Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2005: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Roche)

I was dealing with section 6 of the Bill, which requires some explanation. It arises as a technical issue, which was first raised by the Standards in Public Office Commission in regard to the definition of election expenses for the purposes of the Electoral Act 1997. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the Act set out certain items that were not to be regarded as election expenses for the purposes of the Act. Following the High Court and Supreme Court decisions in 2002 in the Desmond Kelly case, section 33 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2004 deleted from paragraph 2 the references to services, facilities and so on provided from public funds.

The effect of that deletion is that, in accordance with the court rulings, such services are now reckonable for the purpose of making statements of election expenses to the commission. However, the section 33 deletion was inadvertently drafted to remove from paragraph 2 of the Schedule a number of other items which were not an issue in the court case and which most people would regard as not reckonable. These items included, first, the free postage, which we know as the litir um toghchán, a service available to all candidates, second, a service provided free by an individual or provided by an employee of a political party, third, normal media coverage and, fourth, the transmission on radio or television of a broadcast on behalf of a candidate or political party.

It is quite clear that it was never intended the deletion should cover these items. The practical implications of it covering these items are difficult to contemplate. It was never intended to provide that these items would be regarded as election expenses. They would not have been brought into the reckoning in any reasonable interpretation of election expenses. They were never intended by this House or by the Oireachtas to be covered as part of the 1997 Act. The current Bill, therefore, redresses the situation by inserting a subparagraph in paragraph 2 of the Schedule of the 1997 Act, clarifying that the items at issue are not to be regarded as election expenses at presidential, Dáil or European elections, thereby returning to the position in respect of these items that existed prior to the 2004 enactment.

I accept that the Bill is important for existing and prospective Members of the House. It is important for the electorate they serve and for the democratic process as a whole. There is a certain inflexibility which I must of necessity apply in the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. O’Dowd

I am concerned that this is a two part Bill. One part deals with the decision of an independent commission established by the Oireachtas and inserted in section 6, namely, an adjustment due to the poor administration of a former holder of the office, the former Minister, Deputy Cullen. It would have been better to introduce a separate Bill dealing with the mess the former Minister made of the legislation instead of linking it with the commission's Bill to establish the constituencies for the next general election.

This is an important point because, regardless of what is included in any proposal from an electoral commission, Members on all sides of the House are committed to that. There is absolutely no doubt about the integrity of the commission or the integrity of its decision. It is now inextricably linked to the mess for which the former Minister is responsible. It is incredible that he wasted €50 of taxpayers' money on electronic voting. He behaved in a most arrogant manner as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. When the noble and great former Minister was introducing his botched provisions on Second Stage of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004, he said:

Nobody can doubt that the Opposition has a responsibility in seeking to illuminate aspects of public policy according to its own judgment. Some of the debate on this matter has been useful — much has been inaccurate, sometimes wilfully so. I have no doubt that at certain times in recent debates, Fine Gael spokespeople genuinely have not known what they were talking about.

So much for the former Minister. Today the current Minister, Deputy Roche, has proven that the former Minister did not know what he was talking about, that he had not got a clue and that——

Mr. Roche

He was not referring to Deputy O'Dowd.

Mr. O’Dowd

Not at all, no more so than Deputy Roche. I am saying the former Minister, when he was introducing his botched amending legislation, demonstrated his usual arrogance and disdain for debate, the Opposition and the electorate. Perhaps he would have been better off obtaining some very good PR advice from some nationally or internationally known firm rather than spouting this cant at us in the Dáil when he made a mess of things. What a mess he made. The current Minister, Deputy Roche, has outlined the extent of this mess. As he rightly stated, the Minister, Deputy Cullen, did away with the concept of providing free postage for all candidates in a general or European election. Other expenses not regarded as election expenses were deemed to include the service provided free by an individual or provided by an employee of a political party, normal media coverage and the transmission on radio or television of a broadcast on behalf of a candidate or political party.

When the Standards in Public Office Commission reflected on the reality of the law as it saw it and the changes being made by the former Minister, its views were crystal clear. It was felt that if the changes were made, every Irish candidate currently sitting in the European Parliament would be over the limit by virtue of the litir um toghchán in its own right. It was very good of the commission to bring this to the attention of the then Minister.

I will not labour the point further. Suffice it to say that arrogant Ministers mess up in the manner Deputy Cullen messed up. We should nail him on this issue now and state he did a very poor job on behalf of the electorate. He single-handedly destroyed the electronic voting system and messed up the nomination process that applies to every Irish MEP. There is a doubt and there will continue to be a legal doubt about whether Irish MEPs have been properly elected.

We clearly need a change to the legislation. This should not be achieved through this Bill but through separate legislation. The decision of the commission, which is apolitical and represents the sum of everybody's views, and the decision of the former Minister to mess up legislation should be kept separate forever. One could argue that this should be done at the first opportunity. The separation of functions that I propose should obtain from now on.

The Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2005 represents the future for us all and it is in respect of it that we will rise or fall. There is no doubt that it will form the basis of our general election campaigns. The Taoiseach stated this morning, in response to a question by Deputy Burton of the Labour Party, that there will not be another electoral (amendment) Bill before the end of the period for which the Government is allowed constitutionally to remain in office, that is, in two years. There will be a census next year and the process in this regard will be too long such that a new Bill cannot be introduced before the general election. These seem to be the facts as we know them.

The Bill really concerns the drift from rural to urban areas, which is becoming clearer, and the growth of cities and towns. This is positive but involves a corresponding neglect of rural areas. Many issues have been raised in this regard, especially by people in County Leitrim. They feel their county no longer exists and are sad and concerned that they may never have their own Deputy living within their county boundaries. The commission has its directions and it made its decision based on all the facts. I am not being critical of its decision but it must be pointed out that there is a difference between splitting a county for electoral purposes and treating it as a single unit. Significantly, Leitrim people are deeply concerned about this matter. I have spoken to a number of them, including members of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. The county is to be split in two for electoral purposes and there will be 10,000 voters in one electoral area and 10,000 in another. We do not possess the wisdom of the commission but perhaps it might have been wiser had it tried to protect Leitrim. This is the view of Fine Gael.

The drift from rural to urban areas is very clear. It has resulted in changes in the constituencies and extra seats in constituencies on the east coast rather than the west coast. To sustain rural communities, which is everybody's objective, we need to re-examine the spatial strategy and determine how it is failing. Population growth is not occurring as much as one might like in the areas designated for growth, including the hubs. The western seaboard, in particular, is not experiencing the growth we would all like it to enjoy. The east coast, including Louth, Meath, and Wicklow, and Kildare, are experiencing growth that is not sustainable infrastructurally. In this regard, I refer to the problems faced by commuters and the long periods they spend travelling to and from work. If one is a politician, one must be available for 24 hours per day, as we know, and if one is a commuter travelling from Louth or Wicklow, for example, one must work a 12 or 13 hour day.

Perhaps we should reconsider the spatial strategy and direct investment from the east coast and the commuter counties towards the west. This may have an impact in the longer term. I note that the recent planning proposals represent an attempt to sustain rural communities but there has been a significant decline in the population in certain areas.

Let me consider the table attached to the explanatory memorandum of the Bill, which outlines the proposed constituencies, number of seats etc. It shows that Cavan-Monaghan had a total population of 109,000 in 2002 implying a variance from national average representation of -7.5%. It is likely that the constituency will lose a seat in the next change to constituency boundaries. The trend for my county, County Louth, is in the opposite direction. It had 101,000 voters in 2002 and a variance from the national average representation of 7.87%. The constituencies of Cavan-Monaghan and Louth are in close proximity but one will gain a seat and the other will lose one.

Ireland is changing a great deal. On the issue of the national spatial strategy, sustainable growth is one matter to be considered and counties losing their power base is another. One must move with the voters. It comes back again to the need to address issues relating to rural depopulation.

Another point I wish to raise involves the Oireachtas and what happens when a general election is called. The Kelly case was taken because an individual felt that changes introduced in legislation gave a specific advantage to candidates who were serving Members of the Oireachtas as opposed to those who were not. The origin of this Bill lies in the fact that the change effected previously was incorrect. Will Members of the Oireachtas be advantaged or disadvantaged as a result of the changes included in the Bill or will their position remain neutral? Have sufficient changes been made?

I recently received a new computer from the Houses of the Oireachtas to my constituency office. Attached to it was a note — I was not present so I could not sign it — asking me to accept delivery of the computer and to return it on the dissolution of the Dáil. When the current Dáil is dissolved, will we lose our computers, will our offices be under lock and key and will we be denied access to our e-mails? That is an important question and it may be discussed by some of the Oireachtas committees.

I do not wish to put anyone outside the Houses at a disadvantage but in my view Members should not be disadvantaged either. This matter needs to be addressed. There is a deep concern among Members of the Oireachtas that when they access the computer database——

Mr. Roche

The database is located here.

Mr. O’Dowd

That is my point. The database and server are located in the Oireachtas. I do not want this access to be removed from Members when an election is called. I hope the Administration, as opposed to the politicians, will give this adequate thought. We need clarity on this issue. One does not want to be prevented from writing to one's clients at that key point. Access to the database and to e-mail may be deemed to be an election expense.

Deputies' facilities are withdrawn on the day the election is announced but that does not apply to Senators, unless a Senator is running for election to the Dáil. As a former Senator who was elected to the Dáil in the most recent general election, I am not pointing the finger at anybody. We need equity and fairness everywhere.

We want a fair and independent assessment of our constituency needs. There have been many experiments in the past, some from this side of the House and some from the Government side, none of which worked. The collective wisdom is that this proposal, with all its faults, is the best available. It is not politically motivated. There is transparency about its intentions, it was published in the press and people had an opportunity to make submissions, all of which were considered fairly.

The Bill contains our future. I do not particularly welcome it because, like the Minister, I am concerned about the issue regarding County Leitrim. Nevertheless, we must live with it. Our demography is changing and we must keep abreast of that change.

Will we use ballot papers or electronic voting in the next election? What will the Minister do about this situation? People believe that €50 million of taxpayers' money was wasted on electronic voting machines. The Independent Commission on Electronic Voting is incurring ongoing expenses. I do not doubt that it will make its decision on this issue soon. We also need the Minister's decision on this issue as soon as possible. In future, the legislation on constituencies should be kept separate from the political mess that the former Minister, Deputy Cullen, made of the electoral system.

Mr. Gilmore

How much time do I have to speak?

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kirk)

The Deputy has 30 minutes.

Mr. Gilmore

That is a long time.

Acting Chairman

It gives the Deputy considerable latitude.

Mr. Gilmore

Given that the Bill has a wider remit than the report of the constituency commission, it is the former that I shall explore.

The main substance of the Bill is to give effect to the report of the constituency commission. When such a report is published, some people are inevitably disappointed while others are delighted. The debate will reflect those reactions. It is possible for the Oireachtas to amend the report or the terms of the report presented. It is for the Oireachtas to determine the constituencies which will apply at the time of the next general election.

I agree with the Minister that the report of the constituency commission should be viewed and accepted in its totality. To do otherwise would be to weaken the commission's independence and our acceptance of its independent assessment of the constituency boundaries. I do not want to see a return to the days when the constituency boundaries were, in effect, determined by whatever Government happened to be in office.

Mr. Roche

They usually tripped themselves up on it.

Mr. Gilmore

Yes, they usually got it wrong from their own point of view. It was an attempt to set the boundaries of constituencies to suit the perceived electoral advantage of the Government in office. We should not revive that practice. The Labour Party will, for those reasons, accept the Bill, notwithstanding reservations about its contents and our observations on the report of the commission.

The issue which attracted most attention since publication of this report is the recommendation on County Leitrim. I identify with the criticisms of people in that county of the proposal to divide their small county between two other constituencies. To be fair to the people of Leitrim, this issue should be explored on Committee Stage. The Save County Leitrim campaign has written to the Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government asking to be heard in advance of Committee Stage. The committee should accede to that request. I ask the Minister to facilitate such a hearing before Committee Stage in order that the concerns expressed in County Leitrim can be considered.

While County Leitrim has received the most prominent attention in regard to the changes to county boundaries I draw attention to the terms of reference given to the commission which I thought were odd at the time. While the commission was asked to have regard to the undesirability of breaching county boundaries, that restriction did not extend to city boundaries or to the administrative county boundaries in Dublin, which is odd. Either the counties of Dublin — Fingal, South Dublin and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown — are counties or they are not. If they are counties the same rules should apply to those counties as apply to other counties. In effect, the commission was given a different remit for Dublin than for the rest of the country and it has produced an odd configuration.

Mr. Roche

That is in the 1997 Act.

Mr. Gilmore

It is a matter to which we need to give consideration.

Mr. Roche

I was just being helpful.

Mr. Gilmore

The point has been made to me by a number of people that the concentration of three-seat constituencies is on the northside of Dublin city and has been extended into the commuter belt of County Meath. If one looks at the map of three-seat constituencies particularly, they are clustered. The greatest concentration of three-seat constituencies is in the northside of Dublin, the south west — Kerry and Limerick West — and Cork. The way in which they have fallen in Dublin is due largely to the way in which the 1997 Act has been drawn up.

On the Order of Business this morning my colleague asked what will happen if the 2006 census shows a further change in population and if the general election has not been held by the time the census report is published. Perhaps the Minister would refer to that issue when replying.

The ratio of seats to population has also been raised. The Minister referred to the decisions of the courts in this matter and the variance that is tolerated. Where there is rapid population growth, especially around the edges of Dublin and in the northern part of the Minister's constituency — Kildare, Meath, Louth, Westmeath — the stability that had previously existed in terms of the ratio of seats to population no longer applies. There is a factor here that is often not considered. I appreciate that the ratio, as expressed in the Constitution, is as between population and seat. That does not always translate evenly in terms of numbers of voters and seats. Consequently there is quite a variance in the quotas on the day of an election count. The difference in quota is not explained by differences in turnout. There can be quotas of slightly more than 6,000 ranging to approximately 10,000 as in my constituency. That is a consideration that needs to be taken into account at some future date. The ratio of seat to population needs to be looked at in terms of producing not only a common ratio as between seat to population but also seat to voters. It is undesirable that one can be elected to Parliament on 6,000 in one constituency while it takes 10,000 in another.

The electoral register is an issue on which we need to reflect. Generally, the electoral registers are in poor condition and getting worse but that is not necessarily the fault of those who compile them. It is becoming increasingly difficult to compile the electoral register. The day when a local authority official could call to every house, and be fairly certain of finding people in, and take a note of who was living there and who was more than 18 years of age, is gone. Anyone who is in regular contact with people knows that no matter what time of the day one knocks on doors 50% of the people will be out. The other problem is that there are some places to which one cannot gain access, that is, the gated compounds that are becoming so fashionable. The best the local authority official can do in that case is put a card into the letter box if there is one.

The result is that there are names of people on the electoral register who have moved voluntarily or involuntarily a long time ago. During the recent by-elections I came across three sets of names on the register, all of whom had gone, and nobody had taken them off the register. We have a system whereby if a person is not on the electoral register he or she can be put on the supplementary register. However, there is no supplementary register for taking people off the register. The result is that it distorts what is perceived to be the turnout. What is regarded as a 60% turnout could in reality be a 70% turnout when one takes into account those on the register who have passed on or have moved.

An issue referred to time and again at election time is turnout. This is something to which we need to return. I have long been of the view that we should have Sunday voting. The only change that has made a difference in terms of turnout has been the change that extended the voting hours. The earlier opening and later closing times have facilitated more people to vote. Moving polling day to Fridays has made the position worse. If people take an extra day with the weekend it is likely to be Friday. People move more on Fridays. It is also the day that a person will go for a pint after work with the good intention of having one and going home to vote. By the time they are into their second or third they are concluding that their choice of candidate is safe and that they should stay where they are and buy another round.

Mr. O’Dowd

Particularly if it is the Minister.

Mr. Gilmore

It is a matter that should be examined. The last time I raised in the House the issue of Sunday voting, the response was that the churches might be concerned but I am not sure this is the case. Church people have spoken about the need for a good turnout and have encouraged people to perform their civic duty. I would be surprised it there was active opposition on the part of the churches to the idea of Sunday voting which I suggest should be re-examined.

I was surprised to hear the Minister recently holding out the hope that the gadgets bought by his predecessor for an enormous sum of money would ever see use in a polling station. The point has been reached where there needs to be some straight talking on this issue, in particular regarding accountability. The sum of €60 million of taxpayers' money was wasted by the Minister's predecessor on an electronic voting system. The commission established to examine electronic voting concluded the system was not safe or reliable, had not been properly tested and should not be used.

This was not a mistake made in good faith, as mistakes sometimes are. The Minister was told before he committed himself to the expenditure that the two largest Opposition parties had serious reservations about the system and would not support it. Despite this, the Minister proceeded to enter into contracts and commit the State to a large expenditure on something which cannot now be used.

It is remarkable that the Minister whose idea it was in the first place is now in charge of communications and the provision of broadband and the Minister who insisted on going ahead with the purchase in the face of growing opposition and advice is now in charge of running the airports. In most other countries they would both be out of office for committing the taxpayer to such a waste of public funds.

As a consequence, the idea of electronic voting has been dealt a serious and unnecessary blow. None of us who expressed criticisms of the system which was being proposed and introduced by Government were opposed to the idea of electronic voting per se, but the manner in which the Government handled the issue has resulted in a diminution of public confidence in the very idea of electronic voting. It is very difficult to see how the idea of electronic voting can be put back on the agenda and it is impossible to see how this system, which has been seriously discredited, can ever be brought into use. Rather than leave it hanging around with doubt existing as to whether it will be introduced at some stage, the Minister should cut the Government’s losses and make a clear statement that this system will not be used. I cannot see how it will gain the level of confidence required for its use.

The provisions of the Electoral Act 1997 relating to electronic voting should be revisited. Those provisions should not be given effect until there is general political agreement on the use of electronic voting. I intend to return to this point on Committee Stage because the Act is wider in its remit than merely giving effect to the findings of the constituency boundaries commission and will allow me table appropriate amendments on this issue without them being ruled out of order.

I agree with Deputy O'Dowd about the Band-Aid which the Minister is now applying to the 1997 Act in respect of the matters which may not be considered as expenditure during the course of an election campaign. Will the Minister consider the consequences of the Kelly judgment? Legislation was promised on foot of it but this has not materialised. If the scenario described by Deputy O'Dowd were to materialise, sitting Members would be disadvantaged in an electoral contest. That was never the intention. I agree with the intention to have a level playing field for all candidates in an election contest but this must stop short of the pretence that a sitting Member is somehow not to be a functioning public representative from the date of the dissolution of the Dáil until the date of the election. This would be the effect of some of the restrictions being proposed. It certainly would not be perceived in that manner by the public. If it were to materialise, it would unwittingly disadvantage sitting Members in respect of Members of the Seanad, for whom a different regime applies, and in respect of members of local authorities or candidates to whom that restriction would not apply.

I look forward to Committee Stage. This Bill will provide an opportunity to discuss the issue of electronic voting. I would like the joint committee to examine the issue of County Leitrim before Committee Stage. The issue of the Dublin county boundaries needs to be examined. With those reservations, the Labour Party will support Second Stage.

Mr. F. McGrath

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. This is disgraceful legislation which is flawed and undemocratic. It is appalling that this Bill has been brought before the House. It should be thrown out immediately because of its lack of respect for citizens.

Three-seat constituencies are a disaster for democracy and for inclusive politics. Why are all the five-seat constituencies on the south side of Dublin whereas the north side of Dublin has three-seat constituencies? This is disgraceful and flawed legislation which should be challenged in the House, as I am doing, and also on the streets and in the communities by every political representative in this House. It lacks a provision for democracy.

I ask the House to consider what was done to my constituency, Dublin North-Central, and to its citizens. A total of 5,280 electors were taken from my constituency and shoved into Dublin North-East. Then they went to Dublin North-West and took 5,020 voters from the Beaumont-Whitehall area and put them into the constituency of the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern. It is an appalling act to steal votes from Edenmore, Raheny and Beaumont-Whitehall in Dublin North-Central.

One must consider the background to this Bill. Five members were directly involved in the commission established under the 1997 Act. The Government of the day gave the commission's terms of reference and it was appointed by the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen. We are all aware of the Minister's record in this House and his disgraceful behaviour on the electronic voting issue. It is appalling that such a Minister, against whom many other complaints have been made, has had such an important role in what is a vital element of the democratic process.

It is disgraceful that the commission had only ten meetings to deliberate on such a momentous issue for the State. Votes were reassigned to Ministers' constituencies to secure their influence in areas in which they and their families have exercised control for generations. I refer particularly to Whitehall and Drumcondra in this regard. If the commission was serious about democracy and social inclusion, it would have recognised the reality of population expansion by increasing the number of Deputies from 166 to 168. The political parties and this Government are once again hammering poor people, especially in my constituency.

Mr. Roche

On a point of order, I must point out that the commission, in the operation of its activities, is not political and is not bound to the dictates of any political party——

Mr. F. McGrath

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government gave its terms of reference. However, I will move on from this issue.

Mr. Roche

On a point of order——

Mr. F. McGrath

I will not accept any points of order.

Acting Chairman

The Minister should be allowed to make a brief point of order.

Mr. F. McGrath

The commission represents a stalling tactic.

Mr. Roche

It does not. To traduce the integrity of a High Court judge and five public officials, as the Deputy has done, is unacceptable. I must make this point now and will respond in detail later.

Mr. F. McGrath

I have every right to challenge the workings of a commission for which the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen gave the terms of reference. I make no apologies for this.

We must ensure democracy in this State and a more inclusive politics. The number of constituencies has increased to 43, including 18 three-seat constituencies, but there are still only 166 Deputies. Only 47 Deputies represent our growing capital. There was potential for anybody with vision and courage to ensure the provision of expanded representation. The commission had choices in regard to the northside of Dublin. Five seats and four seats respectively could have been assigned to Dublin North-Central and Dublin North-East. Instead, those constituencies have been ripped apart and reformed as three three-seaters, a situation which puts those outside the mainstream political parties at a disadvantage.

I will challenge the Government on these issues on the doorsteps and on the streets. It is appalling that the political parties, especially those in Government, are hijacking democracy. This has already taken place in Leixlip. Fianna Fáil has stolen the seat Deputy Catherine Murphy vacated on Leixlip Town Council, to which she was elected with two quotas. This is further evidence of that party's anti-democratic values.

I challenge the Government parties on their wealth, power and sleaze. They will be challenged in the next election and the people will have their say. The Government is worried about the rise in the Independent vote, which stands nationally at 12% and is as high as 18% to 20% in some constituencies. This legislation represents another attempt by the larger parties to bury the Independents. Since the last election in 2002, a number of us have worked closely together during the Dáil session, meeting every week to work on common issues arising from our Dáil work programme.

We challenge the conservative view in this House that Independents are powerless. On the contrary, we are here to stay and are at least as effective as other backbenchers. We have significant potential for the future. The large parties are associated with sleaze and corruption whereas working people view Independents as straight and honest. There are ex-party Members who have damaged the integrity of Independents. Luckily for us, however, the public now sees Independents as a credible alternative to party neglect. We are only answerable to the public and not to party dictates and vested interests.

Independent Deputies represent a highly credible percentage of the total number in Dáil Éireann. We earned our seats the hard way and we contribute to all debates in the House. Independent Deputies are community-based and believe in straight talk in politics. We do not demand respect but try to earn it inside and outside the House.

Independents are now in third place in opinion polls, after Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Dublin North-Central is now a three-seat constituency with 73,501 registered voters, which means a population per Deputy of 24,500, an increase of 3.82%. The population has increased but 10,000 voters have been removed from the constituency. A recent poll indicated that Deputy Gregory is ahead of the Taoiseach in the constituency. A people's revolution is under way. Citizens are thinking independently and voting for Independent candidates. Unfortunately, some persons in this House and in the media, the right-wing media in particular, show no respect for voters. There is much ranting and evidence of political snobbery in respect of Independent Deputies.

We must bear these issues in mind when discussing the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2005. The main purpose of the Bill is to revise the Dáil constituencies in the light of the 2002 census and, in this context, to implement the recommendations in the constituency commission report on Dáil constituencies of 2004. The commission was established under Part 2 of the Electoral act 1997 to report on the constituencies for the election of Members to Dáil Éireann and the European Parliament. Its 2003 report related to European Parliament constituencies.

The Bill also addresses an issue that has arisen in regard to the definition of election expenses for the purposes of the Electoral Act 1997. This is another example of the need to inform citizens about the vested interests that are funding the largest parties and one particular small party. These parties are not backed by citizens but by neo-conservative groups. Such organisations do not exist only in the United States and the Minister is aware his party is up to its neck in this regard.

Section 1 defines "Minister" as the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for the purposes of the Bill and provides for the interpretation of the Schedule. Section 6 addresses the issues raised by the Standards in Public Office Commission in regard to the definition of election expenses for the purposes of the Electoral Act 1997. This body does welcome and valuable work. However, there must be a universal awareness that there must be respect for citizens. I strongly oppose this legislation because it does nothing for the taxpayer.

One need only look at recent events to assess the situation. The largest robbery in recent decades has been perpetrated upon the elderly. The implications of the Travers report are devastating and amount to an admission of State-sanctioned abuse of older citizens that has gone on for three decades. Successive Governments and Ministers were well aware of the situation but buried their heads in the sand.

The people of Dublin North-Central strongly support the voters of Leitrim in their campaign for democracy and inclusive politics. Voters in the Sligo-Leitrim constituency have been treated appallingly. That constituency had four seats as did the Longford-Roscommon constituency. Now, however, the two new constituencies, Sligo and North Leitrim and Roscommon and South Leitrim, will have three seats each. With voting populations of 25,000 in Leitrim, 58,000 in Sligo and 53,000 in Roscommon, there is an automatic advantage in any election for the large parties in regard to these three-seat constituencies. No Member will be elected for Leitrim and this is not good for democracy.

This legislation is significantly flawed and there are major problems with various sections. One need only examine the details to see this is the case. I am totally opposed to it. It is flawed, undemocratic and an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Crowe

It is not just politicians who are concerned by the proposed changes. People who live in the constituencies affected are also concerned. The impression might be given that it is just a matter of politicians looking after their own jobs, but there is a wider concern about many of the changes that are being proposed. It is important to put that on the record.

We oppose the legislation because we feel it is fundamentally flawed. We have put our views regarding the constituency commission's recommendations on the record of the Dáil, and my colleague, Deputy Morgan, raised the matter on the Adjournment some months ago, at which time we asked the Minister to reject the commission's recommendations and instead introduce legislation to allow for the formation of six-seater and seven-seater constituencies, after which the commission would be reconvened. Regrettably, the Minister has not done that.

Sinn Féin previously made a substantial submission to the constituency commission regarding the election of Members for Dáil constituencies. That submission was driven not just by the need to consider boundaries in the context of the 2002 census results. More importantly, it came in the context of what constitutes a just electoral system. Our concerns centre on the increase in the number of three-seat constituencies in the State and the proposed division of County Leitrim between the two proposed new constituencies of Sligo-North Leitrim and Roscommon-South Leitrim. It is an accepted fact that a larger constituency size enhances the proportionality of the electoral system as a whole. The recommendations in the constituency commission's report, which are to be implemented under the Bill, take the State further down the road of diluting the proportionality of our electoral system. That is not in the interests of diversity, nor is it in the interests of the people. It amounts to a mutation of the PR STV system. For a third consecutive commission, the number of five-seat constituencies has been cut, while the number of three-seat constituencies has risen steadily. Most worrying about the growth in the number of three-seat constituencies is the way in which it deals with population growth and change.

Sinn Féin is concerned that the existence of three-seater constituencies in certain areas and five-seaters in others creates inequality between voters in different parts of the State. It is discriminatory in that voters in three-seat constituencies have less chance of electing their chosen representative if he or she comes from a smaller party compared with people living in a five-seat constituency, a point Deputy Finian McGrath made very well. Members should contrast the ability of voters in Finglas and Foxrock to elect their chosen representatives in the Dáil. The people of Finglas, in three-seat Dublin North-West, do not have the same opportunity of putting their chosen party or representatives into Leinster House as the people of leafy Foxrock in the five-seat Dún Laoghaire constituency. Is it merely a coincidence that there is a proliferation of three-seat constituencies north of the Liffey, whereas larger constituencies are more common south of the Liffey? Will the people of Leitrim have any chance of electing a representative of their county to the Dáil ever again? Is the legislation restricting the size of constituencies to three-seaters, four-seaters and five-seaters a deliberate attempt by the establishment to keep the marginalised marginalised? One of the constituencies where minor changes are being proposed under the Bill is Dublin North-East, which is currently a three-seat constituency. A major new development has commenced there, in the north area fringe, which will impact heavily on the population in that area. New developments are springing up all over Dublin, and Dublin North-West is another area where this is the case. Boundaries might have to be changed every couple of years. It would make much more sense to have larger multi-seat constituencies, which could accommodate such population shifts without having to change the electoral boundaries constantly, hence our idea of six-seater and seven-seater constituencies.

The restriction in constituency size is designed so that the constituency commission's report delivers the results desired by the larger parties, in particular the Minister's party. No doubt, the Minister will dismiss that critical flaw by referring to the independent nature of the commission. That is not good enough. The essential provision is that the commission is constrained by statute to have constituency sizes of three to five seats. The proportionality that is possible under the PR STV system in place in this State has been substantially diluted through the selective redrawing of constituency boundaries and the reduction in constituency size to three from five seats. Members used to be elected from nine-seat and seven-seat constituencies in the 1920s, when the system was instigated.

Proportional representation with a single transferable vote, PR STV, using multi-seat constituencies, is a unique system, which is hardly practised outside Ireland. It is not designed with the intention of being applied to three-seat constituencies. The number of members returned per constituency is a crucial component of the Irish electoral system. The higher the number of members returned per constituency, the greater the proportionality of the system. Sinn Féin will table amendments to the Bill to amend section 6(2)(b) of the Electoral Act 1997 to allow for the formation of six-seat and seven-seat constituencies. We should not have to do that; it should be the Minister who tables such amendments. Such an amendment would result in progressive legislation. We should withdraw the Bill until the existing legislation is amended. The amendments that Sinn Féin will table later should the Government fail to withdraw the Bill will restore the positive attributes of the PR STV system, with representatives being local and accountable and voters being able to make inter-party and intra-party choices. A larger constituency size brings extra proportionality to the electoral system as a whole. Following that change, the constituency commission could be reconvened to consider the possibility of establishing a six-seat constituency comprising the three counties of Sligo, Leitrim and Roscommon, avoiding the unacceptable division of County Leitrim between the two proposed new constituencies of Sligo-North Leitrim and Roscommon-South Leitrim. That will let us comply with the sensible terms of section 6(2)(c) of the 1997 Act, which states that "the breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as practicable."

The Government needs to recognise that we risk losing the respect of people in areas such as Leitrim for the electoral system when it is seen to be unfairly applied in a way that prevents them from electing their chosen representatives to Parliament. That will no doubt contribute to the growing levels of apathy, and I am sure the Minister is aware of the real anger that exists throughout County Leitrim regarding the changes contained in the Bill.

I will make some final comments on Dublin South-West, my constituency. The difficulty there is the division of the Rathcoole and Saggart areas, and there is a further difficulty affecting people living in Brittas. The townland of Brittas is being cut off. Many people would say that the natural hinterland for Saggart and Rathcoole, particularly given the existence of the M50, will be Dublin South-West, particularly the Tallaght area. Tallaght South includes Saggart, Rathcoole and the area of Brittas, but some areas are not included in that.

I welcome many of the changes in my area, for instance the addition of parts of Firhouse. There has been a ridiculous situation there. At one stage, a footpath formed the division between different parts of the Firhouse area. The whole area of Saggart-Rathcoole, particularly Brittas, needs to be examined.

Mr. Cuffe

I welcome the Bill, which is essentially sensible, reflecting the exigencies of the changes in population that have occurred. I intend to support the Bill. The alternative of allowing the Minister to adjudicate on Dáil constituencies is probably not the best option. It is best that the system is independently exercised and the commission has done a good job in this regard. I recognise the concerns of the Save Leitrim campaign but there will always be winners and losers when drawing lines on a map and deciding figures. As a councillor I saw the south inner city divided into Dublin South-East and Dublin South-West. The former councillor, Brendan Lynch, advised that the best constituencies have the sea on one side because it guarantees one chunk of voters and I have taken this advice to heart.

Mr. Roche

It does not always work that way.

Mr. Cuffe

One can run into problems as a result of coastal erosion and climate change.

Mr. F. McGrath

That does not happen in Clontarf.

Mr. Cuffe

There are a number of issues which I wish had been given more attention within the Bill. The provisions for postal voting need to be modernised and considered in more detail. It is important to know who is exercising their postal vote and that rigorous criteria be put in place.

As we move towards the enactment of the Disability Bill, one of the key factors is that everybody is treated on a fair and equal basis. Many of our polling stations still have difficulties with regard to accessibility. The Minister should do his utmost between now and the next election to ensure more polling stations are accessible to those with disabilities. This measure does not just apply to election times but to the use of public buildings by people in their daily lives. We should set a timeframe for full accessibility and make sure we deliver on that commitment.

We should introduce a method of automatic registration for people on their 18th birthday. This would result in better registration for younger people. A letter sent in the post telling people about this important civic right which they should exercise would do much to promote awareness of and pride in the electoral process. Perhaps the Minister would examine how this might be arranged.

I would also like to make a plea for the co-ordination of administrative boundaries. There is a plethora of different administrative boundaries in place with regard to policing, health and planning matters. The Dublin Regional Authority produced an excellent report several years ago which drew attention to the varying and incompatible electoral boundaries. It would be an enduring legacy for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he knocked heads together on the issue and contributed towards a better awareness of the problems which exist. It could be done in association with the Central Statistics Office.

Curious data are emerging either because city boundaries are not being extended or health board areas in the Dublin metropolitan area are like the segments of an orange. These are at variance with county boundaries which in turn are at variance with policing boundaries. I welcome any move the Minister could make within his limited role to address the matter. We have made progress with regard to electoral boundaries and local electoral boundaries are more closely related to Dáil constituency boundaries. The strategic policy committee boundaries of most local authorities bear a strong resemblance to either Dáil constituency or local electoral boundaries. We are moving in the right direction, but I hope the Minister would concentrate some effort in trying to advance the process.

I welcome the Bill. There are obviously winners and losers. I hope the process could be a little more transparent in future.

Mr. Dennehy

I welcome this Bill and the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is relatively short but very important legislation. It will significantly enhance or damage the electoral prospects of a large number of candidates in the next general election. However, it will also play a major role in deciding who will represent a large section of the electorate, especially those in the vastly changed constituencies.

Cynics will say that politicians do not care who represents the public once they themselves are elected. There may be an element of truth in this, but it is still important to take account of the inconvenience and concern foisted on the public following significant boundary changes. Deputy Cuffe referred to Leitrim and others will deal with that issue. I will draw on my experience to explain how public representatives and the electorate are affected by the changes recommended by the constituency boundaries commission.

I join the Minister, Deputy Roche, in complimenting all members of the commission on the work they have done. Mr. Justice Lavan, Kieran Coughlan, Deirdre Lane, Niall Callan and Emily O'Reilly faced a difficult task but did a good job. I also compliment them on taking initiatives, such as the establishment of a website to facilitate public access. This is the sort of action we require from bodies which operate in the interests of the public. They should keep in touch with the public and make it easier for people to communicate and work with them.

It is impossible to please everybody when drawing such boundaries and, while not contradicting the compliments I extended, I have concerns with regard to decisions taken in the past. The first independent constituency boundaries commission was established in 1977 by the then Fianna Fáil Government. At that time, there had been many allegations of favouritism by Ministers for Local Government when drawing new boundaries, but the efforts of the Fine Gael-Labour coalition in 1973-77 was so blatant that the public rebelled and demanded action. My constituency became Mid-Cork and this resulted in a situation whereby voters at University College Cork, based at Western Road in the city centre were voting in the same constituency as those in Ballydesmond, which has a sign which reads "Welcome to County Kerry", and Charleville on the Limerick border. That was a scandal, which has not been replicated anywhere else. If it happened in the North, an international inquiry would probably have taken place. While it was an abuse of power, the result of the elections gave the answer to that malpractice and people refused to tolerate it. The independent commission was established in 1977 for the European elections in 1979. The first Dáil boundary commission followed in 1980 and the 1997 Act established the new commission on a permanent basis.

This is the second set of recommendations from the statutory commission, which it is appropriate for us to examine. The primary purpose of the exercise is obviously to ensure that the electorate is properly represented from a numerical point of view. While this is the overriding requirement, it should not be the only requirement. That is my main concern, particularly in terms of how the system has operated in the past. As the Minister outlined earlier, the commission has clear guidelines in this regard. These come partly from the constitutional requirements and partly from the High Court and the Supreme Court cases to which he also referred. The results of that process are measurable and fairly transparent in that we can examine the figures for each constituency and see how they measure up against each other.

I have concerns about two other aspects of the terms of reference laid down for the commission. These relate to the requirements that each constituency shall be composed of contiguous areas and that there shall be regard to geographical considerations, including significant physical features. The latter represented my main gripe in the past.

In examining how these two requirements are dealt with, I will use the example of the constituency I know best, namely, Cork South-Central. It is a five-seat constituency which, up to now, consisted of about 63% of south city population with the remainder based in the county. In the 1991 and 2001 boundary changes, two of the parishes, Bishopstown and Glasheen, I have represented in the constituency — on the city council and in the Dáil — were split down the centre by commission decisions. They are both quintessential south side areas of the city. After the commission's recommendations were adopted, however, their residents were suddenly transformed into Cork North-Central voters.

Some 9,953 voters, equating to a population of approximately 15,000 were, after the drawing of a few lines on the boundary map, transferred from being south-siders into north-siders, which was very undemocratic. While those outside Cork would not understand the situation, it would be similar to deciding that half of Ballyfermot and half of Kilmainham would be transferred into a north Dublin constituency. Glasheen and Bishopstown are located as far south of the River Lee as those two Dublin parishes are south of the Liffey. The people there would not tolerate being described as living in a north side constituency. It has nothing to do with the value of property, it is a matter of common sense. In this case, the results of the changes involved meant a huge amount to me personally and in my professional life.

Mr. Naughten

And to Deputy Batt O'Keeffe of the Bandon Road.

Mr. Dennehy

From 1974 I was elected in five local elections. While in the first election I was the second candidate elected, in the other four I topped the poll. It was obviously a devastating blow to me in my career prospects but people may say that kind of treatment goes with the job and politicians need to put up with it. I accept that.

I am concerned that the people affected by that exercise, the electorate, could be treated in that fashion. The Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, who has just joined us will be aware of the political chaos for the two elections following the boundary changes. Deputy Cuffe referred to local authority constituencies being synchronised with their Dáil counterparts. In this case, the local authority representatives straddled two different Dáil constituencies, which was scandalous and chaotic and did not represent good democracy. The maps are available if people want to examine them.

The recommendation before us will comply with the terms of reference of the commission, as referred to in chapter 2.1(e) of its report, which states "there shall be regard to geographical considerations, including physical features and the extent of the density of population in each constituency." To people in Cork, the River Lee is the major physical feature on which the city was founded. In the past one of the boundaries followed a little laneway, down which I was told a natural spring had run 50 or 60 years earlier. Perhaps it, instead of the River Lee, was selected for this reason, which was a bad mistake. I mentioned my area as an example of how the requirement can be ignored. It was the worst example I could find of the inconveniencing of the electorate since the 1975 Tully review.

I am glad the mistakes appear to have been corrected on this occasion. Following the passage of the Bill, 25,918 people will be properly redesignated as south side residents and south side voters. If these people lived south of the Liffey in Dublin and somebody decided to put them into Dublin North-Central, there would be marches on the Dáil. It was not correct for the population from the south of the city to elect a Deputy for Cork North-Central.

I know that the members of the commission are committed to public service. I make the point to them that when it comes to numbers and equal representation versus the identification of the electorate with a given geographical area such as the River Lee, greater weight should be given to the latter aspect. The commission has considerable latitude with the figures. Regardless of occasional criticism of a particular constituency, the commission should give greater consideration to the geographical location of the electorate. Politicians may come and go and we are supposed to serve the electorate. Some public representatives have been foisted on different areas as a result of boundary changes, which does not serve the public well.

Deputy O'Dowd referred to electronic voting. I can draw on my expertise of electronic voting as opposed to a manual count. While the Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, might correct me on this matter, I believe I am the only person in the history of the State to have overturned a declared result in a general election after a week of counting. However, that might not have happened if we had electronic voting and the votes were counted properly in the first instance. We might not have had a week of hardship. It is an item on which I am open to persuasion.

In general, our system of voting and organising is excellent. If we had more three-seat constituencies, it might facilitate voters' ability to live in an area with which they identify and to be represented by people they know and with whom they can identify. It gives people greater discretion. However, that is a matter for the Oireachtas to judge. If we opt for three seaters, it will be said that we are trying to knock out small parties. However, it should be examined.

As to the upkeep of registers, I agree with Deputy Cuffe that we should do much more to ensure the register is correct. Most of the staff involved have nine to five jobs and cannot visit people at home to confirm the register's accuracy. We need to examine the issue and do as much as possible on it.

I am also concerned about the implications of postal voting. Last year, I mentioned how I received an application form from my former trade union. One was simply to put one's name on the form to apply for one's postal vote. Nothing else was needed, the ballot paper would be sent out and one could then vote accordingly. This year, there are fears that there may be fraud in the postal voting system given that open approach. We should examine more ways of facilitating every single potential voter, be they fishermen or people who are suddenly admitted to hospital. We should exercise our imaginations more because we currently disenfranchise between 5% and 8% of the electorate in one way or another.

On behalf of the other Members and myself, I thank the returning officers and staff who have been involved in elections over the years. We have found them to be highly professional in their approach to the work. They are very committed, are able to put aside any political leanings they might have and get on with doing a good job. The election facilities have been referred to and there have been improvements, particularly with the voting stations. However, it is important that we maintain these standards and that the public should be facilitated during counts. I acknowledge the latter issue is not covered by this Bill.

In general, we have a good process. We will see our nearest neighbour's system in operation on 5 May. It is crazy that up to 70% or 80% of the seats involved in the UK election will not change hands because of the first past the post system. We have a proportional representation system which I would eventually like to see operating with single-seat constituencies, but that is a long way down the road. However, in the interests of democracy, our system far excels the UK system. Proportional representation is probably the best of all systems.

Personally, I prefer single-seat constituencies, but sin scéal eile. According to this Bill, each Member has an electorate of approximately 23,000 people. However, this is not the case. In a five-seat constituency, one has a potential electorate of 120,000 because of the multi-seat nature of the constituency. There are pro rata ratios for three and four-seat constituencies. It leads to the sort of difficulty I referred to earlier. Single-seat constituencies probably require fewer Deputies. The idea was floated at one time by the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey. He is still recovering from the knocks and kicks he then received, but single-seat constituency proportional representation would probably be acceptable.

One small item referred to by Deputy O'Dowd concerned the issue of resolving the postal services question. Despite the Deputy's comments, I am glad the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, took the opportunity to clarify the issue and to have it included in this Bill, rather than letting it hang on, thus raising the possibility of not having it resolved before the next election in two years' time. I welcome the Bill and I know its passage will be rapid. I sympathise with the difficulties faced by the people of Leitrim. From my experiences, I understand their fears, having had not a county but a local election constituency halved more or less overnight, which had a massive effect. I will allow their own representatives articulate their fears. I commend the Bill.

Mr. Naughten

I welcome the opportunity to speak. The Bill has been flagged for over 12 months and we have received eventually the opportunity to debate it. It is important to set the commission report in the context of the 2002 census. The population growth recorded in the 2002 census along with the new commuter culture around Dublin in particular revealed serious imbalances pertaining to Dáil representation in the existing 42 constituencies. The independent commission was established with a judge of the High Court. It set about reviewing and juggling the existing constituencies in an effort to balance population proportionality with the geographic constraints placed on it in the fairest way possible. The census highlighted a number of anomalies within the existing constituencies.

I will cite some figures from the commission report because it is important that they are pointed out. The four-seat constituency of Sligo-Leitrim comprising the two counties has been in place since 1980. Its population has increased by 1.87% since 1979 and is now equivalent to just over 3.5 seats. However, due to the 16.3% rise in the national population over the same period, the variance with the national average representation has widened from plus 1.59% in 1980 to minus 11.01% in 2002. The four-seat Longford-Roscommon constituency also consists of two counties and has been the subject of continual comment. Since its initial creation in 1990, everyone who has examined this constituency has questioned the logic of having a constituency straddle a major boundary such as the River Shannon. The variance in 1996 was plus 0.9% while by the 2002 census it was minus 10.12%.

Undoubtedly, before the commission set about its work, any independent assessment of the population shifts in the various constituencies would have indicated that major changes were required. It is worth examining the figures for the constituencies that experienced major drops in population. Donegal South-West fell by over 10%, Dublin North-Central by over 10%, Dublin North-West by nearly 12%, Longford-Roscommon by over 10% and Sligo-Leitrim by over 11%. Based on these variations and the current demography as reflected in the 2002 census, it was clear to all that those particular constituencies would be examined and reviewed. There was a real risk that County Roscommon could have been split or divided based on the criteria set down for the constituency commission by both the Government and the Constitution. There was also a risk that County Leitrim would be split based on these figures.

Many Members believed there was a possibility that our constituencies would shift and change and quite a number of Oireachtas Members, along with a small number of county councillors, made submissions to the commission. The commission advertised publically for submissions and had a website asking people for formal submissions. While all the political parties made submissions to the constituency boundaries commission, no politician from County Leitrim made one. A host of organisations are now complaining about the division of Leitrim. They have an extremely valid point, their concerns should be considered and the issue needs to be considered in terms of any future conditions that are laid down for a constituency boundaries commission.

It must be asked why no individual or organisation in County Leitrim made a submission to the commission, based on the fact that the constituency of Sligo-Leitrim experienced a population decline of over 11% and the ratio of population to the number of Deputies. None of the organisations that were representative of the county and none of the local councillors made submissions. Only two Members of the Oireachtas from the west made submissions: Senator Leyden and myself. These submissions were probably very similar. Politicians from the affected constituencies of Longford-Roscommon, Sligo-Leitrim and Meath who made submissions to the commission were John Bruton, Senator Bannon, Senator Leyden and myself. It was obvious that changes would have to take place because of the population shifts in the affected constituencies.

In my submission, I recommended that Roscommon be returned to its geographic county, which has not been the case in numerous elections. I come from a parish where three quarters of the population vote in the new Westmeath constituency in Leinster even though they live in Connacht. The same difficulty affects people in Ballinasloe where the majority of the population in Creagh in Roscommon must vote in Galway rather than Roscommon. Every independent constituency commission has ignored the geographic boundaries of the River Shannon and the River Suck. Few people have complained about this.

The other recommendation in my submission was that the old Roscommon-East Galway constituency be reintroduced. There is considerable affinity between a certain part of east Galway and Roscommon. Many of the people in that part of east Galway would rather be included in a constituency with Roscommon. However, based on the figures it had, the commission decided not to accept that proposal. At least I made a submission and what I thought was a reasonable case. It is disappointing to see people now raising the issue with regard to County Leitrim when they did not make submissions to the commission. I am aware that my colleagues in Sinn Féin have a motion on the Order Paper today. I did not see their submission but I wonder whether it addressed that particular issue. I disagreed with my party's submission with regard to County Leitrim and put forward my own. While I accept that there are genuine concerns among the public in Leitrim that the county is being split, that it has been given a raw deal by the commission and that the public's concerns have validity, it is disappointing that no one thought it worthwhile to make a submission to the commission.

Based on the population of the new constituency of Roscommon-South Leitrim, which is the new constituency I will have to campaign in at the next general election, one quarter of the population is based in the southern half of Leitrim. This constitutes approximately a quota of votes in a three-seat constituency. There are sufficient votes in that constituency and I am sure the candidates in Leitrim, including my colleague, Gerry Reynolds, a former Deputy whose father took a seat in Leitrim in 1973, will put up a strong fight to retain a seat for the people of Leitrim in a future general election.

There is an inbuilt benefit to the Government in the layout of some of these constituencies. If one looks at the new three-seat constituencies of Meath-East, Meath-West, Roscommon-South Leitrim and Sligo-North Leitrim, there is an inbuilt benefit for the Government. Traditionally, Fianna Fáil has taken two out of three seats in three-seat constituencies. It will be a challenge fighting that trend. However, it is the electorate in these constituencies that will decide who will represent it for the next five years after the next general election, whenever that takes place.

Roscommon has not had its geographic boundaries left intact in a Dáil constituency for numerous elections, possibly since the 1950s or 1960s. Deputy Dennehy made a very valid point regarding the River Lee and argued that we should take physical features into consideration, for example, those relating to the rivers Shannon and Suck, when forming constituencies. Regardless of whether a person lives in County Westmeath or County Roscommon in the vicinity of Athlone, he or she lives in Connacht. He or she would never associate himself or herself with Leinster, yet he or she must vote for candidates in Leinster.

From my perspective, the current proposals for a new constituency of Roscommon-South Leitrim do not suit me. I will be the most southerly Member of the Oireachtas in this new constituency. The new constituency stretches from the Fermanagh border in the north to the Offaly border in the south and is an extremely long and narrow constituency. It will be a very difficult constituency to manage and work, regardless of who is elected in the next general election. People on the periphery of the constituency, whether they are in south Leitrim or south Roscommon, will be short-changed by the new constituency's boundaries. From my perspective, it will be extremely difficult to retain a seat in the new constituency.

However, these are the difficulties with which we, as Members of the Oireachtas, must deal. We have given an independent commission the task of examining the available statistics and information, making an assessment, attempting to juggle constituency boundaries and come up with constituencies that are representative of the population.

Roscommon-South Leitrim was a constituency from 1961 to 1980. My former Fine Gael colleague, Joan Burke, was a Deputy for that constituency over a long period. Pat Joe Reynolds was also a Member of the Oireachtas during that period and was a Deputy during the Fine Gael Government's tenure from 1973 to 1977. It is a constituency which my late father fought in 1977 when he first entered national politics. I intend to give a good account of myself in this constituency in the next general election. These are the challenges with which we must deal and I hope we can repeat the trend we saw in 1973 when Fine Gael gained a seat in that constituency by taking two out of the three available. I intend to work with my colleagues to ensure this happens.

I hope that Roscommon town will have its count centre returned to it. There were centres traditionally in the Roscommon-South Leitrim and Roscommon-Galway East constituencies. When Mr. Albert Reynolds was the Taoiseach and the constituency became Longford-Roscommon, the larger county lost its count centre for some unknown reason. I am sure Mr. Reynolds took some credit for this at the time. We want to see the return of the count centre to Roscommon town as we have the greater element of the population in the constituency.

It is not often that we have the opportunity to raise issues of the electoral register. The way some of the registers of electors are maintained and updated is appalling and something must be done. The rate collector in each local authority has been traditionally responsible for the register but it is physically impossible for many of them to handle the registers adequately owing to their lack of resources. When one is canvassing one sees new estates of 60 or 70 houses with two or three people on the register but nothing is done to address this matter. People are being disenfranchised and I hope that some mechanism can be found to counter this. People have a right to cast their votes no matter who they vote for.

Local authorities, the county sheriffs and the county registrars have been slow to introduce additional polling booths in many of these new communities and many people must trek considerable distances to access booths. This is an issue that must be examined. Criteria must be set down in particular areas governing when new polling booths are put in place. This will be more difficult owing to the Government's proposal regarding electronic voting as it will not want to spend money on more voting machines when the current ones do not work.

The most sensible argument for the introduction of electronic voting is that one would have a full count of second preferences when a surplus is being distributed rather than taking the last bundle of votes. However, the Government ignored this argument because it would be too significant a change for people. While pressing a button would be a change, apparently having a full and accurate count would be too significant a change to understand. There is no valid argument for the introduction of electronic voting except in regard to having a full count of preferences. This would be more accurate but the proposed random system gives rise to concerns. One physically sees the papers in a manual system when they are being randomly selected and distributed. One can understand that a physical transfer is taking place and how it is taking place but it will be difficult to explain to Members of this House and to the public how the random selection will be carried out by a computer or whether there will be differences between constituencies. There is only one answer to this, namely, to ensure there is a full count of preferential papers. This is the only valid argument that can be made for electronic voting and it is disappointing that the Government has ignored the issue.

I have concerns about this legislation because its revisions breach many of the physical boundaries to which I have referred. The people of County Leitrim have a valid argument on this matter and it is a pity that no one thought about making this argument to the commission when it sought their proposals.

Dr. Devins

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Bill as it will affect every citizen directly in the performance of the bedrock of democracy, namely, their right to vote in the election of Members to Dáil Éireann. It is important that this right to vote and how and where the vote is exercised are essential components of our democracy.

Dáil Éireann has exercised its right to fix the boundaries of constituencies in the past but this was open to the charge of gerrymandering. Interference with the democratic process by any individual or political groups to try to improve their electoral success is wrong. It was in recognition of this possibility that the Electoral Act 1997 was passed. This ensured that an independent commission must be established by the then Minister for the Environment and Local Government once the relevant Central Statistics Office report had been published following a general census.

It is important that this commission is and is seen to be independent. To ensure this, the membership of the commission is specified in the Act. The commission must be chaired by a High Court judge, must include the Clerk of the Dáil, the Clerk of the Seanad, the Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Ombudsman. The commission is charged by law to be guided by certain factors, including the number of Deputies to be elected in the country, the number of seats per constituency and other factors that should be considered in so far as is practical. Any commission charged with reporting on such an important issue must be independent of political interference and, as I have outlined, I believe it is. Following the recent publication of the commission's report, there has been much discussion and some commentators purport that this commission's report was influenced by political considerations. Not only was this comment misguided, it was patently wrong.

I will now discuss the Sligo-Leitrim constituency, of which I am a proud representative alongside Deputies Ellis, Perry and Harkin. Sligo-Leitrim is a four-seat constituency and covers both counties in their entirety. Unfortunately, the actual number of people represented there by Deputies makes it the second most overrepresented in the country. The constituency is more than 11% overrepresented when compared with the national average and is only exceeded by Dublin North-West. This has occurred despite the increase in population in both counties Sligo and Leitrim and is mainly due to the country's overall increase in population, especially along the east coast.

As Sligo-Leitrim is over the 5% variance that has been used to decide constituency boundaries since 1961, one can understand the need for a revision of the constituency. However, the breaching of County Leitrim's integrity in this commission's recommendations is more difficult to accept. Any constituency commission should have regard to maintaining the integrity of county boundaries as far as is practical. People have a great affinity with their local parish, in the first instance, and with their county. Dividing a county should be avoided, even though I am aware that this happened in the past. In Leitrim, however, it is particularly poignant because it is one of the smallest counties and has a low population base. I say this even though I am delighted to see the latter increasing.

It is particularly difficult for Leitrim people to see their county divided. The representations I have received from many people living in the county bear testimony to this. If this Bill was published by any Government without the recommendation of the independent constituency commission, I would have great difficulty accepting it. However, as I said, the constituency commission is independent of all political interference and, because of this, the Government is duty bound to accept its findings. To do otherwise would have laid the House open to the charge of political gerrymandering and would bring the whole process into disrepute.

I reiterate that I am not happy with the commission dividing Leitrim, although I understand the reasons behind its decision to take this course of action. I hope the next census will continue to show an increase in the population of Leitrim so that it will be returned to its geographical whole for the following election. I assure the House that I, as a Deputy, will continue to represent the interests of all of Leitrim and Sligo during the lifetime of this Dáil. The new constituency of Sligo-North Leitrim will be in existence for the next Dáil and if the electorate so decides, I will be honoured to continue to represent it.

Mr. Perry

I wish to share time with Deputy Timmins.

I am delighted to speak on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. As Deputy Devins said, it is a major issue of contention in Sligo and, in particular, Leitrim. The counties furthest from Dublin suffer because of their geographical location. The decision to divide Leitrim has been attributed to the independent commission and obviously one must take its view into consideration. However, there is considerable unrest in Leitrim and Sligo in regard to the decision to divide the former.

We can continue to talk about how we value smaller counties. Leitrim is one of the smallest county but it should not be disadvantaged as a result of this decision. The Bill, however, will place Leitrim at a considerable disadvantage. It will carve it in two and will attach it to the larger counties of Sligo and Roscommon. Splitting the county into two separate constituencies of Roscommon-South Leitrim and Sligo-North Leitrim will result in Leitrim having to fight hard for representation in the Dáil. It is well served by Deputy Ellis and was well served by former Deputy, Gerry Reynolds.

This move flies in the face of democracy. To split one of the smallest counties and to lump it in with two larger counties means that the voters of each Leitrim constituency will have to vote in favour of one candidate in order to increase their chance of getting a Deputy elected. This has taken away the democratic right of Leitrim's citizens. Instead of voting for who they believe is the right candidate and effectively working the PR system, Leitrim people will instead be forced to group together to vote for a candidate from their county simply to get what they believe is justifiably their right. Leitrim Deputies have a long tenure of service dating back to the foundation of the State.

In its terms of reference, the commission was asked to avoid breaking up counties as far as possible. This was not a flippant request. To divide a county makes no sense and presumes there is no difference between counties. The 26 counties cannot only be distinguished by football teams. They are all separate entities with their own problems and needs.

In recent years, there has been much growth in Leitrim and significant transformation as a result of the upper Shannon tax relief. This is evident from Carrick-on-Shannon to Glenfarne and right across south and north Leitrim. The development in Leitrim and south Sligo has been extraordinary. A fantastic group — the Save Leitrim group — has been operating in Leitrim. There are also the Leader partnership group, the very vibrant groups which operate under the partnership companies and voluntary groups. I take this opportunity to commend the Save Leitrim group, which has worked tirelessly to bring this campaign to the highest level. The group has given up its time to fight for rights which should be automatically bestowed on Leitrim. Last December, the group came to Dublin to ask the Minister to look again at the case of Leitrim to allow the status quo to be maintained.

The independent commission is beyond politics and I respect that. The Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, faces difficulties in his constituency, so it is not confined to one party. The decision will impact on some Deputies more than others. It is not about getting elected or re-elected but it is about the interests and the views of the constituents which are paramount.

The independent commission based its decision on population. Given the demographics in Leitrim, however, and the developments and low population base, it was astonishing that it took this decision. The status of the constituency could be reviewed after the census due to be published in 2006 but what has now been drawn is the battle ground for the next general election. The Government never had any intention of going against the conclusions of the commission, which reported in 2004. However, this move belies the great progress Leitrim has made in recent years. This progress has been made despite the fact it is the only county which, since the foundation of the State, has not had a Cabinet Minister.

Mr. Timmins

Or a general hospital.

Mr. Perry

It is the only county to be completely divided in this review. Areas of some counties, such as Westmeath, will be transferred into other constituencies. This is another statistic that can be added to Leitrim's long history of neglect and disadvantage, which has been redressed in recent years. The level of development in north Leitrim has been significant. I believe Tesco is to open in Manorhamilton. When one sees a company of that nature investing in a small town, it is a welcome sign of progress in north Leitrim.

Given that they have been marginalised for so long, Leitrim people are quite resilient. They have invested heavily in the tax breaks and the difference that has made is quite evident as one travels through the county. At a time when people are progressively losing faith in the electoral process, we risk losing people's respect from an electoral point of view in places such as Leitrim where the system is seen to be unfairly applied.

Some 15,000 people signed the petition calling for the status quo to be maintained and for Sligo-Leitrim to remain a four-seat constituency. We live in a democracy and the people of Leitrim are clearly telling the commission of their disappointment. There was no submission from Leitrim to the commission. Perhaps that was an oversight. How aware was the commission of developments in Leitrim and of the major handicaps it faced in the past? The decision cannot be taken lightly, although I know it is cast in stone. Politicians must listen to the people they represent. I am privileged to have been elected a Dáil Deputy alongside Deputies Ellis, Harkin and Devins. As a team, we work in the interests of the two counties. The system has worked effectively. To divide Leitrim and for the constituency to be changed to a three-seater will lead to a different and difficult campaign for candidates in the next election.

I am certain Fine Gael will not let Leitrim down. I am not saying that in a political sense. It is highly likely that a candidate based in north Leitrim will seek the Fine Gael nomination in the next general election. It is our intention to ensure that the people of the north Leitrim will have a say at the next general election and I believe they will have a Leitrim-based candidate who will have a strong chance of being elected to the next Dáil. It is important that the democratic right of the people of north Leitrim constituency, will stretch from Kinlough up to Manorhamilton, Dromahair and Manor — the entire region of north Leitrim — and that of the people of north Sligo will be represented by a candidate from north Leitrim who will seek the Fine Gael nomination.

From what I have heard and from what I know of the sheer determination of Fine Gael activists in north Leitrim, I am confident there will be a candidate based in north Leitrim. There is a collective responsibility in that regard. People in Leitrim have a great reputation of having voted intelligently in the past. I am sure they will recognise the opportunity of giving a candidate fielded by the second largest party in the State, and based in Leitrim, a fair opportunity to be elected to the next Dáil.

As Deputy Devins said, I was given a mandate in the most recent general election to represent the counties of Sligo and Leitrim until the next general election. I look forward at that time to putting my name before the electorate to seek a mandate to continue the great task with which I have been charged. It is a privilege to be elected by the people to represent them in Dáil Éireann. It is singularly a fantastic honour, something I thoroughly enjoy. It is a privilege to serve in this fantastic Parliament, where all laws of the State are enacted that affects people in their daily lives.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would Deputy Timmins prefer to have a full-time slot as only three minutes remain in this one?

Mr. Timmins

No, I am a man of few words and I will be brief.

We are all products of our environment. This Bill, more than any other, brings home that politicians are parochial. I feel humble in the company of Deputies Perry and Ellis and the Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe. I do not believe there are many changes proposed to the constituency Deputy Catherine Murphy represents. Representatives have experienced radical alterations in recent times with changes in constituency boundaries.

I regret that Deputy Finian McGrath is not present. I listened to some of his contribution and it was full of vitriol. I become weary of candidates being elected to this House, claiming a monopoly on integrity and honesty and having a go at the main political parties. I am sure that most, if not all, Independents are decent honourable people, as are the elected members of political parties. It ill behoves Independents to point the finger at the political parties.

When the Standards in Public Office Commission passed its judgment on election spending, I was in my office and heard that I had overspent on the election. The latter, however, was not the case. I ask the commission that before making such pronouncements in the future to check its information with the Members whom it deems have overspent in order to ensure it is correct. The commission made errors. In addition, if it carries out investigations after an election into campaign spending, it should contact the candidates who are being investigated. It did not do that on the last occasion. I am aware that in the Wicklow constituency it contacted contractors but not any of the candidates.

I checked the information on election spending in the Oireachtas Library and I hope Deputy Finian McGrath will do so before Committee Stage. He will find that one of his Independent colleagues used more public funding than any other Member. I exclude from this Ministers, who, in many respects, were obliged to submit inaccurate figures, so to speak, because they had to provide details of square footage of offices and so on. One candidate spent in the region of €15,000 to €16,000, which he was entitled to do, on Oireachtas envelopes. Deputy Finian McGrath should not make pronouncements about political parties. I look forward to him dealing with that issue on Committee Stage, particularly as he was so anxious to defend the rights of Independent Members, with the vast majority of whom I have no difficulty.

I am delighted that the commission made no change to the Wicklow constituency. That constituency comprises the county of Wicklow and a small area of Carlow — which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle once represented — for which I am grateful. More submissions were made in respect of this section of the country and Leitrim, although not as many were made in respect of Leitrim because the change that will affect that county was not anticipated. Many submissions were made in respect of the area of Carlow that became part of the Wicklow constituency. Every submission, with the exception of that which I put forward, wanted it to be returned. I stated a valid reason for my view, namely, that voter turnout in that area of Carlow increased by 5% to 6% between 1997 and 2002. One of the reasons for this is the fact that the natural hinterland of that area of Carlow is in County Wicklow. I am glad to represent those people, as are the other Deputies in Wicklow. We hope they will be treated in the same manner as people in the other part of the constituency.

I would like the Minister to bring forward, between now and Committee Stage, a proposal to limit the spend between elections. Some politicians have a great ability to fundraise. They give large donations to various groups such as sporting clubs, many of which have merit in their own right. However, I am concerned that representatives who have access to a great deal of money can make donations between elections or following the calling of an election. That would have a strong bearing on how candidates fare in an election. It is unfair that the expenditure of income between elections may influence a vote. I ask the Minister of State to consider putting a cap — of between €1,000, to €3,000 per year — on moneys politicians donate between elections to various organisations. There is much merit in that suggestion. There is room for manoeuvre in the Bill to do it and I ask the Minister of State to consider it.

Encouraging people to register to vote is a perennial problem. Some local authorities are good at doing that, others are not so good. We have to examine best practice and try to implement it throughout the country.

Some people might find it difficult to understand but many people believe politicians know how they vote and they are subject to intimidation by certain people. It is important to get the message to the general public that nobody knows how a person votes in an election unless the person reveals that information. People are entitled to privacy in the ballot box and they should never feel intimidated into voting or not voting for a particular candidate.

Mr. Ellis

As someone who has the honour of representing the constituency that is being divided in two by the constituency commission, I probably have most to fear from its actions. However, I do not fear its actions as far as my future in this House is concerned. I am more concerned about the future representation of County Leitrim. I stood for election in the Roscommon-Leitrim constituency in 1977. After the 1977 election, there was no Deputy representing any party who was based in County Leitrim, north or south. South Leitrim was represented by two Deputies who were based in Roscommon and north Leitrim was represented by three who were based in Sligo. The position was similar with Roscommon.

The constituency commission could have avoided this problem. It had terms of reference which allowed it to increase the number of seats in the House by two but it did not exercise that power. Had that been done, Sligo-Leitrim could have remained as a constituency and it would still have had four Deputies. I must, like my colleagues in this House, look to the future. If something is not done about the tolerance levels for representation by Deputies in this House, rural areas, particularly those in the west — which has started to regenerate itself — will become increasingly disenfranchised as time goes on.

In 1960, it took approximately 16,500 people — not voters — to elect a candidate to this House. It now takes 25,000 people, which is almost a 50% increase in the number of people represented by each Deputy. We will have to face up to this problem and decide whether people are to be represented or misrepresented. This country has a history of people having an alliance with their local public representatives in the Dáil. If the current trend is to continue, people will become less closely associated with the Deputies who represent them and will feel more alienated and disenfranchised. Those responsible for setting up the next commission should review the number of seats in this House to ensure rural areas have proper representation.

The new constituency of Roscommon-South Leitrim will stretch from the bridge in Dowra to Shannonbridge, which is one third the length of the country. This is what I will be expected to fight in the next election. Deputy Perry will be expected to fight a constituency which is probably a little tighter, but not much tighter when one takes into account the various areas from Boyle to Enniscrone and Bundoran to Tubbercurry. This is the area we are talking about in the new Sligo-North Leitrim constituency.

I am not coming in here to cry about an electoral commission which did a bad job, but it could have done a much better job and lived with its terms of reference of respecting county boundaries if it examined the other terms of reference which meant they had a right to have 168 Members in this House. We have been disenfranchised by the commission and not by the Government or anyone else. I respect an independent commission as does every other Member. If we decide to interfere politically with electoral commissions in future, I do not want to be a Member of this House. We can all recall when there was gerrymandering. I am long enough around to remember that in the mid-1970s a Minister did a gerrymander that would ensure the existing Government was returned. However, the net result was that the outcome was turned on its head. Whatever Minister appoints the next commission, he or she must ensure that rural Ireland is adequately represented by increasing the number of Members in this House. In some of the suburban Dublin constituencies, one can travel from one end of the constituency to the other in 15 or 20 minutes. Shannonbridge is two hours drive from me. This is why the people of rural Ireland are being disenfranchised.

I came to Leinster House as a Senator in 1977 and had the honour in 1981 of becoming the first Fianna Fáil Deputy to be elected in the county for more than 20 years. I am sure people will accept that I have made a fair contribution towards improving the lot of the people I have represented for almost 30 years. I have seen Leitrim change from a place where everyone left, with the highest standard of education in the country, mainly due to the fact that their parents had no option but to educate them to emigrate. In the last census, for the first time in more than 150 years, the population of Leitrim had increased. It did not increase by accident but because many people have done a lot of hard work. Right across the political spectrum, Leitrim came first, and it did not matter whether one was a Fine Gael representative, a Fianna Fáil representative, an Independent Member or a Labour representative. Everyone stood for the improvement of the area they represented.

I look forward to the challenge of the next general election. I look forward to trying to achieve what I failed to achieve for Leitrim in 1977, namely, to get a Fianna Fáil Deputy elected in the Leitrim section of the Roscommon-Leitrim constituency. However, I must make it clear that without the assistance of the people of north Roscommon and the area bordering the Shannon, which is much closer to me than Sligo town, I have no chance of coming back to this House to represent them.

Mr. McCormack

The Deputy will get someone.

Mr. Ellis

Small boats stay close to the shore. I am not as fortunate as the Deputy who is a single member in a five seater constituency.

Mr. McCormack

I was not made a Senator in 1977.

Mr. Ellis

I was not made one either and I have never been made one. Anytime I came to this House I was elected by my peers.

If County Leitrim is to have representation, people must vote for Leitrim candidates. I make no secret of the fact that this is the only way Leitrim will have representation. It will not matter to me whether one lives in Kinlough or Carrigallen, one is a Leitrim person. Neither will it matter to me whether one lives in Sligo or Roscommon. Once the Bill goes through, my mandate will be to represent three counties because I will have an involvement in Sligo, Leitrim and Roscommon. However, the only way to ensure this will not happen again is by ensuring that in the terms of reference for future commissions county boundaries are sacrosanct. My colleague, Deputy Cassidy, has the same problem and the Minister has a problem. While he is within his own county, his constituency has been changed. All we can do is go back to the electorate and ask them if they think we are good enough to continue to represent them in this House. We can do no more.

It is time to revisit the O'Donovan cases of 1959 and 1960. We must examine what will be tolerated in regard to representation in this House. We must consider increasing the number of seats if rural Ireland is to maintain a presence in this House. Because of the population changes that have taken place, the east and south will dominate the rest of the land mass, which should not be allowed to happen. As far as County Leitrim and its subdivision is concerned, I will make it an issue in the next election that in future Leitrim will be united as a county whether with Sligo or Roscommon. If the current population trends continue, it will take all of Leitrim and either Sligo or Roscommon to make a three seat constituency after the next revision, if it takes ten years. Imagine that land mass being able to elect only three Members to this House. This will have to be considered by Members on all sides. It is physically impossible for the area to be represented by three representatives. The way to solve the problem is to increase the number of seats. I do not think that anyone is currently prepared to consider the possibility of single seat constituencies with a transferable vote. Despite what might be said, neither the political system nor the public will accept it at this time.

I would like to refer to a few other issues. Several Members referred to the register of voters, which is an absolute horror to those who stand in elections. In the old days, the rate collector checked who was in every house. If he did not include everyone, and one exceeded a certain number of alterations to his registers, his rates payment would be reduced. I discovered this very early on because I examined a register to which there were a large number of genuine changes. The rate collector said I cost him money. When I asked why, he said that because the register was not up-to-date, he was penalised, though the penalty was small. At the time, gardaí also did a tremendous job in checking registers. Nowadays, people who do not even exist, who do not live in the area and who get voting cards are being put on registers. I often wonder how these voting cards are being used because it is becoming a problem. We may have to examine some type of positive ID system for people who vote. In the past the presiding officer who was always from the local area knew practically everyone. If there was a query about anyone, there was always someone in the polling booth to clarify who they were. Nowadays a presiding officer or poll clerk might live 20 miles from the polling booth. Voter identification must be examined because I have no doubt that impersonation has taken place in some constituencies. It is a well known fact that people were put on registers who did not even know they were on them. If it was not queried, they got voting cards and went to vote. The postal voting system also needs to be tightened because it is open to abuse. However, I do not know how this can be done fairly without disenfranchising people. In addition, opinion polls should be banned once an election is called because they can be used to cause disorientation in a constituency.

The Bill will cut County Leitrim in two and leave it with the prospect of having no representation in the next Dáil. The people of Leitrim are totally dissatisfied with the commission. They know they have been disenfranchised and that their natural hinterland has been subdivided. Leitrim and Sligo are in the same Health Service Executive area but when the Roscommon-South Leitrim constituency is created, the two parts into which Leitrim will be divided will be in separate Health Service Executive areas. These are the kinds of changes that affect people's lives.

Various agencies have always operated on a Sligo-Leitrim basis and will be affected by the change to the constituency boundaries. I recently met representatives from one such agency and their main concern was that the area they had represented through the Leitrim partnership would be affected by its division. The Leader programmes have always had a cross-county dimension. There are Leader groups in Sligo and Roscommon — including in the Arigna catchment area which covers Leitrim — but when the changes are implemented, there will be three Leader groups within the one constituency. This poses problems for everybody and we must ensure it will not happen.

It is not possible to achieve the sort of representation people in rural areas expect without increasing the number of seats. The population is now 16.3% higher than it was in 1979 but the number of Members in this House remains the same. What organisation in the country could increase its workload by 16% without increasing its number of employees? If we were to take the population increase into account, we would need 195 Members in this House. While people might complain about the number of Deputies, they still know where they are and still feel they are doing their jobs and representing them. Members of the electorate have the opportunity at every election to throw Members out of the House if they fail to represent them.

The commission should have exercised its power to create two additional seats in the House. This would have prevented the problems encountered by me and Deputy Paul McGrath and the constituencies of Westmeath and Sligo-Leitrim could be left untouched. Roscommon could have been a constituency on its own.

Various steps could have been taken had the commission exercised its power. When the commission was announced, there was an onslaught of people asserting that the number of Members should be reduced from 166. I wonder whether people realise they are being disenfranchised indirectly by the limitation on the number of Members. They are definitely losing out and will continue to do so if what is happening continues.

Members and political parties will have to consider increasing the membership of the House at the first available opportunity. If they do not do so, even more voters will be alienated. Young people do not want to hear about politicians because they feel they are too distant from them. Each day, everyone in political life faces the problem of people feeling alienated and disenfranchised by the system.

I can understand this and can well understand why the Save Leitrim campaign came into being. The people of Leitrim, including me, do not want to see their county left without a representative in the House. This happened in 1977 and will happen again in 2007 if the people do not vote for a candidate from the county. Let nobody be under any illusions about this matter. We can juggle the figures and state that if certain developments take place, a quota might be achieved. I heard somebody say there is a quota of votes in County Leitrim. However, will Deputy Perry be able to tell Fine Gael supporters they must vote for me in order to ensure that Leitrim ends up with a Deputy? I know he cannot do this and that they will not vote in this way.

Mr. McCormack

Or Gerry Reynolds.

Mr. Ellis

Or Gerry Reynolds. If I tell my people to vote for him, they will have strong views on the matter.

Mr. McCormack

One and two.

Mr. Ellis

Leitrim — which has risen from the ashes, made tremendous strides and is now becoming the envy of the rest of the country — is facing the possibility of ending up with no representation. We all know where this leads. Everybody accepts that if one is not represented in the House, one will not get one's slice of the cake. When one has representation, one will achieve something, provided one makes the effort.

I hope that between now and 2007, some mechanism will be found to review the decision that has been made. If no such mechanism is found, the only commitment I will be able to give to those I have represented for the past 30 years is that I will endeavour to return to the House to represent the new constituency of Roscommon-South Leitrim. The only way I will be able to represent them is if they decide, in sufficient numbers, that they want me to do so. Anybody who believes it can be achieved in another way is living in cloud cuckoo land. When the next commission is given its terms of reference, let it be made mandatory for county boundaries, irrespective of constituencies' tolerances, to be sacrosanct.

Mr. P. McGrath

I wish to share time with Deputy McCormack.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Glennon)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. P. McGrath

I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2005 and I am glad to be able to add my tuppence worth. Many of the sentiments expressed by Deputy Ellis are echoed on this side of the House and in many constituencies.

When the boundary commission was established, its job was to review the existing constituency boundaries on foot of population trends and to make recommendations for boundary changes. Its terms of reference are clearly set out in the booklet produced after its establishment. It lists the factors to which the commission shall have regard in observing the relevant provisions of the Constitution regarding Dáil constituencies. In this regard, paragraph (c) states, “the breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as practicable”. What exactly does the term “as far as practicable” mean and how rigorously and strenuously should this principle be adhered to? It should be adhered to very strongly because parts of north Westmeath, including Castlepollard, Ballymanus, Fore, Whitehall, Collinstown, Drumcree, Delvin, Bracklin, part of Raharney, and Clonmellon, are to be included in a constituency with part of Meath, thus forming the Meath West constituency. The people in these villages are part of Westmeath and have been voting in their existing constituency for the past 15 years. They feel disenfranchised because they are to be shifted around, at someone else’s behest, just because of numerical considerations. They feel disenfranchised at being shifted further by another’s will to facilitate numbers. Many people in northern Westmeath feel lost, neglected and not fully represented because of the change in the constituency boundaries. The commission must be made to realise the importance of that feeling. These people live in, and identify with, an area but for electoral purposes are suddenly hived off to another area.

I agree with Deputy Ellis that county integrity should be an important factor in the consideration of the constituency, even if that changes the tolerance levels. The tolerance levels in Westmeath are low. Approximately 6,000 people have been shifted from County Westmeath into County Meath. That would not have a dramatic effect on tolerance levels in a Meath constituency or if Westmeath were changed to a five-seat constituency, Westmeath-Longford. There is no reason why that part of Westmeath must be hived off in that way. A future review of constituency boundaries should bear in mind what we say here.

Longford and Westmeath have a long tradition of co-operation for electoral purposes. Parts of the periphery of north Westmeath have been hived off into Meath or even Kildare. People are not happy with that. The constituency commission should also consider towns, such as Athlone which is divided down the middle by the Shannon. Part of the western bank of the river is considered as Westmeath for electoral purposes. A part of the town is absorbed into Roscommon, or in this case, Leitrim-Roscommon.

In dividing counties it would make more sense to look at urban areas such as Athlone. That would give Athlone greater integrity rather than slicing off part of a rural area to join another constituency. We should look carefully at this proposal.

I draw the Minister of State's attention to section 6 of the Bill. It addresses an issue raised by the Standards in Public Office Commission on the definition of election expenses for the purpose of the Electoral Act 1997. We need clarification on many such issues and I welcome this.

A sub-committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is sitting to discuss the nature of electoral expenses and so on and is due to report its findings in June. I am not sure whether its recommendations will require the support of legislation. It may be necessary to insert a provision into this section giving the Minister power to make regulations based on the sub-committee's recommendations. The Minister of State may take advice on that before Committee Stage.

It is important to clarify for every Member what will count as expenses for election purposes. If we do not make that decision it will be made for us in the courts which will produce unworkable decisions. For example, the courts have decided that for election purposes everybody must be equal. When the Dáil is dissolved a Deputy ceases to be a Deputy and no longer has access to the facilities provided in the House. A Minister, however, retains office for the duration of the election and continues to have access to his or her Department and staff. Most of the Ministers of State have access to five secretaries in their constituency offices, with whom they can continue to work throughout the election. Meanwhile, the backbenchers are no longer Deputies.

A Senator running for the Dáil remains a Senator until the Seanad elections are called. He or she continues to work as a Senator. That is not a level playing pitch. How can the court decision be implemented? We need to be realistic about these matters and sort them out.

I wanted to make several more points. Deputy McCormack says I can keep going and he will wait for the next slot.

One assumed that with the advances in technology and the elaboration of databases that it would be almost impossible to make major mistakes in registers. This is unfortunately not the case. A street or a group of people is regularly found to have slipped off the register. They may have been on the register and voting for many years only to be suddenly left out. The facilities exist to reinstate them, and the Minister of State will tell me that the register is displayed in the post office and one should look at it there. A practical solution to this problem might be for each local authority, when the register is published on 14 February every year, to send a mail shot to everyone on the existing register. That would be an annual reminder to people of whether they are on the register. It would be very easy to do this on something like a voting card. Those who do not receive the reminder could have their names added to the register. That is the way forward.

It is sad to see people who value the democratic process and have voted for many years, turned away from the polling booth because they are not on the register. Meanwhile, some people are cleverly put on the register who may have no association with the area but have been included for personal reasons by other people.

They may have relatives in the area and spend only the odd weekend there with family or friends yet at election time they are on the register and can vote. Seats can be won or lost by ten votes or fewer in local elections. People added to the register in this way can make a crucial difference. We need to be rigorous in our examination of those and see what is happening. In the past the rate collector had a major involvement but that is no longer the case. Perhaps the anonymous society and the fact that there are so many new people are contributory factors. We do not have the same interest in it and we do not know our neighbours.

Ms C. Murphy

I wish to share time with Deputy Boyle.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms C. Murphy

I welcome the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2004 primarily because proportional representation is the cornerstone of the Irish democratic system. It is vital that we continue to review the levels of representation. The independence of the commission is vital. I am concerned at the reactive manner in which we are dealing with the Bill and its consequences, mainly because of the terms of reference.

In April 2002 when the general election was called the population of Kildare North and Kildare South, to name two constituencies, was grossly under-represented. With a population of 28,491, Kildare North had the highest rate of population per Deputy and Kildare South had a population of 26,157. Those figures deviated considerably from the national average of 23,598. The census had just been taken before the general election and there was a lead in time before we knew the figures. However, those figures were broadly known. For Kildare North this represents a variance of 21% with the national average and for Kildare South the variance stood at 11%. These figures deviate considerably from the recommended maximum disparity of 5%. In real terms Kildare North was just 1,500 short of the minimum 30,000 per Deputy set out in the Constitution. That is extraordinary given that Bunreacht na hÉireann allows a window of 10,000 people between the maximum and the minimum levels of representation. Those are two examples of growing constituencies. Obviously, other areas on the east coast have the same difficulties.

It is possible given the right set of circumstances or the wrong set of circumstances for Kildare North or any other rapidly developing constituency to breach the constitutional provision where the maximum threshold is concerned, in view of the time it takes to introduce legislation to reflect the census figures. Extra tolerance should be built into the terms of reference to safeguard against this happening.

We are three years on from the 2002 census figures and given the continued rate of population growth in Kildare, primarily Kildare North, it is hard to imagine how the constituency could not be in breach of the 30,000 constituents per Deputy limit set out in the Constitution. We have only to look at the rate of house starts in 2002 contained in Housing Times, a copy of which all public representatives get regularly. It gives the house registrations by Homebond but they are only some of the house starts. Since 2002, 7,492 additional houses have been constructed. Assuming that only half of these are in Kildare North and that the occupancy rate is approximately three persons per household, which is the average used by local authorities to calculate a range of issues, the figure brings the number of constituents per Deputy to 24,118. If one assumes the same rate of growth for the next two years, given the level of planning applications and houses under construction, and factoring in the 9,554 persons who are to be transferred from Kildare South to Kildare North, the ratio will be worse than at present before the next general election. Using those figures the number of constituents per Deputy will be just short of 29,256 and only 743 short of the absolute minimum level of representation per Deputy as stated in the Constitution. That is dangerous in terms of knowingly entering into a revision that is likely to breach the constitutional provisions. That is a good example of where it can happen.

Kildare South, because of its level of growth and the fact that it is a three-seater constituency, is at risk of breaching the 30,000 limit. The potential for challenge is, therefore, entirely predictable. This is hardly the way to plan for a fair level of representation. Given the length of time following the census returns and the passing of legislation to allow constituency boundaries to be redrawn, account should be taken of rapidly growing areas and some tolerance levels should be built in, otherwise we will run into difficulty.

These constituencies are constantly playing catch-up in terms of the level of representation. It would most efficient and equitable for us to use population projection figures from the CSO which would give some guidance to the independent commission. It is difficult to stabilise a constituency or county which is continually growing and whose boundaries are continually changing. Parts of Kildare have been included with Wicklow, parts of Meath with Kildare and parts of Kildare with Dublin. Parts of Kildare North will move to and from Kildare South over the next couple of elections. That does not help the public's understanding of who is their public representative. It is a destabilising factor and does not help in regard to turnout at elections and so on. A tolerance level is important from that point of view.

The Bill upgrades Kildare North to a four-seater constituency, subject to the boundary alterations from Kildare South. The change is insufficient to deal with the difficulties that will arise. A boundary adjustment could and should be made. If we were to get two four-seater constituencies in Kildare one would still be within what is set out in the Constitution at 20,493 persons and it would avoid the threat of a challenge.

The issue of the electoral register is raised after each local and general election. For example, Maynooth has a transient population by virtue of the fact that it is a university town. Right across the political parties there is a consensus about the level of error on the electoral register. With 7,500 people registered, the number of errors is judged to be in the region of 1,500. This is absolutely ridiculous. It is the worst example in my constituency but it is not the only example. Fingers have been burned, a lot of money has been lost and the electronic voting system has been a fiasco. The possibility of voluntary electronic registration of voters should not be ruled out. Many people have access to the Internet. The use of proper safeguards such as PPS numbers could be considered. When I made inquiries in the past I was informed a national database would be required but such a database exists in the control of the local authorities. It could be flexible enough to allow for one litir um toghchán to be sent to each household rather than one to each voter. Safeguards will be required to protect the system from abuse.

I concur with other speakers on Friday voting that it has hindered rather than helped. It reduced the number of people voting in the by-election. They were delayed in late traffic and many people regard Friday as the end of the working week. I do not think it has worked and it should be re-examined.

Mr. Boyle

I have heard disappointment expressed by other speakers that the boundary commission has chosen not to suggest an increase in membership of the Dáil by a further two Members. The constitutional provision suggests there should be a Member of the Dáil for every 20,000 to 30,000 of the population. It could have been just as in order for the boundary commission to suggest the 30,000 figure be applied which would mean a Dáil of 110 Members. While many Members would be fairly horrified at such a proposal I suspect many people outside this House would think it a very agreeable proposition. Larger membership of the Dáil would allow for a degree of proportionality that would not otherwise exist in terms of the representation of smaller parties and Independent Members. This is more difficult to achieve with a smaller Dáil.

Membership has risen from 138 to 147 to 166, reflecting the changes in population. Our system of proportional representation, which we only share with Malta, brings about a fair but not a pure degree of proportionality. Smaller parties and Independent Members still have a smaller representation in this House than their votes would indicate. The larger parties are given a bounce from the transfer of votes to which their first preference votes do not entitle them.

The last election was probably the first time when a fair degree of balance was achieved between the proportion of votes and the proportion of seats in any given Dáil.

The commission's recommendations have been largely met with approval in the House. A number of issues have caused distress in certain parts of the country. There is an identification with the county system but this system is not particularly native to the country, having been introduced by the British colonial administration. The identification with the county system has developed in the past centuries.

Other political systems identify their constituencies by region or by a key urban centre. It could be that in the future, we may move away from the county-based system of constituencies towards a system based on key urban centres. For instance, Deputy Catherine Murphy may not be representing Kildare North but rather Leixlip, depending on how such a constituency might be titled.

The terms of reference of the commission stipulated that it remain within three, four or five-seater constituencies. Dáil elections in the past have been held in nine, eight and seven-seater constituencies. Such constituencies provided greater proportionality. This Bill is disappointing in that it increases the number of three-seater constituencies. They benefit the larger parties to the detriment of smaller parties and Independents and are detrimental to the voters. I hope the terms of reference for the next boundary commission will specify a preponderance of five-seater constituencies and consideration should be given to constituencies of even bigger seat numbers to allow for better representation. The greater Dublin area would be better and more proportionately represented if these criteria were applied.

The most disappointing aspect of this Bill has nothing to do with the boundary commission. It is the custom in the United States Congress to tack a rider dealing with a pay increase for its members onto a Bill dealing with horse riding, for instance. Likewise the Government has decided that as well as dealing with electoral boundaries, constituencies and the number of representatives, consideration in this Bill should be given to extending the allowed expenses for election candidates. Many of us consider those expenses are far too generous. In the last general election I spent half of what was allowed in my constituency and I had spent twice as much as I had ever spent in any previous election campaign.

It is one of the richest ironies of Irish political life that political parties and politicians aim to convince voters that somehow the best and most responsible people to run our society and economy over a period of four to five years are those who are prepared to be the most wasteful of expenses when getting themselves elected. This is a horrible message to send out as a measure of the quality of democracy in this country. I hope this aspect of the Bill will be strongly challenged on Committee Stage and will be amended, not that I expect the Government parties to be amenable to amending that provision. I do not predict any suggested changes from either side of the House in terms of the boundary commission. The Government should take notice that it is a deceit and a tacky practice to insert in this Bill an aspect of electoral law that has nothing to do with the findings of the boundary commission and on which it should be challenged.

Significant changes have affected my constituency. This Bill will afford me the opportunity to vote for myself in the next election. The electoral boundaries in Cork city have been divided in an arbitrary manner for the past number of elections. Those familiar with the geography of Cork city will know that I live in one of the most southerly parts of Cork city yet for electoral purposes it has been deemed to be in Cork North-Central for the past few elections. I welcome the decision to use the north channel of the River Lee as a natural boundary. This will help those of us who represent the city on a type of flow-over basis to do so better in future electoral contests. The upshot of this, however, is that a major urban area is being moved to another constituency. The Minister of State's colleague at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, will be either the beneficiary or victim of this in that his base of Ballincollig will move to the constituency of Cork North-West. The character of this constituency will be changed dramatically from largely rural and conservative to one which will be very mixed and containing a major urban centre.

These changes put an onus on those of us representing the constituencies that will be most affected in that we have a mandate to represent the constituency for which we were elected in the Dáil election of 2002. However, we also have an expectation to represent the areas that will be newly part of our constituencies at the time of the next general election. The constituency I will seek to represent, for example, is a type of Venn diagram of the old and the new, possibly representing some 140,000 people and upwards of 70,000 voters. I do not what know whether this can be catered for in some way by the Government but some Government Members will be in a similar position.

This debate affords us the opportunity to put these concerns on record for voters. As my colleague, Deputy Cuffe, said, the Green Party supports the principle and recommendations of the constituency boundaries commission. However, we will argue against the amendments to increase allowable expenses, which we consider utterly unnecessary, on Committee Stage.

Mr. McCormack

The main purpose of the Bill is to revise the Dáil constituencies in the light of the 2002 census and, in this context, to implement the recommendations in the constituency commission report on Dáil constituencies of 2004. The commission was established under Part 2 of the Electoral act 1997 to report on the constituencies for the election of Members to Dáil Éireann and the European Parliament. The Bill also addresses an issue which has arisen in regard to the definition of electoral expenses.

The trend in this debate has been that Deputies whose constituencies are not affected or who may gain some advantage from the commission's recommendations have very much welcomed the Bill, while those for whom the report's recommendations in respect of their constituency's boundaries seem to put them at a disadvantage have vigorously condemned the Bill and the process by which its provisions have been devised. I have no personal axe to grind in this regard.

This is the first occasion on which there has been no change in the five-seat constituency of Galway West since its formation in 1981. Since I was first elected in 1989, there has been some change in the constituency at every election. Headford, Caherlistrane and Claran have variously been part of both Galway West and the Mayo constituency since 1989 and have been in the Galway East constituency since 2002. Areas such as these are significantly disadvantaged in being moved from one constituency to another and even from one county to another.

In his passionate contribution, Deputy Finian McGrath questioned the independence of the commission. I accept the Minister's word that there was no political input into its report and that he had no personal influence in this regard. However, I wonder if the commission's report was considered by the former Minister before it was agreed by the Government. While I take this Minister's word on the issue, I might not take the word of some of his predecessors. With the exception of Deputy Ellis, all the Government Members who have spoken on this Bill have welcomed the commission's report. Irrespective of our positions, however, we must go by what the public believes and there is a general perception that the Minister and Government of the day have some say in the commission's recommendations. This is an issue we must tackle.

Over the last 30 years, on the occasion of every revision of constituencies since I entered the House, and indeed since my term as a county councillor when county boundaries were redrawn, I made detailed submissions which included maps, figures and population data. On each occasion, however, the commission did the opposite to my recommendations. In this instance, however, I made no recommendations and find I could not be more in agreement with its report. I can only speak from my experience but the commission never took heed of any of my submissions. Deputy Naughten said earlier that his detailed submissions were not borne out in the latest report but I cannot say whether this has been the general experience.

I am not entirely pleased with the commission's recommendations. I received a letter from members of the Save Leitrim campaign in which they expressed a desire to meet the Oireachtas Committee on Environment and Local Government, of which I am a member. I would be delighted to meet them but I may as well inform them that such a meeting would be a waste of time. Deputy Ellis made a passionate contribution on the case for County Leitrim during which he observed that the county was not represented in 1977 because it was divided between Sligo and Roscommon. However, he was lucky enough to be elected to the Seanad in 1977 which meant County Leitrim was represented at Oireachtas level. I was also a candidate in the 1977 election in what was then the Galway-Clare constituency but I had to bide my time and it was five elections and 12 years later before I entered this House.

If Deputy Ellis is serious about representing the view he so passionately expressed, he should simply vote against the Bill. It is his duty to do so. He owes it to those voters involved in the Save Leitrim campaign to vote against every Stage of this Bill or to table an appropriate amendment. Everybody understands he is entitled to do so because of his passionate commitment to County Leitrim. He is obliged to take such action and there is nothing to prevent him voting against the Bill on Second Stage to demonstrate his dissatisfaction with the commission's decision and to show the Minister he will not accept the division of Leitrim without protest.

Other Members referred to the register of electors. The last election in which I canvassed was the Údarás na Gaeltachta election in Galway some weeks ago. For urban areas within the Gaeltacht, including parts of Galway city, Knocknacarra and Tirellan Heights, the register is entirely out of date and must be rectified. There was a provision for putting people on the register within 14 days of an election. There should also be provision to take people off the register within 14 days if they are not living at the address under which they are registered, which can be discovered on the canvass.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 27 Apr 2005

Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2005: Second Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Apr 2005