way in which they did the job given to them. Revising the constituencies is always a difficult and thankless task and, no matter what arrangement is recommended, it is certain that it will not please everyone. Nevertheless, all Members will acknowledge that the commission carried out its task in a conscientious and impartial manner and it is right that we should record our appreciation of its work.

The Electoral Bill, 1994 provides for the establishment, on a statutory basis, of an independent constituency commission to prepare proposals for the revision of Dáil and European Parliament constituencies. It provides that the commission will be set up on the publication of the census report following each census of population, with the same membership and essentially the same terms of reference as the Dáil commission which has just reported. The statutory commission will have to invite and consider submissions and report to the Ceann Comhairle on each occasion within six months of its establishment. The report will be laid before the Dáil and Seanad and its implementation will continue to require legislation. The debate on the Electoral Bill, 1994 will provide an opportunity to comprehensively review the experience of constituency commissions over the period of almost 20 years during which they have functioned and to consider any changes of a procedural or other kind which may be appropriate.

It is not necessary for me to comment at any length on the provisions of this Bill. The constituencies proposed in the Schedule are precisely those recommended by the commission. A copy of the commission's report was circulated to each Member of the Oireachtas last month, with a set of maps. An explanatory memorandum has been circulated with the Bill and a set of maps illustrating the proposed constituencies has been deposited in the Oireachtas Library. Smaller scale maps have also been circulated to each Member.

Under the Bill, total membership of the Dáil will remain at 166 and the total number of constituencies will remain at 41. There will not be a change in the number of different sized constituencies — there will continue to be 14 five-seater constituencies, 15 four-seaters and 12 three-seaters. Overall, the Bill provides for changes in 21 constituencies and for an average population per Member in each constituency ranging from 6.8 per cent above the national average in the Louth constituency to almost 5.8 per cent below the national average in the Sligo-Leitrim constituency.

The principal changes provided for are the reduction by one seat each in Mayo and Tipperary and the allocation of an additional seat each to Galway and Kildare.

In the Dublin area, there is no change in the existing allocation of 47 seats or in the number of Members to be returned for each of the existing 11 constituencies. There are boundary changes in nine constituencies, with the largest transfers of population being made to include all the Ballyfermot-Cherry Orchard area in the Dublin Central constituency and all the Blanchardstown area in the Dublin West constituency.

The main boundary changes outside Dublin follow from the changes in seat allocations. County Mayo will become a five-seat constituency. Galway East, which will become a four-seater, will gain areas from Galway West, including Athenry, Craughwell, Gort, Kinvara and Clare Tuam. There will be a transfer from the Tipperary South constituency, which is being reduced to a three-seater, to Tipperary North of an area extending from Slieveardagh in the east to Hollyford in the west. Tipperary South will also return part of the Ballymacarby-Nire area to the Waterford constituency. Kildare will regain the area in the east of the county which is now part of the five-seat Wicklow constituency and will be divided into two constituencies. The three-seat Kildare North constituency will be based on Naas, Celbridge, Leixlip, Maynooth, Clane and Carbury while the three-seat Kildare South constituency will be based on Athy, Kildare and Newbridge.

The other boundary changes outside Dublin comprise the transfer of the Rathvilly-Hacketstown area of County Carlow to the Wicklow constituency and the transfer of the Borlin valley from the Cork North-West constituency to Cork South-West.

Under the terms of the Bill, the new constituencies will come into force on the next dissolution of the Dáil: they will not have effect in the pending by-election in Wicklow or any other by-election that may arise in the lifetime of the present Dáil.

The constituency commission was appointed by the previous Government and its terms of reference were drawn up by it. The Government has accepted all the commission's recommendations. Under the Constitution, the ultimate responsibility rests with the Oireachtas. In the Bill, the Government recommends that the commission's proposals should be implemented without any change. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. M. Smith

I compliment Mr. Justice Richard Johnson and the other members of the commission on the efficient, effective and speedy manner in which they discharged their responsibilities in considering proposals for the revision of constituencies. Because this is often a thankless task we rely on the independence and integrity of the commission to produce the best possible provisions having regard to its terms of reference and the constitutional requirements.

Times have changed. There was a time when the rafters and temperature would have been raised and there would have been convulsions at proposals to transgress provincial boundaries, join areas with no homogenety and parcel out constituencies as Deputies selfishly considered whether votes would be hijacked. That was the subject of acrimonious debates. Some Members will recall that the former Minister for Local Government, Kevin Boland, committed venial sins in the late 1960s while more serious, lethal or mortal sins were committed in 1974 — this was christened the "Tullymander"— aimed at keeping Fianna Fáil out of office for all time but they did not have that effect. It is an indication that times have changed when this Bill will be enacted without much commotion.

It is ironic that it was Fianna Fáil which established the electoral commission in 1977. Following the acrimonious debates I have referred to and the desire in Fianna Fáil to try to make the other parties as pure as possible, having regard to their natural inclination to portray innocence and their historical inclinations for misdemeanour, it is ironic that it was Fianna Fáil who set the trend in terms of taking out of the hands of politicians the revision of constituencies and placing it in the independent hands of a commission.

We are not often praised for the way we do things but it is important to place on record that it was our party that made that change. While I am sorry the Minister, Deputy Allen, had to deputise for the Minister for the Environment, I think Deputy Howlin will accept that we brought a repentant Labour Party to the confessional. We had no idea that the purification process which we commenced about 20 years ago could have reached the present stage where the Labour Party is a "sin no more" or "cannot do wrong" party. However, that is a matter for another day.

There are now three new constituencies, 20 constituencies remain unchanged and changes have been made to 18 constituencies. The tradition has been — the Government recommends this — that the Dáil accepts without change the commission's proposals. It should be borne in mind that while that has been the practice up to now constitutional provisions allow for the Oireachtas to make changes if necessary. On the basis of comments made, it may be necessary to make minor changes. In supporting the Bill we recommend that if there is all-party agreement on minor changes they should be made. For instance, in Tipperary a parish is divided, with one part in south Tiperary and the other in north Tipperary. There is local agreement and, as far as I am aware, among the politicians, that all the area should be in one constituency, in this case probably in north Tipperary.

I welcome to north Tipperary my old friends in Gortnohoe, Glengoole, Killenaule, Ballinure, Boherlahan and Clonoulty as well as the new areas, Donohill, Annacarty, Hollyford and Cappawhite. We look forward to getting to know all the people in those areas in the near future. Notwithstanding tradition and not wanting to deviate from the recommendations made by the commission it is open to the House, where there is agreement, to accept changes.

The Minister referred to the court cases in 1961 and the necessity for equality of representation, that is, the same number of votes producing an equivalent number of seats in each area. Previously there was a tolerance of 16 per cent which operated in favour of sparsely populated constituencies, those with difficult terrain, and that made sense to a certain degree. Today we must consider electoral reform in a different way. There has been a constant shift in population to the east and coastal regions. In many circumstances under the commission's terms of reference it is almost impossible to devise constituencies with some degree of homogeneity, allowing for the possibility of being served in a reasonably comprehensive way.

We have no difficulty with the commission's proposals on the Mayo constituency, having regard to the terms of reference, constitutional requirements and change in the distribution of population. However nobody will argue that it would be satisfactory to have the entire county in one constituency, with five Deputies covering an area from Achill Island to Ballaghaderreen and from north of Clifden to the Sligo coast and north of Ballina. The requirements of serving a constituency, attending to 17 committees of the House and, perhaps, ministerial and EU obligations, taking into account the distance that must be travelled, pose questions on how we prepare for electoral reform having regard to the constitutional and other considerations. That is an impossible geographical entity in terms of demands on public representatives. Other constituencies, such as Galway West, have similar problems.

I am not trying to use this debate to promote single seat constituencies or transferable votes. I have no preconceived notions in this regard. There are many strengths in the present system. There is an opportunity for all the major parties to be represented in all constituencies. There is no possibility that a Government will be formed without representation in particular regions, which is possible under single seat arrangements. The terms of reference agreed between parties put unreasonable requirements on independent commissions in drawing up constituencies.

I had experience of the Cork North Central constituency last autumn. In Bishopstown, south of the river, and in rural areas I met people who did not feel very comfortable in their new constituencies. Regard must be had to local feeling and attitudes in considering electoral reform. Under the 1994 local government Bill I proposed putting the commission on a statutory basis. I look forward to the enactment of that Bill so that there will be a permanent structure that will introduce automatic changes in the event of a change in the census of population. In the meantime we should consider introducing flexibility in the terms of reference of the commission so that there will be a better arrangement for new constituencies in future.

In all debates on electoral reform politicians make suggestions about voting at weekends and the best way to assist electors. Will the Minister follow the approach we adopted towards reforming the electoral system to ensure a more simple and user friendly system in terms of the register of electors, the provision of better facilities for illiterate voters, the use of photographs on the ballot paper and the speeding up of the count.

I am especially interested in ensuring that long drawn out counts which put tremendous strain on people are avoided. There is no need for them when modern computerised systems are available. There is no reason we cannot move progressively towards automated counting systems and we are making a start with a computer programme which will assist in the counting of votes.

The Fianna Fáil Party will be supporting the general provisions of the Bill. We would like a debate not only on major electoral reform for the future, but on increased flexibility for the commission and a much more likely outcome for homogeneity in terms of how constituencies will be drawn up. We know from campaigning in Wicklow the extent to which people living in Kildare do not feel comfortable in the Wicklow constituency. There are many similar cases around the country. I am not condemning the work of any earlier or present commission. The terms of reference of the commission, notwithstanding the provision of the Constitution, spancel it too much. We should open up the debate in fairness to the public, local communities and the understanding and knowledge we have of constituencies. Where electoral candidates are changed from one area to another they do not enjoy continuity and there is no sense of purpose in terms of boundary changes. I suggest some minor amendments only in circumstances where there is agreement among parties at local level. I hope that will be the position to ensure there will not be a party political change in any sense of the word.

We will try to achieve that as amicably as possible. I mentioned one specific area — my colleagues mentioned others — merely to indicate that we are prepared, notwithstanding the traditional acceptance by the Dáil of the commission's reports in total, to support minor agreed changes.

Mr. Molloy

Tá an Páirtí Daonlathach sásta leis an tuarascáil seo a chuir an coimisiún os ár gcomhair agus atá mar bhunús don Bhille atá os comhair na Dála. Ba mhaith liom thar cheann an pháirtí ár mbuíochas a ghabháil leis an gcoimisiún, leis an mBreitheamh Johnson, leis an Ombudsman, le Rúnaí na Ranna Chomhshaoil, le Cléireach na Dála, le Cléireach an tSeanaid agus le cléireach an choimisiúin féin as ucht an tsár-obair a rinne siad. Chloí siad leis na treoracha a fuair siad ón Rialtas agus, rud nua dar liomsa, thug siad an-mhíniú ar fad ar na fáthanna gur tháinig siad ar na moltaí éagsúla atá sa tuarascáil.

Ní dóigh liom gur chuir aon choimisiún go dtí seo an méid sin eolais os ár gcomhair maidir leis an mbunús a bhí lena gcuid moltaí. Thaispeáin siad na roghanna éagsúla a bhí ann, na fáthanna nár ghlac siad le roinnt de na roghanna sin agus mhínigh siad in iomlán cén fáth gur shocraigh siad sa deireadh ar rogha amháin a chur isteach sa tuarascáil, seachas rogha eile. Creidim gur doiciméad an-tábhachtach é seo mar go dtaispeánann sé gur obair an-chasta ar fad í obair an choimisiúin. Tá a fhios acu go bhfuil gach páirtí polaitíochta ag breathnú ar an obair, go bhfuil gach Ball den Teach seo agus iad siúd a bhfuil suim acu sa pholaitíocht ag faire ar thorthaí a gcuid oibre. Tá a lán daoine amuigh ansin an-sásta gearáin a dhéanamh faoi rudaí éagsúla i dtuarascáil den tsórt seo. Is rud indéanta é gach éinne a shásamh. Ach ó bunaíodh na coimisiúin neamhspleacha seo tá sé tábhachtach cuimhneamh gur ghlac gach Rialtas agus gach Dáil lena gucid moltaí. Níor mhaith liom go mbeadh aon athrú air sin anois agus cuireann sé imní orm a chlois-teáil ó urlabhraí Fhianna Fáil, an Teachta Mac Gabhann, go bhfuil sé ag iarraidh athruithe a dhéanamh ar na moltaí a chuir an coimisiún neamhspleách os ár gcomhair. Dá ndéanfaí é sin, fiú amháin ar phointe an-bheag ar fad, níl aon dabht ach go mbeadh an Teach seo lán de Theachtaí agus moltaí acu chun athruithe a dhéanamh. Caithfimid glacadh leis nach mbeidh gach duine sásta riamh le moltaí nuair atá iachall línte a tharraingt chun teorainn na ndáilcheantar a thaispeáint. Ach taobh istigh de na treoracha a fuair siad agus taobh istigh den míniú a thug siad, tá sé tábhachtach go gcuirfimís ár mbuíochas in iúl dóibh sa díospóireacht seo as ucht an chaoi ar chuaigh siad i mbun na hoibre sin agus ar an toradh.

Níl mé ag rá sa mhéid sin go bhfuil mé féin iomlán sásta ach oiread le gach rud atá ann. Tá rudaí ann go mb'fhearr liom dá mbeidís ar bhealach eile ach nuair a chuirtear gach rud san áireamh caithfimíd glacadh leis go bhfuil na moltaí sásúil, go bhfuil siad réasúnta agus go bhfuil siad praticiúil. Is maith an rud é gur ghlac an Rialtas leo agus ba chóir don Teach glacadh leo inniu.

On behalf of the Progressive Democrats I welcome the introduction of the Bill. We welcome the decision of the Government to accept the full recommendations of the commission and not to seek to make any changes. We believe an important principle has been established since the revision of constituencies was handed over to an independent electoral commission, that the Dáil on each occasion has accepted the full recommendations made by previous commissions except on one occasion where the recommendations did not form the basis for any legislation. There was a change of Government, a new commission was set up with new terms of reference and a new Bill was produced. There is no point in dwelling on that but where a commission's report has been the basis of legislation, the recommendations of the commission have been fully implemented. That is an important principle and it should continue to be followed.

Deputy Smith referred to the position that obtained before the task was handed over to an independent electoral commission which makes recommendations to assist us in fulfilling our constitutional duty to revise constituencies following the taking of a census of population. This is to ensure that we comply with the constitutional requirements which were interpreted on two occasions by the courts and that we comply with the constitutional requirement that constituencies be revised at least every 12 years. Those obligations are being fulfilled and in that regard an independent commission and principle were established some years ago to assist the House in fulfilling the obligations of the Oireachtas. The position prior to that was unsatisfactory and those who were Members at that time will recall the acrimonious debates each time the party in power attempted to introduce constituency revision proposals that were more beneficial to the party in power than to the Opposition. The most blatant example of this was during a Garret FitzGerald-led Government when a Labour Minister for Local Government supported a gerrymander at which I, as local government spokesperson for Fianna Fáil expressed amazement, especially as Garret Fitzgerald was on the record as condemning previous cases of gerrymandering which were minor compared with the gross attempt to distort the process by that Fine Gael-Labour Government.

Deputy Smith sought an accolade for Fianna Fáil for establishing the Electoral Commission for the revision of constituencies. I was Minister for Local Government at a time when, following a census of population, it was deemed necessary to carry out a revision of constituencies and I was urged by Fianna Fáil members to carve up the constituencies in the manner attempted by the former Deputy Tully. I did not undertake that task. There was a change of Government at that time and, unfortunately, the incoming Government succeeded in such a revision of constituencies. However, I led a campaign in that regard within Fianna Fáil and recommended to Fianna Fáil supporters at an Ard-Fheis that we should abolish the system whereby parties in power could seek to alter constituency boundaries to their advantage. The former Deputy Tully's gerrymander was based on a wrong premise and backfired on him, he did not allow for a swing in voting patterns.

I am proud of my achievement in swining support at the Ard-Fheis to support my proposal and under the subsequent Jack Lynch-led Government the necessary legislation was introduced. I played a major part in ending that disgraceful practice, but my proposals did not receive general support from the parliamentary party. Therefore, I am not sure if Deputy Smith can justify seeking an accolade. While it may appear from the record that Fianna Fáil supported such a change, it was Fianna Fáil supporters, not the parliamentary party; who influenced the decision. Thankfully, the time has passed when Members can put forward proposals in the House to change constituency boundaries or sit on the back benches smiling contentedly because they have influenced the Minister to introduce legislation to suit them. We should not revert to such a system.

When Pádraig Flynn was Minister for the Environment changes were made in County Mayo which confound the imagination but, fortunately, that matter was rectified in the commission's report. Large sections of County Galway were transferred to Mayo to maintain a six seat constituency. Most political observers found it difficult to justify those changes but the commission's report was accepted by a Government of which I was a member.

I am disappointed the Government does not propose establishing the Electoral Commission on a statutory basis because most politicians are tempted to deal with matters in a way that favours their party. If the commission is not established on a statutory basis, a Government can adopt its proposals without taking into account the recommendations of an independent commission. Will the Minister inform the House why he has not introduced the electoral Bill that proposed the establishment on a statutory basis of a commission to review constituencies? As that legislation was published some time ago, there is no justification for it not being introduced. Its terms of reference were used as the basis for the commission which reported in 1995 and this legislation proposes the implementation of that commission's recommendations, but the legislation to establish a commission on a statutory basis has not been introduced. I hope there are not ulterior motives for the delay. The Minister stated that Bill is awaiting a Second Reading. As it is a 1994 electoral Bill, the Government has had many opportunities to introduce it. It could be taken on its own or in the context of a general electoral Bill proposing other important matters, which have also been put on the long finger. I understand that Democratic Left are examining the references to payments to political parties in Part III of that Bill. As Democratic Left is a small party I am sure proposals in that regard will be fair to all parties. The proposals in the existing Bill are unfair to small parties. I understand Deputy De Rossa is proposing changes to the legislation to ensure fair play for all parties and I hope the Government will table amendments in that regard. However, that does not explain the delay in bringing forward proposals to establish the Electoral Commission on a statutory basis.

I do not intend to refer to any one of the specific proposals other than to say that my party made a submission on what we considered to be reasonable and fair, taking account of existing constituencies, the population figures in the most recent Census and all the possible practical options available to such a commission. We note the recommendations of the Electoral Commission which are not totally in line with our suggestions. While we would expect that, nonetheless, on this occasion, we are satisfied our suggestions were fully taken into account. It redounds to the credit of this Electoral Commission that it has accepted suggestions and voiced its appreciation of the number of suggestions made to it by political parties, individuals and other organisations. People sometimes feel their submissions are not heeded by commissions of this type. Therefore, it gives some satisfaction to note the attitude prevailing among the membership of that commission under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Johnson who have done a very good day's work for democracy. It is only right that our thanks and appreciation be expressed to them all here.

My party accepts the report. We do not wish to comment on where lines should or should not be drawn. There are obvious anomalies to which one could refer, for example, why part of County Clare should be retained in Limerick and the like, but it is adequately explained. Anybody who considers all available options and the prevailing population figures will readily see that changes in one area will have a dramatic effect elsewhere and can change the ratio pattern of a constituency to such an extent that it can lead to a chain reaction among others. Therefore, it is the whole picture that must be examined and, looking at the recommendations of this commission, my party is satisfied to accept and commend them. We are prepared to accept and support the Bill before the House. However, we shall oppose vigorously any suggestion that there be alterations. If there were to be any cosy arrangement between the larger parties to seek to amend this Bill——

Mr. Allen

The Deputy can rest assured there will not be.

Mr. Molloy

I thank the Minister of State for that reassurance and for having introduced this Bill, the fear being that it would be left in abeyance until after the summer recess. The timing is important in that none of us wants anything to occur which would unnecessarily precipitate an election. The terms of the report of this commission and contents of the Bill will come into effect only at the next general election. If a general election was called before enactment of this Bill it would be held on the basis of the existing constituencies and the constitutional requirement in regard to the Census figures — the ratio of Deputies per head of population — would not be fulfilled. It was important that time was not wasted between publication of this report and the introduction of the Bill. I thank the Minister and Taoiseach, who promised he would seek to introduce the Bill before the summer recess. It will have our full support.

Mr. McCormack

I wish to share my time with Deputy Ferris.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure that is satisfactory.

Mr. McCormack

I am glad to have an opportunity of contributing to this debate. A Bill such as this is traditionally accepted by this House. Deputy Michael Smith said he would like to see some amendments proposed. While all Members would welcome minor amendments it is very difficult to know where to stop, each Member wanting his or her amendments accepted. That is not a road one can travel despite being sorely tempted.

Deputy Molloy gave the House an interesting insight into occurrences during his term of office as Minister for Local Government for which I thank him. He informed the House of the important role he had in preventing Fianna Fáil from gerrymandering constituencies. In the same breath he credited the present European Commissioner, former Deputy and Minister Pádraig Flynn, with influencing the boundaries commission with regard to the Mayo constituency on the previous occasion. Perhaps he had not completed that work before leaving for Europe.

Of course, amendments are relevant to all politicians. While on Member may be quite happy with the manner in which his or her constitency has been redrawn, another Member of the same party or of a different party, might not be at all happy with the revision. I daresay such opinion is influenced by the manner in which that Member may have represented or worked in the area being transferred to another constituency.

I detected a sigh of relief from Deputy Molloy that this Bill would become law before a general election. I would not be at all perturbed if a general election were held on the basis of the constituency I have represented for the past five years, though it is the one represented by Deputy Molloy, from which the House can draw its own conclusions.

I understand the Constitution stipulates that our constituencies should be revised every 12 years. I strongly advocate that constituencies should remain unaltered for 12 years, thus allowing any Member a reasonable period within which to get to know the people he or she represents and vice versa. It takes a certain length of time to build up a rapport with one's constituents.

I compliment the commission on the completion of their very difficult task. On several occasions I submitted suggestions but not this time because my previous ones were not taken into account. Nonetheless I recognise it is a very difficult task for anybody to redraw constituency boundaries consistent with the population ratio per Deputy, given natural boundaries and so on. I compliment the chairman, Mr. Justice Richard Johnson, Mr. Brendan O'Donoghue, the Clerks of the Dáil and Seanad, all people well qualified for the task. However, there should be some input by a retired politician, such as an eminent former Member of this House, who would have the requisite political expertise and experience in this area. I do not mean an active politician but perhaps a prominent former Member of this House — I am not suggesting anyone in particular — who would know what it was like to represent a constituency and would be aware that a major redrawing of the constituency might have a devastating effect on a Deputy. A person with political experience should be a member of the commission to inform the other members about the reality of politics. Most Deputies unaffected by boundary change's have little understanding of the effect it can have on other Deputies.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. McCormack

I thank Deputy Ryan for calling a quorum, thereby allowing many other Members to hear my contribution.

The general public do not have any sympathy for Deputies adversely affected by the revision of a constituency. Deputies have a moral duty to continue to represent the constituencies to which they are elected until the next general election, irrespective of the fact that when this Bill is passed, people in large areas of those constituencies will be unable to vote for their original representatives. That is a serious aspect of the commission's work. It is comparable to a farmer leasing land for five years, planting crops on it and caring for it during that period who then must allow somebody else to harvest those crops. That farmer would be very irate in those circumstances.

These changes may be unconstitutional but I do not intend to challenge the constitutionality of the Bill. I will accept the changes that have been made by the commission in regard to Galway West. I will continue to work in the area to which I was elected and in the new areas assigned to me. Vast areas of the Galway West constituency including Athenry, Kiltullagh, Carrowbane, Craughwell, Ballinderreen, Kinvara, Ardrahan, Gort, Beagh, Kilbeacanty, Peterswell, Castledaly and Kilchreest have been transferred to the constituency of Galway East. Other areas in the middle of the county including Corofin, Belclare, Ballinderry and Annagh have also been transferred to Galway East. That is a clear breach of the natural and council boundaries.

I cannot understand why the commission takes areas from one part of a constituency and adds areas to another part. I welcome the fact that Caherlistrane and Headford are being transferred from Mayo West to Galway East in addition to Kilconnell and Milltown. That is an admission of the mistake made on the last occasion the boundaries were changed and I thank Deputy Molloy for his remarks in regard to that.

There is not any consistency in the commission's work in regard to the constituencies. The summary of the report states that 20 constituencies are identical in name, area and representation to the existing constituency. There are 21 constituencies in which there have been either minor or major changes. That is unfair because there should be as few changes as possible, except where required by the Constitution, which demands a review every 12 years. There should be a set period of time in which constituencies are left unchanged. That would be welcomed not only by constituents but also by their representatives.

We must accept these changes and get on with the task of representing our constituencies. I am sure other Deputies will want to make comments on the Bill. I am sure Deputy Gregory will have much to say about the changes in the boundaries. We must forget about the difficulties that may ensue as a result of these changes and continue the work of representing the areas in which we have been elected. We must also try to establish ourselves in the new areas assigned to us. Instead of representing a five-seat constituency for the next two years, I will be representing a six-seat constituency which I believe is unique in political terms.

Mr. Ferris

I thank Deputy McCormack for sharing his time with me. I make this contribution based on my knowledge of my constituency and its needs. I made a submission to the commission requesting it to retain Tipperary South as a four-seat constituency. I regret the commission could not justify leaving the constituency with four seats because it was impossible to retain three seats in Tipperary North. That made it imperative to transfer one seat from my constituency to the constituency of Tipperary North. That was done literally by drawing a line through a map of the county in such a way as to justify the third seat in Tipperary North. I understand the commission's brief was to have three, four or five seat constituencies. They could not have a six seat constituency in South Tipperary and a two seat constituency in North Tipperary. A section of the population would have to be transferred to the North Tipperary constituency to justify its third seat.

The Minister said that under the Constitution ultimate responsibility rests with the Oireachtas. Deputy Michael Smith suggested that anomalies could be removed with the agreement of all the political parties but it should be possible to alter the constituency boundaries of North Tipperary and South Tipperary without encroaching on the county boundaries of the surrounding constituencies. The anomalies created could be addressed in this way.

It is proposed to divide the parish of Ballingarry which is unfair, irrespective of where the district electoral divisions are drawn. It is a matter of serious concern to those who represent an area when electoral areas are removed from county council administrative areas. The people feel isolated and almost disenfranchised. The people in Cappawhite and Donohill district electoral divisions have no affinity with North Tipperary and will protest strongly that changes have been made without reference to them. The boundaries have been changed without regard to their normal hinterland and their affinity to their county town and the county council area that has represented them for years.

Without disturbing the distribution of seats that the commission wishes to achieve and without disturbing the electorate if there is political consensus among the constituency representatives it would be possible for the Government to address this anomaly. I have the maps of the two areas and the population of the district electoral divisions involved. I suggest that Ballingarry and Modeshill be transferred to Tipperary North, eliminating the division of Ballingarry parish and that Cappawhite and Donohill be returned to their natural hinterland in Tipperary South, by so doing, the commission would achieve what it set out to do. I would not have the audacity to make a suggestion that would give me political advantage and the same applies to my constituency colleague, Deputy Theresa Ahearn.

There is no political advantage in transferring district electoral divisions from one constituency to another but it is more advantageous to the people concerned. Do we disregard the views of people and ignore the fact that we are dividing a parish and removing an electoral area from the Cashel administrative areas and another from the Tipperary county council area because it suits a commission? I appreciate that the independent commission had to address the imbalances in constituencies and that North Tipperary would not have a third seat unless the population was increased. Population was transferred from South Tipperary to justify the third seat in North Tipperary but I regret that South Tipperary lost a seat.

Will the Minister look at the proposed boundary changes and how district electoral divisions have been divided? For example, a district electoral division that comes down into the town of Cashel, the heartland of South Tipperary has been transferred to North Tipperary. The changes I suggest make eminent sense. I would be remiss in my duty as an elected representative — I will always have to battle for my seat — if I did not make a case for these people. We should not disregard their views about being part of their normal hinterland. We should try to ensure that these proposals are acceptable to all in Tipperary, North and South and I am sure political agreement can be reached.

Mr. E. Ryan

I wish to share my time with Deputy Gregory.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. E. Ryan

I compliment Mr. Justice Richard Johnston, Mr. Kieran Coughlan and Ms Deirdre Lane and other members of the commission for the work they put into it. It is a difficult task, almost like a rubic cube because when you change constituency boundaries it has a knock-on effect throughout the country. The commission has made a brave effort to get things right.

Deputies raised detailed points on the effects of the proposed changes in their own constituencies and I think it is right to do that. Fortunately, the changes in my constituency are not of great significance for sitting Members.

The Minister mentioned the electoral Bill. 1994, which is awaiting its Second Reading. It will establish on a statutory basis an independent constituency commission, which is long overdue. There have been significant population changes — in the past six months one can begin to see the effects of inner city renewal in Dublin. The apartment blocks are beginning to fill up resulting in a spin-off effect on local shops and businesses.

The census on which this report is based is already out of date as far as my constituency is concerned and probably the north side of the city also, as there has been a significant increase in the number of people living in the inner city. I would welcome the establishment of an independent constituency commission on a statutory basis to review the situation periodically so that population changes could be identified immediately and constituency boundaries changed if necessary.

In regard to the constituency of County Mayo, where I worked for some time, I agree with the remarks of my colleague, Deputy Michael Smith. The workload of all Deputies is particularly heavy, but I have a certain sympathy for rural Deputies who must travel to Dublin and back to their constituencies. I particularly sympathise with those Deputies who will be elected for the constituency of Mayo. This is a huge county and it is particularly difficult to get from one extreme of it to the other. It is, therefore, an enormous task and a huge strain for one Deputy to cover the whole of that county and represent his constituents as he will be expected to do.

The constituency of Dublin Central is another one that fascinates me. Every time we have a change in electoral boundaries this constituency changes, and it is on the move again. I am sure Deputies Gregory and Costello will speak in more detail about this. Fixing electoral boundaries is a difficult task, and if one starts at one end of the country it has repercussions all the way up, but people who know Dublin will be scratching their heads in wonderment at the change there; I gather the constituency is now ten miles long and that there is no similarity between one end of it and the other.

Deputy McCormack mentioned my colleague, Deputy Michael Smith, in the course of his comments to the effect that he, Deputy McCormack, did not believe any changes should be made. In fairness, what Deputy Smith had in mind was that electoral boundaries should be changed where parishes are at present divided. I agree with that. There is no reason to split a parish in rural Ireland in two, even if it makes the figures add up. If we can get all party agreement in the House, parishes that are divided should be put in one constituency; I do not believe that will make any significant difference to the political situation in constituencies. In an area which is to become part of my constituency, ten houses have been excluded and I cannot understand that. I thought initially that it was a mistake but it seems that is how the map was drawn. If the ten houses were part of Dublin south east it would mean that the whole of the housing estate in question would belong to the same constituency. Unless there is a very good reason we should not do so. I would not be against the idea of changing them with the agreement of all sides.

Deputy McCormack also said that because only a politician would understand the pressure and strain under which politicians work, a politician should be appointed to the commission. I have to differ with him on that. Ms Deirdre Lane and Mr. Kieran Coughlan, who are members of the commission, are sympathetic to Members of the House and understand how heavy their workload is and the pressures on them. Furthermore, it would damage the independence of the commission to include a politician and that would do none of us any good. If a politician were appointed by a particular Government, members of Opposition parties might feel that the constituencies would be drawn in favour of the Government. For that reason I do not believe the commission should include a politician. The commission works well at present and the members are from different walks of life. They all have a very good idea of the work of politicians.

Although the census taken in 1991 is out of date, certainly in parts of Dublin, I welcome the Bill which is timely. I hope it will be speedily implemented and that it will resolve many of the problems in certain constituencies.

Mr. Gregory

I thank Deputy Ryan for allowing me to share his time. It gives me the opportunity to make a few comments when I would otherwise have had to wait most of the day to get a time slot in which to speak. There have only been a few speakers so far but it is interesting that two of them referred to the fact that I intended to speak. It is obvious that the word is out that something unusual has again happened in Dublin Central.

My first comment on the report of the electoral commission is to welcome the reunification of Ballyfermot and Cherry Orchard. It is something that community badly needed in order to be properly represented in this House. The people there deserve that, and the problems that need to be addressed there can only be done if they are part of one constituency. This, therefore, is a positive step.

The commission's report stated that it was one of their objectives to unite natural communities. What is unusual is that on the north side of the city the commission does not appear to have had that objective. It seems to have attached no importance to this on the north side but has dissected communities from Phibsboro down to the docks area. The commission appears to have a laudable objective in one part of the city but does not have the same objective in others. On the north side the commission has ignored all natural boundaries, it has ignored the local electoral areas and, in most instances, it has followed sections of railway track to draw boundaries. I find that approach extraordinary.

The constituency of Dublin Central is 8½ miles in length which is not very long for a rural constituency. However, a constituency of such dimensions in the city centre, consisting of a pocket of the inner city on the north side and stretching out to a recently built suburb on the south side, seems unusual. The commission found it necessary to justify not just those changes but changes made by the 1990 commission which have been compounded on this occasion. I did not contribute to the debate on the changes in 1990 as so many Members attacked them I felt they would be reversed. The commission's report referred to the criticisms but I was native enough to think they would take them on board. I am disappointed with what I hope is an independent and objective process.

The report states that although criticisms were made in the House no amendments were proposed. That is hard to take. I accepted the view that it was an independent commission and it would not be proper for the House to amend an "independent" report, yet the commission offers that as justification for compounding the extraordinary changes made on the last occasion. I make these comments in the hope that they might have some effect on the commission in future. The House behaved correctly on the last occasion despite what Deputy Molloy referred to as changes which "confounded the imagination". They certainly confound the imagination in Dublin Central. The position of the House was that this was an independent report and that when the commission reviewed the changes it would take on board the fair comments made during the debate. Unfortunately it did not do so.

All recent Governments have treated the inner city as an area with special problems which require special strategies. The boundaries were defined in such a way as to implement policies which might help disadvantaged communities in those areas but the commission do not appear to have been aware of Government policy on the inner city. The area is divided between five Dáil constituencies — Dublin Central, Dublin North-Central, Dublin-North West, Dublin South-Central and Dublin South-East. That fits into the traditional policy of ignoring the inner city and treats it as an area where people do not live. The objective of the commission was to unite natural communities. Clearly the view of the commission was that people in the inner city, the original Dublin Central, do not count to the same extent as people in other areas.

I address the following questions to the members of the commission and perhaps in its next report which, if I am not a Member of the House——

Mr. N. Ahern

The Deputy will be all right.

Mr. Gregory

The members of the commission read the comments made in the House on the last occasion and perhaps they might do so again. On whose initiative are the constituencies lines drawn? Deputies mentioned areas where the lines drawn are extraordinary. Were the boundary lines of Dublin Central, as they appear in the report, taken from one or any of the submissions made? Were they taken from one member of the commission who had technical expertise available to him? Do the members of the commission have the skills, expertise and knowledge necessary to drawn specific constituency boundary lines which have huge implications for communities and those who try to represent them? If the members of the commission have doubts about any of these questions, are they considering recommendations to ensure objectivity and independence in the future?

I do not agree with the view expressed that where there is political agreement on changes these should be made in the House. Reports would be open to abuse. Despite the fact that my constituency is probably the one most drastically affected, the most the House should do is send back the proposals to the commission with the comments made by the various Members. If, on foot of that, the commission make minor changes, so be it but for the political groupings in the House to come together and reach agreement on changes would be a bad precedent and it would be wrong.

Mr. Costello

I am also a Member for that most distressful of constituencies, Dublin Central, which seems to be at the receiving end of the knife every time the boundaries are revised. There is an inordinate degree of change in the constituency. The only way boundaries can be properly revised is by an independent commission. Previously the Minister for Local Government had responsibility for revising constituencies at least once every 12 years, as provided for in the Constitution. It would be difficult to set up a more independent commission than this one which will include a judge of the High Court, the Ombudsman, the secretaries of the Department of the Environment and the Clerks of the Dáil and Seanad. I strongly disagree with the suggestion that there should be some political involvement in the revision of boundaries. Politicians and political groups should have no involvement in this matter other than the right to make submissions to the commission. It is important not to turn back the clock but seek to improve the system. The first commission was set up in 1980, the second in 1983, the third in 1988, the fourth in 1990 and the fifth in 1994. This gives an average of one commission every three years over a 15 year period, which is well within the constitutional requirement that constituencies must be revised at least once every 12 years.

The purpose of boundary revisions is to ensure that constituencies have adequate representation and are given a proper service. Given the major changes in Dublin Central, consideration must be given to whether constituents in this area have adequate representation. Boundaries should only be changed when necessary to ensure stable representation for constituents. This will give local representatives an opportunity to provide a service for their constituents and give time to constituents to decide whether they are being given a proper service. Further consideration must be given to this issue.

As the results of a census of population are not available for three or four years, any decisions in the meantime in regard to the revision of boundaries do not accurately reflect the position in many areas. For example, in the past few years many new apartment blocks have been built in Dublin Central and there has been a huge expansion in the local authority housing programme since the Government came into office. This means that the thousands of people living in these buildings are not recorded in the census and will not be taken into consideration by the commission when carrying out its revision of the boundaries. During the period 1960-89 the population in the areas along the canals in the north and south inner city declined by 50 per cent. There has been a sharp reversal in this trend in recent years and the large pool of new voters now living in these areas will not be taken into consideration by the commission in its revision, thus creating an imbalance.

It seems from the terms of reference that Dublin Central, which is the most unstable constituency in the Dublin area, will become a cohesive and stable constituency. One of the new terms of reference states that areas should be contiguous, that they should be adjacent to and run into each other in a natural form. Apart from the East Wall, the Dublin Central constituency stretches from the River Liffey on the north side to the sea and out to Chapelizod. The part of the constituency on the south side is not parallel to any populated area in the north side because the Phoenix Park is opposite Ballyfermot and Cherry Orchard. It is impossible to see how these areas are contiguous.

The commission must have regard to geographic considerations, including significant physical features. In its report the commission says it has noted that it is required to have regard to significant physical features, which could include roads, railways etc., whereas previous commissions were required to have regard only to clearly defined natural features, for example, rivers, lakes and mountain ranges. A river is a clearly defined physical feature. There are rivers in Dublin such as the Dodder, the Poddle and so on but most people would say the Liffey is a significant feature. If that is one of the terms of reference of a clearly defined physical feature, of which the commission must take cognisance, how in God's name can one section of the constituency be on the south side and the other at a long distance not geographically related?

The obvious starting point for any commission would have been the River Liffey. On the north side of the Liffey there is a huge urban area and on the south side there is a similar type of urban and suburban geographical area. One ought to start from the Liffey and move south on the one hand and north on the other. That starting point would be strengthened by the fact that the greatest increase in population has been in the suburban areas in the south and the north counties. As one moved out from the Liffey one would be able to form cohesive constituencies and to accommodate the increasing population on the peripheries because that is the area of greatest growth. All logic would suggest that the River Liffey is the natural boundary in Dublin. The constituency of Dublin Central should be the most stable and unchanged while on the south side Dublin South-East should be the one with most change. However, the opposite is the case and Dublin Central becomes the cockpit. Whatever is required from the north side or the south side a chunk of Dublin Central is used to facilitate it.

Since the last boundary revision five constituencies have been altered. I find it difficult to understand the new terms of reference and the modus operandi of the commission. East Wall is a natural part of Dublin Central but its population of 3,503 is being brought into Dublin North-Central. East Wall and North Wall are contiguous areas and anyone operating in the locality would say they should be left together. A railway line running through East Wall and North Wall is regarded as the boundary rather than the area being an essential part of the north inner city. East Wall and North Wall are part of the local electoral area but they are being divided for the general area in this discretionary fashion.

The area of Mountjoy and half of Phibsboro is divided. Electoral areas are divided to make up a new general election area. A population of 6,577 people are being changed to Dublin North-West and a chunk is taken away from the local electoral area of Cabra. This is a further intrusion in the local electoral areas. No cognisance has been taken of how that affects a constituency and the ability of Deputies and local councillors to represent the area. There is a direct link between both in terms of representation.

On the other side of the Liffey there are enormous gains. A population of 16,494 is added to Dublin Central — an increase of 6,000 in the constituency. There had been a fall in the population although the census of population does not reflect the increase since 1990. What has happened in terms of adding on Cherry Orchard and joining upper Ballyfermot to lower Ballyfermot is a natural progression. Undoubtedly, that area is now a cohesive unit on the south of the Liffey but is not a cohesive unit in terms of being linked to the north inner city and Cabra. It is good that Ballyfermot is not divided between Dublin West and Dublin Central as in the last election, they are all in one constituency. Traditionally Ballyfermot and Cherry Orchard were part of a south side constituency. The first time Ballyfermot and Inchicore became part of Dublin Central was at the last election. It would have been natural that they would be part of a south side constituency; Dublin West would be the obvious constituency. While that constituency is being made more cohesive in terms of the area being assigned to it, it will make it even more difficult because there is now almost an equal division between the north and the south side but far apart for the purposes of proper representation for the people. The next time there is a boundary revision if could mean going back to the drawing board and another carve up, the people on the south side could be included with another constituency and chunks of the north side could be assigned to other constituencies.

It is difficult to fathom why Dublin Central has to be changed so drastically each time there is a boundary revision. It is difficult to understand how the terms of reference correspond to the manner in which the redrawing has taken place. In any future boundary drawings will the commission look seriously at the Liffey as the natural boundary for moving into the south and north sides of the city in terms of putting together a structure that could last virtually forever because the Liffey will be there forever? The city sprawls north, south and west but the central area is cohesive. The obvious place to start is not in the northern suburbs and move in, as happened on the last occasion, but to start at the Liffey and move out.

We should also look at the range of services provided and how the State Departments look at the city as a whole. For example, the partnerships is one type of unit in operation but obviously the commission has not taken cognisance of that because it operates in a variety of constituencies. It operates on the north and the south sides in a fairly coherent fashion but following the changes in Dublin Central it does not reflect the territory of the inner city partnership. The Garda stations and the health boards operate in certain defined areas but, of course, the boundary revision draws across their operational areas. All the other services provided by the State are not taken into consideration. I realise they are not part of the terms of reference but they could be considered because they give a community cohesiveness by being represented by the services on the one hand and the political representatives on the other and it allows for stability in terms of broad democratic representation.

Mr. N. Ahern

I compliment the commission on the work it has done, although I do not agree with everything stated in its report in which it is clearly stated that it has an advisory function. It has been suggested that, with all-party agreement, changes may be made. I see nothing wrong with this. There is no point in expressing reservations if one is not prepared to take the next logical step, which is to try to have alterations made. While it is accepted that the commission is independent in the exercise of its functions, no individual or committee is perfect. It appears there are anomalies.

Some Members seem to be opposed to the idea of making changes or of political involvement. I would not go along with that. While the commission is independent in the exercise of its functions there is a political input through the involvement of the Department of the Environment which considers how the suggestions of the commission should be implemented. Although the commission will consider the findings of any studies carried out it would be naive to think there is no political involvement.

In the past we had seven, eight and nine-seat constituencies. It then became the trend to opt for a smaller number, to the point where the majority of constituencies were three-seaters in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Since the decision was taken to appoint a commission to deal with this matter there has been a reversal of this trend. It must be questioned whether this is due to its terms of reference.

We are reaching the stage where we will have a European style parliament and Governments will appoint committees to do more of the work. This means that Members will spend less time in their constituencies. Despite this trend commissions have moved away from three-seat constituencies in favour of four or five-seaters. This matter will have to be considered. While members of the commission may argue that their hands are tied we are sending conflicting signals. I am not trying to make the argument that we should have single seat constituencies but I would not be in favour of four and five-seaters. It would make more sense to have three-seat constituencies in rural and some city areas.

In chapter 1 the commission recommends that the total membership of Dáil Éireann should remain at the present level, that the seats should be arranged in 41 constituencies and that the number of three, four and five-seat constituencies should also remain the same. In the case of Dublin, the Minister of State said that there will be no change in the existing allocation of 47 seats or in the number of Members to be returned for each of the existing 11 constituencies. This gives the impression that there will be no change in the position and that if there were to be an increase in the number of Deputies or constituencies there might be a hullabaloo in the media. I suggest, however, that fundamental changes are recommended in a number of areas.

Deputy Smith mentioned that in the past this matter was the subject of acrimonious debate when it seemed various parties wished to gerrymander or "Tullymander" constituency boundaries. I do not know if it would be possible to do this to look after any particular party; one could certainly look after individuals.

Major changes are recommended in some areas. I do not fully understand how the commission determined what the boundaries should be. The electoral area boundaries for Dáil and local authority elections should be the same. This would make sense to local communities and everyone involved in politics.

Reference has been made to the constituency of Dublin Central which has been severly affected. Some people outside the House claim it has been butchered. In the case of Dublin the commission makes a number of suggestions. The possibility of joining parts of north Wicklow with areas in Dublin was considered and rejected. Given that many people from Bray commute to the city the notion that it should be joined with parts of Dublin would not be nonsensical, but I am sure there are logical reasons for rejecting it.

In the case of the constituency of Dublin Central, as Deputy Gregeory mentioned, the commission almost tries to apologise for taking a certain line. It mentions that many of the submissions it received were critical of what happened on the previous occasion. It refers to the natural boundaries it considered for Dublin Central and states that having considered these matters it decided not to accept them because it would have meant making substantial changes. However substantial changes will be made anyway. I accept it is difficult for a commission such as this to find a perfect answer and to make decisions that are agreeable to everyone. From the submissions made to it, the commission realises there is a problem with Dublin Central. It set out the different scenarios and made a decision knowing it would not be agreed to by many people.

I represent the neighbouring constituency of Dublin North-West. I will not lose out as a result of the changes. Some people would say I owe my political existence to the changes made on the last occasion. It is difficult to see the logic behind some of the changes proposed and I fully understand why Deputies Costello and Gregory are unhappy with them. It is not the name, Dublin Central, that poses the problem, although it might have been more honest if the name was changed. There is a suggestion that nothing is changing but huge changes are being made. If the name was changed they might be given official recognition and their might be sympathy for those who feel aggrieved.

The original boundary between Dublin Central and Dublin North-West was Iona Road. That was an unnatural boundary which cut through a parish. The natural boundary is the canal and the railway line at Whitworth Road, which is only 200 yards away. I had hoped the boundary would be changed to Whitworth Road which is the local authority boundary. That would make sense and nobody could logically argue against it. However, the boundary extends beyond the canal, to the North Circular Road, including a section of the inner city ward and parts of Phibsboro in the Cabra ward. On the North Circular Road or Cabra Road one house may be in the new Dublin North-West constituency while the neighbouring house may be in Dublin Central.

I welcome the people in those areas to Dublin North-West. I will try to represent them well, as my brother has done for a number of years. I doubt that he has made enemies in the area. It is difficult to understand why the commision extended the constituency because the original arrangment, without the North Circular Road and Phibsboro areas was satisfactory.

I agree with Deputy Gregory's remarks about concentrating political effort in the inner city area and about the East Wall. In Dublin North-West the main area of underprivilege is Ballymun and at local authority level a special committee deals with that area. It is proposed that part of the inner city be included in that constituency. However representatives may not pay much attention to this area as they may believe it will not be retained on the next occasion. Their main concentration will be on Ballymun. This change will add to what everyone recognises is a problem in the inner city. The inner city committee of the local authority was originally composed of representatives from two constituencies but now it will involve five or six constituencies and representatives will have only a minority interest in it.

I understand the reservations of Deputies from areas such as Mayo, a constituency that spans 140 miles. Problems will also arise in Tipperary. The commission readily accepts it is an advisory body, and if there is all-party agreement, I see nothing wrong with making changes to ensure everybody is happy.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

This is a debate on survival. It is obvious that the only contributions on Second Stage are from Deputies from constituencies affected. Even if I do not agree with the outcome of the review, I thank the commission for its work. It was a difficult and thankless task. I accept its recommendations are impartial and are the best options in the circumstances. As a Deputy who represents one of the constituencies that will be greatest affected by the review — Tipperary South — I nevertheless acknowledge the commission's work.

It must be accepted that political careers may be destroyed by the stroke of a commission pen, although we will all fight against that irrespective of the input a Deputy has made in a constituency over the years, his dedication and the good work he has done, his political career may end as a result of this review. Some Deputies will inevitably lose out because, for example, in the case of Mayo six into five will not go and in south Tipperary three into two will not go.

I welcome the opportunity to debate the commission's recommendations. Tipperary South is one of the constituencies most affected. Those of us who represent Tipperary South have lost 9,379 people, well over a quota, from our constituency. That means saying good bye to many whom we enjoyed representing. Their problems and concerns were ours. We were delighted to share in their successes. We visited their schools and joined in their activities in their local community centres. We met them personally, visited them when they were sick and met them on sorrowful and joyful occasions. Ours is a human relationship and one I would have liked to continue. We have bult up a solid trust and suddenly we fine we cannot work together any more. When this Bill is passed I will have to say goodbye to the people of Ballysheehan, Clogher, Clonoulty East, Clonoulty West, Gaile, Graystown, Killenaule, Nodstown, Ballyphilip, Buolick, Crohane, Farranrory, Fennor, Kilcooly, New Birmingham, Poyntstown, Cappagh, Curraheen, Donohill, Glengar and Ballymacarbry. I listed those towns to bring home to politicians the extent to which Tipperary South has been affected. Those rural parishes will be transferred from Tipperary South to Tipperary North and Ballymacarbry will be transferred to Waterford. It will represent a massive break of friendship and trust between those people and their representatives. I am saddened because I want to continue to represent those people. They elected me to this House and put their trust in me. I enjoyed sharing their concerns and successes, but that will no longer be the case because of the pen that drew the line across the map.

The commission emphasised that when drawing up new boundaries account was taken of practical and geopraphical considerations. On either of those counts it is difficult to accept its recommendations regarding Tipperary South. Irrespective of what line is drawn across the map we must use the road network and we will have to drive through Tipperary North to reach parts of Tipperary South. That is neither practical nor has it geographical merit. It is the result of the commission's review. There is no logic in it. It will not suit the representatives or the people living in those areas. We will have to drive to Killenaule in north Tipperary to reach the village of Ballingarry which will be included in the Tipperary South constituency. There is no logic to that division.

I admit that we did expect some changes in Tipperary South. We know that Tipperary North does not have a sufficient population to retain three seats. I believed that Tipperary South would have been left a four-seater constituency and that additional areas of population would have been transferred to it. The revision of the boundaries will be drastic for people with a natural affinity with south Tipperary. They have always been part of that constituency and it is their natural and traditional homeland, but as a result of the stroke of the commission's pen, for no reason other than to supply population, they will be in the Tipperary North constituency. My colleague mentioned Donohill and Cappawhite. The Tipperary North constituency boundary will fall almost within the speed limit area outside Cashel town and come within four miles of Tipperary town. Those of us who were born and reared and have lived in Tipperary know how unnatural that division is.

There is another severe disadvantage. The whole local authority area was within the constituency, but that will no longer be the case. Part of the Tipperary South local authority area will be transferred to the Tipperary North constituency. That will pose difficulties for public representatives, but we can imagine the difficulties it will pose for the people, among whom there is much confusion. Some of them understood that they would be transferred to the Tipperary North local authority area. It is illogical that they will have to approach south Tipperary county councillors and north Tipperary TDs. Efforts should be made to keep the local authority areas intact. Unfortunately, the greater part of the Cashel local authority area will be in Tipperary North. People in Tipperary South are disappointed, angry and confused as a result of the commission's review.

Our democratic system is becoming more confused by the hour with regional bodies, health boards and local authority services located in different Dáil constituencies. It is a maze of confusion. It must have been difficult to design such confusing divisions for various services on a small island. I do not know how we would operate if the island was any bigger.

The local authority area in south Tipperary will be divided between Tipperary North and Tipperary South. We will have to travel to Waterford to go to the FÁS headquarters, turn towards Kilkenny to go to the regional headquarters of the health board and travel to Thurles and Waterford to get to the Revenue Commissioners. We have approximately seven postal codes and different health board areas, but amazingly, not a Government office. I want the Government to consider decentralising a Government office to south Tipperary. We have to travel north, south, east and west to the headquarters of various bodies, with none located in south Tipperary. We will not tolerate that position much longer. We have excellent towns, services and facilities, a first-class workforce and a beautiful environment which is an ideal location for a Government headquarters. When the Bill is passed all we will have is a stripping of towns from our constituency by the commission pen about which many of the people in Tipperary South are shocked.

If Members were honest they would admit that we must tolerate political apathy and this has been increased by the manner in which the Tipperary constituencies have been divided. People want to vote for the representatives they know, but they will no longer have that opportunity. Many of the people forced into other constituencies may not vote in future elections. Irrespective of geographic or practical considerations, the objective of constituency revision should be to maintain people's interest and trust in the political system. People are confused and believe they are mere numbers that can be transferred to wherever there are not enough people to make up two, three or four seat constituencies, but they will not tolerate such treatment. People have affinity with certain areas and it is unwise to transfer them to other constituencies where they will feel isolated from political representation. Of course, what is one person's loss is another's gain and the areas of south Tipperary to which we will have to say goodbye will be well represented by our colleagues in north Tipperary. Nevertheless, we must fight our case.

Members have questioned whether the Minister should accept amendments if those representing the constituencies involved are in agreement about the changes. Deputy Ferris proposed that Cappawhite and Donohill should be retained in Tipperary South and that Ballingarry and Modeshill should be returned to Tipperary North. While I do not like relinquishing any part of Tipperary South, I do not have a difficulty with Deputy Ferris's proposal. He was correct in stating that such a proposal will not be politically advantageous for anybody. Cappawhite and Donohill are located outside Tipperary town, are included in south Tipperary local authority and the people living there do not have a natural affinity with north Tipperary. If the Minister accepts Deputy Ferris's proposal, I will support it but if too many parishes are juggled around it will give rise to problems. As there were serious imbalances in constituencies, the work of the commission was necessary but difficult, particularly if one is not familiar with an area. It would be impossible to please everybody.

We are honoured to have the Ceann Comhairle as one of our representatives in south Tipperary. I am sure all Members would wish to be in his position in that he is automatically returned to the House. I wish him many more years of service and hope I will be here as a colleague.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): To replace him.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

Irrespective of what happens, the constituency I represent will have only two seats to fill at the next election. The same will apply in County Mayo. The career of one representative in County Tipperary will end at the next election and those involved must fight the battle.

The status of south Tipperary will be adversely affected by the reduction in the number of seats. South Tipperary has good representatives and it is regrettable that this change is necessary to back up other constituencies. Unfortunately, the commission did not consider natural boundaries and hinterlands in south Tipperary and many of our constituents are unhappy with the outcome. Nevertheless, the commission completed its task and its report has been accepted by the Government. I would like to continue to represent those who have been transferred in north Tipperary. I thank them for their support and trust in the past and I am sure they will be competently represented by my colleagues in north Tipperary. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the proposals on Committee Stage.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Dr. Moffatt

I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate and to thank the members of the Dáil Constituency Commission for their deliberations though I disagree with their ultimate findings in regard to the Mayo constituencies which, as the House will know, have been badly affected in this latest revision. From now on Mayo will be a five-seater whereas previously it comprised two three-seater constituencies. I know my colleague. Deputy Morley, who is absent because of illness, would like to express his thanks along with mine to the people of our former constituency. It was a pleasure to work with them. I hope we represented them well although they may have differed with us from time to time, but only when playing in GAA matches. That County Mayo will be reduced to one five-seater constituency means one Member will lose his seat but that is a feature of life in politics. We will have to struggle on because it appears we cannot propose any amendments.

It would appear the commission could have allowed the status quo remain, or could have combined a portion of Sligo with Mayo, which would have caused problems for Sligo-Leitrim. Bearing in mind its expressed wish not to breach county boundaries, I suppose its ultimate decision was the only viable option.

A county the size of Mayo in Leinster would probably have 50 Deputies, and in Munster would have nine Deputies. Mayo, the third largest county, has its representation reduced to five Deputies. This means Deputies may have to travel in excess of 100 miles, say, from Blacksod to Ballaghaderreen. However, that is part of political life and I know the Minister of State, Deputy Jim Higgins is fully aware of the problems we shall encounter in our constituency in the future.

It is unfortunate that account was not taken of geographical areas in addition to population, especially in a county like Mayo, certain parts of which are very poorly populated. We cannot blame former commissions for not having foreseen an insufficient representation in our county the population in the west generally, expecially in Leitrim, having diminished considerably. It is unfortunate that there was not greater cognisance of the geography of any given area. Henceforth, I dare say we will not encounter problems vis-à-vis parish boundaries and the like. Our main problem will be that of representing the electorate of County Mayo adequately. Having already given examples of how a comparable electoral area would be represented, the House will readily appreciate our problems. It is unfortunate that this has happened to County Mayo.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Chuala mé duine ar maidin ag rá gur chuir sé fáilte roimh an tuarascáil seo. Caithfidh mé a admháil i dtosach nach bhfuil mé sásta cor ar bith leis an tuarascáil. Níor thug sé cothrom na féinne do Cheatharlach. Is é Ceatharlach an contae is lú in Éirinn taobh amuigh de Chontae Lú agus tá daonra an-mhór ag Contae Lú. Rinne siad an-dochar dúinn agus tá baol ann nach mbeidh mé ag caint anseo tar éis an chéad toghchán eile. Beidh cuimhneamh ag duine éigin orm le cúnamh Dé.

I do not want to upset the Chairperson by discussing last Sunday's football scene when Donegal did not do too well. However, in the height of your sorrow you may remember that Carlow received a raw deal in Portlaoise from seven officials — four umpires, a referee and two linesmen.

Dr. Moffatt

No commission there.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): We are dealing with the report of a five-member commission here which leads me to wonder — when the seven-member commission in Portlaoise made such a ridiculous decision — whether I can appeal to anybody to request this five-member commission to re-examine how it has illogically treated Carlow, our second smallest county?

Chapter 2 of its report under the subheading Terms of Reference, on page seven, subparagraph (c) reads:

the breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as practicable.

Of course "as far as practicable" is as long as a piece of string. Nonetheless, arguing later about various options open to them, the members of the commission were able to argue in defence of county boundaries while totally ignoring that aspiration when it came to County Carlow.

Constituents have asked whether I made a submission to the commission. It did not cross my mind to do so. It would not have occurred to me that it would decimate the second smallest county by transferring 3,500 people from Carlow to Wicklow. Carlow comprises one-third of the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny, Kilkenny having two votes for every one of ours; if you like, one could maintain that we are a little prop in that constituency. The widely expressed fear is that Carlow would wind up after the next election without any Deputy as all of them could represent Kilkenny.

The five wise members of the commission on page 20 of their report, dealt with the possibility of adding five seats to Waterford and went on to discuss two possibilities — one being to transfer the towns of Carrick-on-Suir and the southern environs of Clonmel or, second, the Glenore, Mullinavat, Mooncoin area of County Kilkenny. They went on to say:

None of these options appears to us to be satisfactory. Further adjustment between Waterford and Tipperary is particularly difficult by reason of the physical features involved, a factor adverted to in submissions.

Even west Wicklow is separated from east Wicklow by physical features. It is of no benefit to Carlow to have to get over a physical barrier which affects the county.

The commission's report went on to state that adjustment between Kilkenny and either Tipperary or Waterford would involve a new breach of a provincial boundary as well as a county boundary and that there appeared to be a more appropriate way of dealing with the rather high average population per Member in the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency. I do not know why the commission was so concerned about the fact that Carlow has a greater population per Member than that laid down. Nobody is complaining and perhaps we should be nearer a 30,000 average.

The commission did not consider breaching a county boundary in Kilkenny or in the Tipperary area. Obviously, the Carlow boundary does not matter. In regard to County Dublin, where there are several constituencies, the report states that a transfer could be made from the constituency of Dún Laoghaire, which includes parts of the environs of Bray, and could supply the necessary population. It stated that, on balance, it felt it would be preferable to retain the county boundary in that case and treat the Dublin area as a distinct unit. Dublin, which has several constituencies, can and must be protected to retain the county boundary, yet Carlow is given only 3,500 people out of the second smallest county in the country.

I do not understand the logic applied in those three cases. The commission stated that the county boundary must be protected in Kilkenny-Tipperary and that in Dublin, to assist Wicklow, the constituencies on the borders of Wicklow cannot be included because they must protect the county boundary of Dublin. The solution, a sensible one in the view of the commission, was to transfer some of the population numbers from Carlow. That is totally unacceptable. If the commission's report had not made any reference to protecting Kilkenny and Dublin I might accept that some constituency had to be adversely affected but I cannot understand how five intelligent people could contradict themselves so severely in the decision they made.

The commission report states that the final decision in regard to accepting its recommendations is a matter for the Oireachtas. The commission is an independent body. Deputy Molloy seemed to question the honesty of this Government in not interfering with this decision — although he almost canonised himself because of his actions when he had responsibility for the revision of constituency boundaries. The Government cannot interfere with an independent review and it is foolish of the commission to state that the final decision is a matter for the Oireachtas. What can the Oireachtas do? Who will stand up and say to me that they will give me a share of their constituency? That will not happen. People can hide behind the fact that this will be a decision of the Oireachtas and I will have to accept it.

To add insult to injury the commission further stated in its report that it noted that the boundaries of 56 towns were extended in 1994 for the purposes of local elections and that, in the case of Carlow and Drogheda, the added areas extended into adjoining counties, Laois and Meath respectively. Typical of Carlow's luck, the commission considered that it would be premature to take account in its recommendations of boundary extension which at present apply only to local elections. The environs of Carlow Town are more greatly associated with Carlow than with Laois. In fact, some of the houses in Graighcullen are in the Laois constituency, which is an absolute farce.

We are now in a position where we may not have any elected representative from Carlow following the next general election. The commission should not have treated a small county like Carlow the way it did when one considers that it went out of its way to protect Dublin, which is already divided into several constituencies, Kilkenny and Tipperary, where the county boundaries had to be observed. Why did Carlow not receive the same treatment? It seems to me that small counties are regarded as unimportant.

To use football language, the commission should be given the red card. The Taoiseach should suspend it from bringing its own terms of reference into disrepute. As far as I am concerned, I will give all its members a free transfer to Honolulu on a one way ticket because of the way they have treated Carlow.

Mr. N. Treacy

I am pleased to have the opportunity of making a contribution to the debate on this report. I listened with interest to the contributions this morning. I cannot understand how Members can claim we should make submissions to the commission if the commission is independent. During my 13 years in politics, I never made a submission to any commission on any constituency boundary although I have never been satisfied with the constituency boundaries created.

For the past 13 years I have been privileged to represent the people of Galway East which is a three seat constituency. A number of changes have been made during that period of time. Following my election to this House in 1982, and my subsequent election that year, changes were made which transferred the north eastern part of our county to the constituency of Roscommon. That divided in two the parish of my colleague, Tom Hussey, who is at present a councillor in Galway County Council and a former Member of this House and Senator. I believe that was a disgraceful decision.

A subsequent change was made which involved the former Minister, Mark Killilea, MEP. His parish was divided in two which meant that some of his neighbours were unable to vote for him in an election. Again, that was a disgraceful decision. The previous commission decided to transfer parts of our constituency, including Miltown, Kilconnelly, part of Dunmore, Levally, Kilshanvy and Kilbennan and Sylane to Mayo East to underpin that three seat constituency. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues in Mayo East who have so well represented the people of that area, namely, Deputies Tom Moffatt and P.J. Morley and Minister Jim Higgins. I am delighted, with my two colleagues in my constituency, to welcome them back and we look forward to doing what we can to enhance the representation they have provided over the past number of years. That commission decided also to transfer parts of west Galway, including Headford, Caherlistrane, Beaghamore and Belclare, to the constituency of Mayo West to underpin that three seat constituency. I would have expected in subsequent changes that those areas would automatically be returned to their original constituencies, but that is not what this commission proposes.

The commission has decided to return to Galway East the part of east Galway that was transferred to Mayo East, to take one half of the area that was transferred to Mayo West from west Galway and transfer it to Galway East and the other half to Galway West, thereby dividing that area into two. I cannot understand how anyone would arrive at that solution. I welcome the areas that have been added to my constituency.

The constituency of Galway East stretches from the Shannon on the eastern part, across the entire county boundary of Clare right to the sea in the south western part and comes along by the seashore into the beautiful town of Kinvara and up along the main road into the beautiful village of Ballindereen until it comes into oyster country at Kilcolgan Bridge. It takes a turn to the right towards east Galway and heads down for Craughwell, skims the town of Athenry, going north within half a mile of the town of Athenry and takes an immediate sharp right back towards east Galway for about two miles. It goes for another mile and pretends to go west and takes another sharp right turn which brings it around the town of Monivea, on towards Belville towards Turloughmore, but excludes those areas, and links up with Ballyglunin, Cummer, Belclare down through Sylane and cuts across to Ballindine at the Mayo border. The constituency goes along the Mayo border from Ballindine over to Ballymoe at the junction with Ballinlough, Roscommon and Mayo, up along by the River Suck up to the town of Ballinasloe and on by the Suck to the River Shannon. We have the sea, all of County Clare, Counties Tipperary and Offaly and much of County Roscommon and half of County Mayo touching Galway East as well as the boundary of Galway West. Galway East has been deemed to warrant an extra Deputy and will be a new four seat constituency. I cannot understand how a particular part of the county, which I know very well, is no longer in the constituency.

Independent commissions are wonderful and bureaucrats are great people but their interest is in concluding a job to a high professional standard. When it comes down to the demographics and the proper proportional and totality of representation the people deserve, independent commissions have not the capacity to deliver a structure that is in the best interest of the maximum number of people.

The town of Athenry has been returned to Galway East, half of the parish is already in Galway East but the remaining portion is in the constituency of Galway West even through those people live three miles east of the town of Athenry and the town is in Galway East. People from the townlands of Ballydavid, Gurrane, Mountain North, Mountpelier and Castlellen are within one mile of Monivea, and some of them are within a mile of the town of Athenry. Monivea which is north of them is in the electoral area of Ballinasloe which is in Galway East, the town of Athenry south of them is in the electoral area of Loughrea which is almost entirely in Galway East but they are deemed to be in the Galway West constituency.

They are in a political vacuum and disenfranchised in that they have the right to vote for people who are many miles from them. Their social and commercial life is associated with the town of Athenry and they are proud of their parish, its culture and its traditions — it has a tremendous religious history and a unique military history and it has the longest medieval town walls in the British Isles. Although they live in the parish of Athenry they are not allowed to exercise their franchise in their traditional hinterland. I cannot understand how a commission will consistently come up with these situations and allow them to continue. I can understand that a commission can reach a decision for convenience but when people are consistently excluded from their natural hinterland and their traditional representatives we are doing them a great disservice.

It is a matter for this House to accept this report, the Government has already accepted it which means that this House can debate it. Will the Minister advise me whether we can table amendments to the Bill because I do not want to be out of step with the correct parliamentary procedures — I am not worried about being politically correct but I want to be legally, constitutionally and parliamentary correct. I want to ensure that the people affected in the area along the Athenry-Monivea Road, stemming from Dillons Cross, perhaps 200 to 300 people, will be able to vote for local candidates rather than having to vote for very fine candidates who live miles from them. The line should be firmed up.

I cannot understand how the decision to form this new constituency of Galway East in this way was arrived at. I have no difficulty with the decision taken — I have represented the people of my constituency for 13 years and I will offer myself at the next election and if they consider that I am good enough to represent them I will be delighted to continue to do so. The proposed constituency division has gone all along by the Clare county boundary, down by the sea to Kinvara and has taken a right turn to the town of Athenry.

Why did the commission not consider the existing boundary where Galway East divided at the end of the parish of Derrybrien, at the Slieve Aughty mountain range, at the Clare border and went northwards towards Loughrea? Why did it not at that stage extend the constituency in a straight line from the Clare county boundary through Derrybrien, including Athenry, all the way to the Mayo boundary at Ballindine?

That would have ensured a proper demographic, geographic and compatible area. Alternatively it could have included all of the electoral area of Loughrea, ensuring that parishes and towns, including the beautiful oyster country of Clarinbridge, right down to Maree, Oranmore and back to Athenry were included in the Galway East constituency. What we have is a mishmash of electoral areas within a county. The people from the Galway West, Loughrea, Tuam and Ballinasloe electoral areas are unfairly included or excluded from constituencies. Democracy is vital, and proper representation is absolutely necessary. Where possible, county boundaries should not be transgressed, and neither should local electoral areas. It is time we looked seriously at this. Had the Loughrea electoral area been included in the constituency of Galway East, Senator Frank Fahey would have been returned to this House as a Deputy. His constituency has not been divided in two; 3,500 of his votes have been transferred to Galway East and 3,400 to Galway West. The man is in an absolute dilemma. If he goes west he will be wrong, and if he goes east he will be wrong. His political future is doubtful. Had the area been properly divided, he and the other prospective candidates anxious to stand for election would have been given an equal and fair chance of getting elected. We now have a huge constituency. There is no doubt that I and the other two Deputies who represent the area at the moment will do our best until the next election when a fourth candidate will be elected. It will be interesting to see who that fourth candidate will be. I wish every prospective candidate well and I am sure the people will make the right decision in their own interests, as to who gets elected.

I turn to Mayo, my neighbouring county. We are now asking the people of Mayo to elect five Deputies to represent the third biggest county in the country, a county of huge diversity in demographics, in urbanisation and in ruralisation. The county includes big towns like Ballina, Castlebar and West-port, and medium sized towns like Ballinrobe, Ballindine, Charlestown and others. This proposal is immoral, unnatural, unfair and discriminates against the people of the county and the representatives who are expected to deliver a service to them.

It is time we examined the terms of reference of commissions, and I accept that it was our party under former Taoiseach, the great Jack Lynch, that decided to set up an independent commission. Such is the generosity, the integrity and attitude of this party that it always takes a national view and does what is best for our country. However, it is important now to look at the geographics as much as the demographics in taking future decisions. It is unfair to expect five human beings to serve the entire county. Mayo is big enough geographically and, like Galway and the other western counties, it has enough problems to merit two three-seat constituencies. I see no reason for not doing that. It is obvious that certain political people with power at this time see an opportunity for themselves of, perhaps, winning an extra seat in constituencies like this. I notice smaller parties giving a broad welcome to the commission's report — they also might see an opportunity of getting an extra seat in a five-seat constituency like Mayo. However, it is unfair to people living in the third biggest county. I wish all the people who offer themselves as candidates in that great county at the next election every success particularly the five lucky people who get elected, and I am confident that at least three of them will be from my party.

It is time this Parliament, this country and the Department of the Environment, in consultation with the local authorities, closely examined the electoral situation from every point of view. It is vital that we examine the locations of polling centres. There are parishes in my constituency where people are asked to travel up to 14 miles to vote, even though there might be a polling booth within a mile of where they live. I suggest that the Minister for the Environment, in consultation with officials in his Department, each county registrar, county secretary, county manager, town clerk and all the elected members in each county, by which I mean all members of local authorities and all Members of the Oireachtas, carry out a critical analysis of the demographics and geographics in each county and put a draft report before a duly convened meeting of all public representatives in each county. They should get advance notice of the draft report and have time to consider it. They could then make recommendations to the Minister for the Environment who would draft the Bill with those recommendations in view and have it ratified. Modern times, modern communications and the best interests of democracy demand maximisation of the interest of people in exercising their franchise and in ensuring that proportional representation gives the broadest democracy possible in every election, local or national, presidential or otherwise. This nation should be based on maximum democracy rather than selective democracy. If we put together a new system we will maximise the opportunity for people to vote in a convenient manner and the number of people who turn out at each election, strengthen democracy and generate a greater respect for public representatives in this great open democracy that we will all enjoy and are privileged to serve through this House and through other elected bodies.

Mr. S. Ryan

I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a brief contribution to this Bill. The Bill, which I welcome, is based on the fifth commission report on the formation of constituencies. Previous reports were represented in April 1980, July 1983, November 1988 and September 1990. The decision taken to set up the first independent commission was a very enlightened one, particularly as it removed the hands on approach by Governments and particularly Ministers for Local Government, as they were then known. Prior to 1980 no matter what Government was in power or who was Minister for Local Government there were always charges of political gerrymandering. Political analysts still refer to the former Ministers, the late Deputies Boland and Tully.

I am glad that it is intended under the Electoral Bill. 1994 to put the commission on a statutory basis. Article 16 2.2º of the Constitution provides that:

The total number of members shall from time to time be fixed by law, but the total number of members of Dáil Éireann shall not be fixed at less than one member for each thirty thousand of the population, or at more than one member for each twenty thousand of the population.

The population figure in the 1991 census was 3,525,719. On that basis the number of Members could be fixed between 117 and 176. The commission's terms of reference limit the number to between 164 and 168.

Dublin city and county is represented by 47 Deputies but, with a population of 1,025,304, another seat is warranted to bring it closer to the national average. Dublin deserves no less than any other area. Between 1980 and 1990 Dublin city and county had 48 seats and its population was 4 per cent less than it is at present. Such a change would necessiate altering the constituency boundaries and will have to be considered given the population growth in the three new couny council areas of Fingal, South County Dublin and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. In excess of 550,000 people live in these areas.

My constituency, Dublin North, and Dublin West have been affected most by the growth in population. I endeavour to represent my constituents to the best of my ability. In the last review, part of the electoral division of Castleknock, Mulhuddart and Blanchardstown were moved to Dublin North. Established communities were divided, many did not have an affinity with the new Deputies and did not know them. The present constituency boundary goes along the Castleknock road and Castleknock and Mulhuddart were divided. Communities in the greater Dublin 15 area campaigned for better facilities but it is not an established constituency. Communities were taken from an inner city environment, housed in some of these estates and left without proper infrastructure or facilities. They have battled together to try to improve their lot.

The great cry was: "we need a settled constituency to help the community". The view was that the constituencies would be changed after the next review. The report addressed this matter and endeavoured to deal with the issue by transferring part of the Blanchardstown-Mulhuddart area, with a population of 13,847, from Dublin North to Dublin West. That was the position pre-1990. Notwithstanding the fact that I received an exceptionally high vote in this area in the last election, in some areas my vote was in excess of 30 per cent — Corduff, Ladyswell and Castleknock — and have represented the area well, this proposal is in the best interest of the community in Dublin 15. I take this opportunity to thank the people in this part of my constituency for their support and courtesy. New contacts and working relationships were established. I recall the great campaigns against the super dump in the Castleknock and Mulhuddart area and to establish a centre in Blanchardstown and so on. I am pleased that I have been able to work with the Communities, even in a small way, to help to improve the environment in that area.

Much media attention has centred recently on the need to change the PR system. The people voted on two occasions to retain this system. The proposal to change it had the support of the largest party, Fianna Fáil. The people like the present system as it offers them a choice of candidates as well as parties. It should be retained until a better system is devised. Those who recommend change argue that the system puts too much pressure on Deputies and duplicates work. There is a certain validity in that argument but the PR system is perceived by the public as being fair.

As politicians and public representatives we must be deeply concerned at the low level of political awareness among the community in general and young people in particular. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will have a particular interest in what I am saying. I read with great interest a survey undertaken by the youth participation committee of the National Youth Council of Ireland and the Arklow company of the Catholic Guides of Ireland. The results of this survey were startling and disturbing. A total of 88.69 per cent of respondents did not know the constituency of Arklow was in, 95 per cent did not know the number of TDs in the constituency and less than 10 per cent knew the name of a TD. I am sure they knew the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I hope the concentration of political activity in the general Arklow area in recent weeks will have addressed this problem to some extent.

There is a much wider problem which also needs to be addressed. The findings of this survey could apply to any town of similar size. Whatever the reasons for it, this low level of political awareness should concentrate the minds not only of politicians but of society in general. If this issue is not addressed it will lead to widespread political apathy and may open the door for subversive and unrepresentative groups which are waiting in the wings. We will have an opportunity to address these issues under future legislation.

It has been acknowledged by parents, pupils and teachers that the transition year operated by most schools has been very successful and has given students an opportunity to widen their education on many issues, including politics. It is great to see students being brought into the Houses of the Oireachtas to see how they work. Many teachers and boards of management have invited public representatives to visit schools to debate and discuss politics with transition year students. I was very impressed with the interest shown in politics by the students in the schools I visited.

I wish to pay tribute to the members of the commission for compiling this report. While it was faced with a difficult task — one will never achieve 100 per cent agreement — it has done it very well. I compliment the various groups and individuals who made submissions to the commission. Politics must be opened up so that people know it is not only about Deputies making speeches in the Dáil. Having read the report, it is obvious that the commission gave serious consideration to the submissions made by individuals and community groups.

Mr. M. Kitt

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I was amazed to hear that less than 10 per cent of respondents in the survey to which Deputy Ryan referred knew the name of a TD as it is obvious from the by-election campaign that people in County Wicklow have great regard for their public representative. There may be a certain dissatisfaction with the Government but I will not go into that in this debate.

Mr. S. Ryan

And also with the Opposition.

Mr. Allen

We will know the position next week.

Mr. M. Kitt

I agree that boundaries can only be properly revised by an independent commission. Even if they are not happy with all the boundaries drawn up by a commission, political parties should not have the right to make submissions as it goes against the independence of the commission. We may blame Kevin Boland and the late Jim Tully for drawing up boundaries in an effort to keep a certain party or parties in power but if this was their aim they did not succeed. Fianna Fáil lost out in the 1973 election following a revision of boundaries and in 1977 following the creation of many four-seat constituencies, presumably to help the Labour Party, Fianna Fáil obtained the biggest majority in the history of the State and the Labour Party lost heavily. County Galway was divided into two four-seat constituencies for that election and Fianna Fáil secured an unprecedented three out of four seats in both east and west Galway. This proves that people will find a way of getting what they want irrespective of the boundaries, which is only right and proper.

It was suggested that the membership of the commission should include a retired politician. This would not be feasible as he or she would be put under siege by political parties and individuals looking for certain results. Despite the shortcomings in its report, I thank the commission for the hard work in difficult circumstances.

It was decided to create an extra seat in County Galway on the basis of the increase in population in the city and county. I welcome this extra seat but I would like future commissions to give more consideration to the establishment of smaller constituencies. It is very difficult for Deputies in five-seat constituencies to attend committees, contribute to debates in the House and also deal with constituency work. In this regard I was amazed that County Mayo has been left as a five-seat constituency. Instead of lumping together counties Roscommon and Longford, which are in different provinces, the commission should have considered making counties Mayo and Roscommon one constituency.

One of the shortcomings of the commission's proposals is that many areas were put together. Some Deputies referred to parishes being divided. Is there anything we can do on Committee Stage where there is agreement in a parish to ensure that it is left as one unit in a particular constituency? In the past parishes were divided when Mr. Mark Killilea, MEP, and a colleague of mine a former Minister of State and Senator, Mr. Tom Hussey, represented the north Galway area. We now have the classic example where Senator Frank Fahey's vote in south Galway is split down the middle. He will have a difficulty in getting to either east or west Galway in a future election. That should not happen. I favour county boundaries and council electoral areas not being breached. It is disastrous when a parish is divided and, unfortunately, that has happened too often. When replying will the Minister indicate, where there is agreement at local level that parishes be maintained as a unit that they will be accommodated?

I campaigned in the past for a single seat constituency system. Fianna Fáil tried on two occasions to get the agreement of the people on that. I have been told that if we had single seat constituencies with proportional representation it would work and might be accepted by the people. That debate should be taken further.

In my role as a member of the Council of Europe I was invited to observe some of the elections in Central and Eastern Europe. There the first criteria for a party to be represented in parliament is that it should receive 5 per cent support from the electorate. That is a good idea. In some countries a list system operates. In other countries — Germany is probably the best example — there is a combination of a list system and a vote of the people for individual candidates. That would be the best system but there is no point in one Deputy or one party saying that, it would need the support of the major parties in the House.

The present system where the commission decides on the number of constituencies and they changed after only five or six years is disastrous. If we are to go along with the arrangement of 12 three-seater; 15 four-seater and 14 five-seater constituencies we should leave those constituencies unchanged for ten to 12 years and give public representatives the opportunity to build up a rapport with their constituents. Parts of County Galway have been amalgamated with Roscommon, in some instances losing territory to County Roscommon or to County Mayo. In the past south Galway was amalgamated with County Clare. I welcome the fact that for the first time County Galway is one unit. I would prefer a three seat constituency in Galway rather than five and four seat constituencies.

The terms of reference are the most important item we give to a boundary commission. In rural areas where the population is dwindling they should be compensated with an extra seat. The question of polling stations must be examined. Some years ago we passed legislation requiring that literature and personnel be 100 metres away from a polling station but it has not worked. On the day of an election people do not know whether they are in the correct polling station as they are not well signposted. People should be allowed vote at the nearest polling station to them and should not have to travel, as happens in Galway, passing two or three stations en route. That matter will have to be addressed first, in conjunction with political parties and public representatives in each county council area. I suggest that any changes in respect of polling stations be put to the people in a referendum, not when a general election is taking place.

I was pleased to participate in the debate. I favour what the commission recommended in that it was probably the best it could do but its terms of reference were wrong.

Mr. Deasy

I confess to having mixed feelings about this legislation. Under existing law the changes have to be made because of population variations. I have always been an advocate of a different system here. That system would have no place for multi-seat constituencies. Multi-seat constituencies give us the worst type of Government and, at times, give us an inferior type of parliamentary representative. Every Member elected to Dáil Éireann should be elected in a single seat constituency.

I recall in the late 1950s and late 1960s the then Fianna Fáil Governments held referenda to try to change the system to a single seat non-transferable vote. It was unfortunate that on both occasions the proposal was defeated. If the Government of the day had opted for a single seat transferable vote system rather than a single seat non-transferable vote system I think the proposal in each case would have been carried. It would have been a half-way house in changing the electoral system. As I recollect, the then Leader of the Opposition in the 1960s, Mr. Liam Cosgrave — later to become Taoiseach — went against the wishes of his party in advocating that there be a single seat non-transferable vote system and he was chided and criticised severely for doing so. In retrospect he was right and the majority of us were wrong.

The governing of this country could be done in a more effective fashion if we had the single seat constituency concept, whether it was based on a transferable vote or a non-transferable vote. I had been of the opinion that the transferable vote system would be preferable and with the passage of time, the public has become more educated and sophisticated. The single seat constituency non-transferable vote system might be the best way of electing a Government.

Debate adjourned.