I welcome the opportunity to contribute on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. By and large it deals with new Dáil constituency boundaries. I have several observations to make with regard to the commission itself in terms of how it went about its work and the outcome. There are some geographical areas I wish to highlight and I will deal with some of the points raised in the debate concerning the conduct of elections and various related matters.
First, there must be general acceptance that we must have an independent commission. If this work were left to politicians, inevitably the Minister and the Government of the day would have the major say in what was to happen. In any case, the public would not tolerate this and we would diminish ourselves if we tried to influence the independence of the commission.
I presume the commission set about its work in an objective manner. We must, however, examine its membership. I mean no disrespect to any member of the commission, to its make-up or to the commitment of the membership to do their work in a fair and impartial manner. However, they represent what I would consider a very small group, internal to the operations of the franchise section of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or the operations of the Oireachtas building itself. I believe a commission would benefit from having a broader membership. I do not refer to party representatives but a broader based membership would benefit the commission rather than the small select group involved.
It is also important to acknowledge that the commission does not have a free hand but must work within the Constitution, legislation and its own terms of reference. In general, these refer to the size of constituencies, whether three, four or five-seaters. No six or sever-seaters are permitted. They must respect as far as possible the county boundaries and also, where possible and practicable, existing constituency boundaries without making wholescale unnecessary changes.
The reference to provincial boundaries may not have been included in the last terms of reference. In hindsight, that was a mistake but one would have assumed that it was not necessary to spell out to an intelligent commission that breaking provincial boundaries should have been avoided. A justification of a sort for doing so was produced and was, at best, half-hearted.
Regarding the process of the commission's work, public submissions were invited and a large number was received. My family and I put together a submission because we gave due consideration to the matter. A number of hours went into that submission. In fairness, I must ask what the point is in having a process for making public submissions if those who do not bother to make one complain when they see the work submitted by others. It is like everything we do in public life. This House set up a process and we should respect it. When there is a county development plan at home, those who make no submissions will still complain and say they do not agree with something in the plan even though they do not bother to involve themselves.
I know a large number of submissions were photostatted copies of work done by people in Leitrim which were on the website for anyone to see. The county of Leitrim has definitely been badly served not merely by this commission, but also by the previous one. However, I would like a greater engagement in the submission process by the public and by people with an interest in these issues. If the energy that has gone into debating the outcome of the report had gone into making submissions in the first place, perhaps we might have had a different report. However, people are entitled to comment on the outcome.
It has been suggested that in the future the commission might be asked to produce only a draft report for consideration by the Oireachtas. That is a possibility, but the work of the commission is undermined if it can be easily dissected here on the floor of the House. This is a valid point of view but the outcome might be fraught with danger and careful consideration would have to be given if this were to happen.
The report was produced, the debate has been had and we are now commencing the legislation. It is up to the Oireachtas to take action. Ultimately, it can decide to change the report. It is a democracy and this is only a commission's report, not the Bible. There is a general acceptance not to tinker with the edges of the report. Once the cherry-picking of pieces is begun, there will be a piece somebody does not like and then another somebody else does not care for. It is important to keep the integrity of the report.
My biggest problem is with the actual work of the commission. Perhaps when the debate is concluded the Minister can spell out the details. I would like to know what they are. Perhaps I should know the following but I do not. Are all the working papers of the commission available under the Freedom of Information Act? Are they available in the first place, without the requirement to use the Act?
It was a public process. The submissions were on the website and I believe the work of the commission should also be there, not merely the final report. I would like to see that available for those who want to scrutinise the work and see how the commission went about it. I believe it held six meetings. I would like to see the minutes and the discussion that took place at each of those meetings. I know there were support staff who probably came from the franchise section of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
In the inevitable way these things occur, the commission would have had a meeting to consider the submissions and a general discussion, followed by someone going away to produce a first draft of the report. That would have come back, been looked at and then there might have been a second or a third draft. It would help the understanding of the process by the Oireachtas and by the public if we could see all this material, after the fact. This is not an attempt to interfere with an ongoing process but rather, when the work is completed, to be in a position to see how the commission went about it and the different elements of consideration that went into various aspects.
I will refer to one direct statement in the commission's report which I find completely unsatisfactory. There are 166 Deputies at present and the figure can range from 164 to 168. I believe there was a proper way to have gone about this aspect of the work and perhaps the members did so, but I do not know what way they approached it because I have not seen the information. That is why I would like to see their work.
The members should have looked at the population changes on the basis of how a constituency boundary would work if there were 164 Deputies. Another schedule might have posed the question of how it would work with 165, 166, 167 or 168 Deputies. There should have been a range of possibilities to examine. I am genuinely concerned. I would like if my concern could be dispelled but I suspect that a unilateral decision was made at the beginning to stick with 166 Deputies in the belief that the public would not accept any more. I do not believe that is the case. There might be a hullabaloo in the papers for two days and then life would move on.
There has been a 25% increase in the population since 1980 and a corresponding great increase in the numbers of people in each constituency. The figure has gone from 20,000 per Deputy to 25,000. I maintain that rigid adherence to a total of 166 Deputies, as laid out by the commission on several occasions, is adding to the democratic deficit in this country. The population is increasing and the numbers of elected representatives is held at a pre-existing level.
I would like to know how the members arrived at this decision. If they were able to show me that they had looked at how the situation might work with 167 or 168 Deputies, that such an outcome would lead to mass changes and that, therefore, having 166 Deputies was the neatest solution, that would be well and good. However, I do not believe this is the case and I genuinely do not believe they consider it so either. In its report the commission points out that there are arguments for and against changing the total number of seats but that, after detailed consideration, it was decided not to recommend any change because "it was satisfied that the present level of membership allowed for a reasonable arrangement of constituencies in accordance with the relevant constitutional provisions in its terms of reference".
If I were a commission member given a job to do by the Oireachtas and were to report back at the finish that I did a "reasonable" job, I would not consider that to be a good job, a fairly good job or an excellent job. By their own admission the commissioners are saying, at best, that they did a reasonable job. I consider that to be very weak. Was it a good job, a fairly poor job, a fair job, a reasonable job or a very good job? They have pitched their assessment of the report at the lower level of competence. They could not say that they had compiled a good report. To say it was reasonable is a weak assessment of the situation and they know it. Unnecessary changes were made and had they changed to a system of 167 or 168 Deputies we might have seen fewer constituency changes and more continuity.
Continuity in constituencies helps in the representation of constituents. Constant changes to constituencies contribute to the democratic deficit because people are familiar with public representatives in their area. No account was taken of increases in population and I hope the next commission is instructed, in its terms of reference, to take cognisance of the population with regard to the number of Deputies. If the population decreases some day and the number of Deputies must fall, then that is fine, but rigidly adhering to a limit of 166 Deputies without examining how the figure is reached is not a good approach. Perhaps light can be cast on this aspect.
I hope that before there is a new commission an Oireachtas committee can examine this matter. I am Chairman of the Oireachtas Committee on the Environment and Local Government and I am not looking for another job, but I feel there should be an all-party approach to this to see how a commission goes about its work. It seems to be something of a black box and the process could have been helped by oral submissions. If one can make an oral submission to An Bord Pleanála on a planning matter, there should be an opportunity for citizens to do so in this regard. This applies particularly to the people of Leitrim, who would have appreciated the opportunity to make an oral submission to the commission. There was no provision for this and it marks another democratic deficit in the process. The commission went about its work behind closed doors, without public information on how decisions were reached.
An Opposition Deputy said he was upset at changes in his constituency, which he believes may have been almost political in nature. I can understand that a commission would be afraid of such accusations and I think the report of every recent commission has tried to ensure that they could not be accused of political favouritism towards the Government. The commissions over compensated on every recent occasion and set out to change the constituency of the Taoiseach of the day. Dublin Central was mentioned and one wonders how Deputy Tony Gregory survives as an Independent Deputy. The former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, was in that constituency and it was changed on every occasion.
My constituency, Laois-Offaly, is the home of the current Taoiseach and is a five-seater in the midlands. It is close enough to Dublin and the east coast to see an increase in population in line with the national increase in population, but the western half of the constituency has seen a decrease in population, like the western seaboard. Laois-Offaly has always grown in population in line with the national increase in population and, for this reason, it is the only constituency to go untouched by a boundary commission since the foundation of the State. However, because it is now the Taoiseach's constituency I think a decision was made to make changes to it, lest the commission be accused of supporting the Government. The commission can then always say "we made changes to the Taoiseach's constituency". There is a pattern of commissions doing this and it is an objective fact that every commission does so. I feel this is done to demonstrate that the commission is not influenced by the Taoiseach. The facts bear this out, though some might not like to hear it.
