I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, to the House. Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, and Nos. 4 and 6 form a composite proposal and will be discussed together by agreement.
Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2005: Committee and Remaining Stages.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) In this Act, the ‘Act of 1992' means the Electoral Act 1992.".
During the last local elections and previously in the general election it came to the attention of many of us that there is quite an amount of fraud with regard to the electoral register. Two weeks ago a report in The Sunday Tribune alleged that there were 800,000 names on the electoral register that did not have a vote. These were names of people who were either deceased or, as happens in many cases, names which were duplicated.
My proposal, which is an aside to the independent commission on the boundaries, is that the Minister should give serious consideration to introducing phased legislation to attach the vote to a person's PPS number. The PPS system is already in place and it would not complicate the system too much to ask that electoral registers be replicated on the basis of those numbers throughout the country. This is already happening to good effect in the Six Counties.
In the last local election a gentleman telephoned me two hours before the booths closed to tell me he had five votes and to ask where he should vote. He had votes in Letterkenny and in the Glenties and Milford areas.
Does he vote for the Senator?
As I was not on the ticket I was not in a position to give him advice on that aspect, but I did advise him to vote only once. It is not illegal to be on the register so many times. I know the example I have given is an extreme one, but it does happen. We have an opportunity to change that today if we consider this sensibly. I discussed the matter with the Leader before this debate began. I ask the Minister to look at it sensibly. I have proposed these amendments because we need to instill confidence in the electorate. A gentleman informed me after the last local election that the postal votes of three elderly people had been intercepted and used. An investigation was carried out, but we had no way of proving anything.
Yes.
That is another example. I ask the Minister to give this matter serious consideration, in the interests of instilling confidence in the electorate.
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Roche, to the House. Like Senator McHugh, I am perturbed by the state of the electoral register in the various constituencies. I have first-hand knowledge of my own constituency, but other politicians have told me about the position in their constituencies. I am not sure that I agree with the suggestion in The Sunday Tribune that there are approximately 800,000 discrepancies in the electoral register.
I do not doubt that there is no proper method of ensuring that people's names are included on the register. There was a time when rate collectors called from door to door to ascertain whether, since the last time they had called, anyone in each house had passed the age of 18, died or moved to another address. They compiled the various material on the basis of the facts they acquired. Many years have passed since that procedure was last completed. Nobody is now charged with collecting the data for the national register.
It is not good enough to refer to the frenzied advertisements which advise one to go to the local Garda station if one wants to be registered as an elector. When I sent two young women to a Garda station in such circumstances, they were sent packing by a garda who said "I know nothing about that". When they went to the civic offices in the town hall, as the advertisements in question suggested, they encountered a girl in the customer care department who also said she knew nothing about that. Nobody is attending to the electoral register. The county seat of County Westmeath is Mullingar — it should be Athlone, but that is another point. People in Athlone who want to check whether they are on the electoral register must travel 30 miles because they know they will be given an obtuse answer over the telephone.
A dramatic initiative needs to be taken to update the national electoral register. It is not correct to state that the turnout in a certain constituency was 49% or 52% because the register has not been updated. My political team took a dramatic initiative, of the type that is needed on this occasion, in the Athlone area before a general election in the late 1980s. We went through the various registers to draw up a list of those who should not have been on them because they had died or moved to another location. When we gave the list to a court, on 18 December of the year in question, the names were deleted from the register.
I do not think it is right for politicians to have to resort to engaging in the massive amount of work involved in updating the electoral register. One can be accused of deleting names which should remain on the register. On the occasion to which I have referred, a man wrote us a letter to say he was going to take us to court for removing his name from the register. He said that his name should not have been deleted because he was still alive, but I do not know what he was worried about because he was living in County Kildare.
I ask the Minister to outline the ideas and initiatives which have been proposed in this regard within the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. A massive reorganisation of the electoral register is needed. Changes are needed when people sadly pass away, move to another area or celebrate their 18th birthday. When one is canvassing during the last week of an election campaign, it can be quite saddening to find that one would get six votes in a house if the people living there were registered. It is too late to register new electors at that stage. In such circumstances, the people who are not registered sometimes turn on the person who is looking for their votes. They blame the candidate for their absence from the register. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this matter.
This is a serious issue. The integrity of the register of electors is central to the integrity of the democratic system. If the discrepancies in the register are of the variety and quantity that has been reported, we have something serious to worry about. Perhaps the Minister can take this opportunity to put some information on the record of the House.
I am familiar with the system used by Dublin City Council to check whether people are on the register of electors and whether they are still living in the house in which they are registered. The council lets the matter sit for a couple of years. If it does not receive a return from a person in a given year, it will not take him or her off the register until it has received a return from another person living at that address. If a person does not make a return for a number of years, the council will eventually remove him or her from the register.
Have local authorities been given any guidelines on how to guarantee the integrity of the register of electors? Is a particular mechanism used throughout the country? Do all the local authorities use the same sort of procedure? Do they just make it up as they go along? I suspect the latter is the case.
I do not know whether we should develop a system based on PPS numbers. It seems to me there must be an electronic means of maintaining a national database. I assume there is no national database at present. I imagine that the register of electors is based on local authority areas or constituencies. Surely there is a case for a national database that makes it possible to check whether a person is registered to vote in two different constituencies, or to vote several times in the same constituency. It is obvious that such a database would require some form of identification of individuals. Perhaps people can be identified on the basis of their PPS numbers. There may be an argument in favour of issuing ID cards which are specific to this purpose.
As I said on Second Stage yesterday, an argument can be made in favour of allowing people to vote at any polling station. If a person presents himself or herself at any polling station, with a valid ID number that indicates he or she is registered to vote in a particular constituency, he or she should be allowed to cast his or her vote there. By doing that, we would make it easier for people to vote.
Electronic voting would make that possible.
Regardless of the merits of using electronic voting machines, an argument can be made in favour of using electronic systems to clean up the register of electors and to allow people to vote at any polling station.
Yes.
I do not believe that we should make it much easier for an elector to acquire a postal vote.
I agree.
We are entitled to demand that people make the effort to present themselves at a polling station. If one is in County Kerry for the weekend, I do not suppose that it really matters if one calls to the polling station in Sneem to vote in Dublin North-Central, or vice versa. This is a real issue. I ask the Minister to take this opportunity to outline the extent, in his opinion, of the discrepancies on the register of electors. Recent press reports, which I hope are exaggerated, are a source of disquiet. While there have been instances of fraud, my instinct is that most discrepancies are caused by people being registered at two locations by accident. People seek to be registered when they move to a new constituency, but they do not actively cancel their registration at their previous address.
That is correct.
I imagine that the best means of ensuring the register of electors is accurate is to use some type of electronic system.
I support Senator O'Rourke's comments about the need for a new and better system of compiling the electoral register. Such a system is necessary if we are to ensure people are not omitted from the register. We need to prevent people from registering to vote five times, as in the case mentioned by Senator McHugh. Rate collectors, who are often much-maligned, no longer have a role in this regard. Not only did the collectors call from house to house, but many of them called to primary schools to get details of people who had left the school five or six years earlier and might still have been living in the area.
We need to consider a different way of compiling the register. Senator Browne has suggested a system based on ID cards. Under such a system, a person who is working in Dublin would be able to vote for a candidate in Carlow or Galway, for example. I suggested during the Second Stage debate that a data collection form, similar to the census form, could be distributed to every house so that all residents over the age of 18 could be registered to vote. Although the current system is quite tolerant — it allows people to register until three weeks before the polling date — the register of electors continues to have many errors. Many people are disappointed to find in the last week of an election campaign that they are not registered to vote. We need to try to find a way of improving the entire system.
We should consider allowing people who are going on holidays to apply for a temporary postal vote. When elections are held in May or June, many people are unable to vote because they have already planned to go on holidays for a period of time that includes the polling date. We should consider giving temporary postal votes to people who can submit travel vouchers showing that they have booked flights and consequently will be out of the country on the date in question. As such people pay taxes, they are as entitled to vote as anyone else. I share the concerns which have been expressed about extending the postal voting system, which is open to widespread fraud. However, people should be allowed to apply for a temporary postal vote in the circumstances I have outlined.
I agree with Senator McHugh that the use of the PPS number is the only way to update the register of electors. I understand that everyone is given a unique PPS number, which they keep for the rest of their lives, at the age of 16. Given that one can scan every product in a supermarket, it should be possible for polling stations to have a machine which would scan PPS cards. This would make it possible to double check who voted so that no one can vote twice. If Senator Kitt is in Carlow during the presidential election, he should be able to enter a Carlow polling station to cast his vote. Where he is located in the country should make no difference. He should not have to be in Galway to cast his vote. If, in the European elections, Senator O'Rourke is in Carlow, she should be able to cast her vote there.
The tally would be all wrong.
Perhaps. However, we will counteract that. In the case of the presidential or European elections, if one is within one's Dáil constituency, one should be able to vote. Local elections are different because one must vote in a specified area. We should examine the advantages of the PPS number system.
On the question of notifying people who are being removed from the voting register, they should get a letter from the Courts Service stating they will be removed, and it would be up to them to appear at a court hearing. However, this is not happening. People are being removed from the register and the first they know of it is when they do not receive their polling card. I presume death certificates are issued when people die, therefore, it would make sense if the agency involved passed on the information to the relevant local authority so that the person could be removed from the register. This might avoid duplication. This area needs to be tightened up. This would also be fair to politicians who are using registers which are out-of-date and factually incorrect.
Many important points have been made. The big problem is that at best, 60% of the electorate in an area will cast their vote and 40% will not bother to do so. We have all been involved for many years in trying to improve the register at local authority level, and we still do not appear to have got it right. Given the huge developments that have taken place over the past five years, with new housing estates and apartments being built and new families coming into areas, much work needs to be done on the register prior to the next election.
We can say what we like about electronic voting, but there is a strong case to be made for people who have a PPS card to be able to vote. Technology nowadays is so advanced that one should be able to use the card to vote just once. Voters should be recognised at their polling station and they should not be able to use the card a second time. Whether we like it or not, we will have to move in the direction of electronic voting.
There are real problems with the voting register and something must be done to improve it. Many important points have been made by Senators. Postal voting was referred to. People who are on holidays should have a right to a postal vote. Likewise, people who must work away from home for their company have a right to a postal vote. People are so mobile nowadays that they do not know whether they will be at home or away on election day. If these people are on the voting register, they should be able to secure a postal vote within a day or two. If they are on the list of postal votes, they cannot exercise that right personally in the polling station.
We must provide people with more opportunities to vote. I welcome the change to Friday voting. What is wrong with Saturday voting, weekend voting or voting over two days, which would give people an opportunity to exercise their right? A large percentage of people who do not vote are unable to do so because of work commitments or whatever. This aspect must be examined. We will have an opportunity over the next two years to ensure that local authorities correct the register. Given the changes that are taking place in towns and so on, postmen find it confusing when they try to locate people. If this is allowed to continue, there will be real problems during the next election campaign.
I agree with what has been said. In fairness to the Minister, the issues we are raising in these amendments might be worthy of a more lengthy debate in the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government. I hope the Minister will be in a position over the next 12 months to introduce another electoral amendment Bill to deal with these specific issues. There are two aspects to this, first, getting the register correct and, second, ease of voting.
I agree with what my colleagues said in regard to the register of voters. In politics, we are much too easily led by conspiratorial-type theories. I have seen the names of people who might be 80 or 90 years of age disappear from the register on a once-off basis. Presumably it is a print error, but it is unfortunate for the people involved. If the media reports referred to by Senator McHugh and Senator O'Rourke are correct, it is a matter which requires an indepth investigation. We will probably have to proceed along the lines suggested by Senator Browne and others that the PPS number, which every citizen possesses, could be used in this regard.
I support Senator Moylan's remarks regarding postal votes for people on holidays. Last year, I wrote to the Minister's predecessor in this regard, to which I received a negative reply. I appreciate that the extension of postal voting must be examined closely. The system appeared to be a great idea during the British general election until it got underway. Between 15% and 20% of the entire electorate in some constituencies had postal votes, which gave rise to some suspicions. During an election campaign, it is disappointing to meet people who would like to vote before going on holidays. Perhaps we can examine some type of controlled system to deal with this issue. While we will not find an answer to these questions today, perhaps the Minister will examine the whole system of registration, access to voting and extending in a reasonable fashion postal voting. He might consider bringing the issue before us by way of additional legislation in a few months' time. It is important for the Oireachtas to try to ensure that in a functioning democracy people who are entitled to vote are registered and those who wish to vote, no matter where they are located on election day, are given the opportunity to do so.
I wish to repeat what I said on Second Stage in that putting in place a voting window of perhaps a day and half should be considered. I suggested that voting for national elections should begin at 5 p.m. on Friday and continue until 10 p.m. and it should take place all day Saturday. During the local elections last year, the voting trend appeared to increase. However, the general trend over the past 20 years is that the numbers of people voting has decreased. If this is to be reversed, we must try to facilitate people to the maximum. We have tried voting on Wednesdays and Fridays. The Tipperary South by-election took place on Saturday, which was quite successful.
Did we try Sunday?
I made the point yesterday that if we had an election in Cork or Tipperary last Sunday, the day of the Munster final, I would not like to try to encourage people to vote.
Offaly would be okay this year.
A day and a half might sound somewhat optimistic but we are concerned with trying to engage the electorate and encourage turnout. We must take on board new ideas. I ask the Minister to consider this issue, in which he has had great interest and involvement because of his relevant background, in its entirety and perhaps put forward some ideas later in the year.
I agree with most of the debate so far. In my own area the integrity of the electoral register is in question, particularly with regard to apartment complexes.
That is true.
On the day after polling in the last local elections in my own area, 90% of polling cards remained in letterboxes. A study carried out some time ago revealed the average stay in an apartment to be two and a half years, meaning that in the time between general elections, at least two people could be registered to the same apartment. This is a major issue.
The Leader remembered the days in which a registered canvas could be done. In many cases, much money has been expended on security for these apartments and it is almost impossible for canvassers to get in. If they do get in, canvassers are asked to leave because the complex is private. This issue exists not only in major cities but in towns and villages around the country where apartment blocks are becoming prevalent.
Everybody has heard anecdotal reports of people being registered and polling cards being collected on polling day. It is very difficult for any political party to physically check genuine voters against potential fraudsters. The Minister and his Department have examined this for some time but whatever solution is put forward, the integrity of the register must be maintained.
On Senator Bradford's point, I have committed to producing guidelines over this summer. I suggested in the Dáil that it would be a good idea to refer these guidelines to the relevant Oireachtas committee. This is one area where politicians know better than most the exact situation. Over the years, every politician has been in a position where he or she believed the register to be incorrect. They may have gone to a household the day before elections and been disappointed to find that five people are not registered to vote.
We need to segment these issues and examine different elements. Three of the contributions to this debate mentioned the responsibility for compiling the electoral register. This lies with the local authorities. It is done well by some local authorities but others do it in a desultory fashion. Senator McDowell asked for a figure. According to the census of population, the number of people eligible to vote compared to the overall combined registers reveals a difference of 300,000 people.
What is the figure?
There are 300,000 more people on the summation of all registers than are eligible to vote, according to the census. This issue is serious regardless of whether the figure is 300,000, or 800,000. The first figure is the lowest figure and the latter figure is extrapolated to take into account numbers of people who are on the register when they should not be, people who should be there and are not, and people who are deceased and may be on the register to vote for a particular candidate. The figure is serious because even if it is the lowest figure, 300,000 people of the 3.002 million on the combined voting register are on it in error. Only 2.71 million people are eligible to vote by age according to the census.
I have given this issue some thought since beginning my term in this Department. I indicated clearly in the Dáil that I wish the guidelines to be written as I do not think that local authorities are doing their job in this respect sufficiently well. In some cases the work is excellent but in others it is appalling.
Does the Minister have constituency breakdowns for the figures?
I apologise but I cannot carry all the figures in my head.
Are the figures available to the Minister?
It is difficult to get them. One could extrapolate from detailed figures in the first volume of the census to work out who is eligible to vote and what the numbers should be. The results can be precise. It would be a substantial exercise to carry out and the Senator has asked a good question. If the exercise was carried out, one could then objectively highlight where the biggest errors lie with regard to local authorities.
With regard to Senators Moylan and Brady's points, both are correct in pointing out the huge changes in living style in the State. Multi-occupancy is now at a rate not seen since the clearance of the slums. This is a reality. At one time the tenement living was the style of living in Dublin and a different style of multiple occupation is now evident. It is very difficult for some people to get into these places, and one might spend half a day talking to intercoms and not knowing exactly to whom one is talking. This frustrating experience has been had by all. In these cases and taking into account the turnover evident in apartments, it is very difficult to keep the register updated. I accept that a challenge exists on this issue and it would be foolhardy for any Minister to say otherwise.
Senator Browne pointed out that it should be possible to automatically remove deceased people's names from the electoral register. I do not wish to sound impertinent, but this is one of the attractions of a totally electronic system which has registration, voting, etc., included on it. I do not wish to dwell on this as it is a different controversy for another day.
The position in Northern Ireland has been mentioned because people there have had significant and spectacular problems with voting. Much money has been spent there to get the process right. A system that uses PPS numbers, or their equivalent, has been introduced there. Before I discuss the usage of PPS numbers I will consider some actions on this issue that have taken place in the State.
Over the past 30 years, different Governments have given much time to voting and elections. Discussion has taken place on how parties are funded, and legislation has been introduced governing contributions and spending. Welcome changes have been introduced to the supplementary register that introduce a degree of flexibility. I agree that people going on holidays who pay taxes and are registered voters should be allowed some flexibility.
The Electoral (Amendment) Act 2002, which introduced the change on the supplementary register, also brought in another change which has not been implemented on the ground. It was suggested that more attention should be paid in voting stations to who actually votes. Members know from their own experience whether I am correct to say that this has not been put into effect. The guidelines issued suggested that at least 25% of those voting should produce identity documents. I know this guideline was not observed in my constituency. I am quite certain that most of the people present here could indicate that it was not observed in their respective constituencies either. I have pointed out to officials in a voting station that a person had voted more than once. On that occasion I was told by staff that the person had been in two or three times. I indicated that the person should be challenged but he was not challenged. An electoral fraud had occurred with knowledge, and people were slightly intimidated. The polling staff are not paid a big salary and intimidation or threats of it can be real.
With regard to the usage of PPS numbers, this issue is primarily a matter for the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The PPS numbers are possessed by that Minister. Legal advice must be taken on any proposals carried through on the issue. I can see the attraction, which is self-evident, but advice must be taken nonetheless. The concern of where the PPS numbers would be used is also evident. I see the attraction of the number being used when a person registers to vote, as the number is unique. Some access to the library of PPS numbers would have to be facilitated in order to counter-check them. I have queries, incidentally, about the layout of the voter registration form as it is not conducive to clarity. If a PPS number is used to register a voter, it will be a meaningless exercise unless a link between the electoral registration office and the PPS number database is provided. That should not be difficult, as it does not involve rocket science. The connection could be made but issues will be raised, which will require clearance from the Data Protection Commissioner. He has shown interest in what goes on the forms and, as a result of a number observations that were made, the forms were changed but not improved.
The second issue is whether the PPS number should be used for verification at the polling station, which would be ideal in many ways. If an individual had a unique number for voting and a PPS number, in theory, particularly if electronic voting was introduced, he or she could vote anywhere in the State. We are trying to make it attractive for people to register and to make it easier to vote. On election day we are interested in our own results but we have a wider interest in democracy. If we are all interested in democracy as opposed to partisan results, we must make it easy for people to register.
A number of years ago I acted as an international poll observer during the Nicaraguan general election following its civil war. There had been blood and mayhem in the country, yet the Organisation of American States, which organised the election campaign, engaged in voter registration up to four or five days prior to the poll. It was a traumatic period in the life of that nation. However, if that could be done in Nicaragua, why can it not be done in Ireland? We must make it easier for people to vote and we must make sure the voter register is audited so those who should not be on it are removed.
I refer to the issue of security. If a PPS number was used to audit whether the person presenting at the polling station was entitled to vote, it would have attractions but it would also raise issues regarding how that procedure should be handled. The best way to ensure people who present are entitled to vote is to check their identification but an on-line connection between the polling station and the PPS number database will be necessary. A random check of 25% of those presenting is a better way to go.
I am pleased with the debate. During Question Time in the Dáil earlier this week, I stated I was open to suggestions from all political parties on this issue. Amendments to the register cannot be introduced without cross-party consensus because it is central to democracy. It is not a partisan electoral issue, about which we should gouge each other. However, we should combine all the experience of Members in both Houses to resolve this problem. My Department will encourage local authorities to take voter registration more seriously but improved guidelines and arrangements must be put in place to ensure the current scenario does not recur.
Senator McDowell referred to figures. Whether the register is 300,000 or 800,000 in error, it is wrong. We should not be in this position in the 21st century, given all the available technology. It is absolutely appalling, as Senator O'Rourke stated, that having been advised to attend a Garda station, people are told by gardaí they know nothing about voter registration. Such an offhand attitude, whether it manifests itself in a council office or a Garda station, is unacceptable and it is utterly appalling. Those who pay taxes are our bosses and we should serve them. That attitude is not good enough.
All local authorities should make the voting register available on-line so it can be scrutinised. Many people use the Internet, particularly young people like those who approached Senator Bradford, and we should encourage them to vote. If they could access the voting register electronically, they could forward a note to the local authority saying, "My name is X, my address is Y and my telephone number is Z. Please let me have a voter registration form and I will register". Addressing these issues does not involve rocket science. There has been a lack of willingness to take them on board but I am willing to do so. I am willing to work in unison with parties and politicians across the spectrum because that is the best way to resolve this issue. We all have an interest in doing so.
Slackness on the part of local authorities has crept in in recent years. Previously, a grant was provided to upgrade the register. The Government then decided, following the achievement of political consensus, that a general grant would be provided to local authorities to given them flexibility rather than ring-fencing allocations for different sections, as had been the case. The updating of the register is supposed to be undertaken with that grant but I suspect it is being done on a desultory basis.
Voter registration is a lively issue among Members across the political spectrum. If local authorities cannot clean up the mess, I am determined to examine alternative measures to ensure the register is properly updated. If the arrangements in place are not working, we must find out why that is case, whether they can be fixed and, if not, we must examine ways to do the job better. The amendments address a fruitful issue to which we should return in the autumn. I am willing to take up Senator Bradford's request to ask the relevant committee to discuss the issue. We will have a much better system if we combine our knowledge in this area. I thank Senator McHugh for the amendments but he will fully understand I cannot accept them under this legislation. He has given us much food for thought.
I thank the Minister. We have commenced the debate on this issue. I had intended to pursue a division but I acknowledge the Minister's frankness and openness in engaging in this debate and I will withdraw my amendments.
However, local authorities are severely underresourced and do not have the personnel to maintain the electoral register. It is important to recognise this fact.
Whatever excuse local authorities make this year, they cannot say they are broke because they have received handsome increases. The issue is not resources but whether people are enthusiastic and willing to introduce new technology to do the job they should be doing. If a business was faced with the task of updating the register, it would not use the system operated by local authorities. I do not wish to be down on local authorities. However, a number of them take this job seriously and do it well whereas others do not take it seriously and do an appalling job.
The variation in the register is not explicable in terms of a lack of funding or personnel, given the increased funding that has been provided. It is a matter of will, not means. Up to a few years ago local authorities were allocated a specific grant for voter registration and they could be questioned on spending in this area. Subsequently, the political consensus was that the hands of local authorities should not be tied regarding every penny allocated to them and they have been allocated a more general grant since. It is clear local authorities apply different levels of resources to this issue and I am not prepared to allow this scandal to continue. I am grateful for the amendments.
I am interested that the Minister has a notion of the extent of the discrepancy. A total of 300,000 double registrations works out at between 7,000 and 8,000 per constituency. That assumes, for example, the register is updated to take account of deaths and so on, which it is not. It is a significant number. I assume it is possible to work out the discrepancy on a constituency basis. The Central Statistics Office produces population numbers per constituency. I assume it produces them for people over the age of 18 per constituency, or that they can be broken down on that basis.
It would be a useful stimulus to the debate and would enable us all to take it up in a meaningful way with our local authorities if the Minister could provide us with the numbers on a constituency or county basis, or whatever is available. It would be interesting to see whether there are serious discrepancies in one part of the country vis-à-vis another part.
I am heartened by what the Minister has said but I do not know exactly what he has said on how we will go about this, when it will start, what rules will come in and whether it will be in time for the next election——
The Leader has obviously lunched well.
I had no lunch unfortunately because I was here until 2.20 p.m.
When will all that I mentioned happen?
The Leader is interested in all of this.
I am. That is more to the point. Town and county councils are not a bit interested in getting the voting register right because that is up to us poor sods out knocking on the doors. I do not think they regard it as part of their job to do this, by way of circulars or whatever.
While the Senator was talking I said I intend introducing guidelines which will be available to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government. I made that point clear in the Dáil. I hope the committee will have a full debate involving Members from both Houses and all parties. I will take guidance from the committee on this issue. I am very open on this issue, which we must address.
I also said it is not rocket science. The technology exists. If there was a bar code on each PPS card people could key in their PPS numbers in their local post offices and we could automatically register everybody. There are a million things that can be done. I do not want to set up a high-tech system so shrouded in mystique that the public loses faith in it. There are simple ways of doing this. Postmen know who lives at what address. I will make it clear to local authorities that if they do not clean up their act I will look for someone else who will do it for them.
Good.
Resources, however, are not endless. If the local authorities do not do the job for which they are being paid they need not expect to be paid for a job they do not do.
Do they regard it as part of their job?
It is a statutory part of their job.
I hope this is not like the All-Ireland Championship in being a back-door system for electronic voting.
There is nothing wrong with the back door. Westmeath is playing on Sunday via the back door.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, before section 6, to insert the following new section:
"6.—Section 6(2) of the Electoral Act 1997 is amended by the substitution of the following paragraph (b):
‘(b) each constituency shall return three, four, five or six if necessary, incorporating all of Leitrim and retaining its full constituency entity;’.”.
I have the pleasure of moving this amendment in the absence of Senator Bannon.
He was put out.
Senator Bannon emphasised that this amendment does not affect the current boundary report. It is an amendment for the future to maintain Leitrim as a single entity. The people in Leitrim would prefer either a Sligo-Leitrim constituency or Leitrim-Roscommon.
I am glad the Senator clarified that point because it is consistent with the approach his party adopted in the Dáil. The Government made the point, and the Senator's party accepted it, that it is no use establishing an independent review committee if we decide we do not like its recommendations and pick and mix from them.
I am pleased at the different level and tone of the debate in this House. Some appalling suggestions were made about the independent commission in the other House. We set up the commission comprising a small group of people who served the nation well in other fields, and gave it this task. It was not acceptable to hear people cast aspersions on the validity of this exercise.
This amendment looks ahead and therefore is not appropriate to this Act. The configuration of three, four and five-seat constituencies has applied in this country since 1947. The configuration and I arrived on this planet at approximately the same time. We could achieve absolute proportionality by creating a single constituency for the entire country.
There has always been a debate about the relationship between proportionality, which is desirable in democratic terms, and the unique relationship between the elected representative, particularly in the Dáil, and his or her constituents. Academics have treated this relationship in a disparaging way as gombeenism. I am an academic and therefore can be as critical of my own profession as anybody else. Academics who sit around all day after a nice long lunch in the common room can think up theses about the relationship between citizen and public representative but much of the academic analysis is bogus.
The relationship between the citizen and the public representative in Ireland is particularly important because it mediates between the citizen and the State. For all its warts I would defend our system against any other in Europe. In Sweden, for example, parliamentary representatives ask why I rush home for clinics at the weekend. I do so because I want to be re-elected and because it gives me a unique connection with every citizen in my constituency. Everyone in this House has done this too at some stage.
That is a very valuable feedback mechanism into Government. Public representatives do not have the market mechanism that Senator Quinn had in the pursuit of his career. If he made the wrong decision he would know because he would have no customers. One does not know when public administration does not make the right decision or makes the wrong one. The relationship between the citizen and the elected representative is part of a feedback mechanism into public administration. It is vital in terms of mediating an increasingly complex State and helping citizens deal with that.
If one destroyed that relationship, which could be an effect of having too large a constituency, one will have the problem of alienation and anomie. A six-seat constituency would have over 150,000 people spread over a large geographical area. That is not a good idea. A Sinn Féin amendment in the Dáil suggested we move to seven-seat constituencies — I am sure it was tabled in the interests of democracy rather than self-interest. If one goes there, one is talking about 170,000 electors or more, and we must therefore be very careful. We have a system that from time to time causes the types of difficulties that have arisen in Leitrim, and I understand those problems. However, the Senator's own party spokesman in the Dáil, Deputy O'Dowd, made an extremely interesting contribution about our current passion regarding constituency boundaries based on counties and the new realisation that Ireland is no longer mediated through arbitrary boundaries drawn up from the time of the Anglo-Norman conquest and concluded in 1604 when Wicklow was carved up.
There is a new relationship. For example, the Deputy made a point regarding Drogheda, whose people live in the city of Drogheda, in County Louth and in County Meath. Their focus is not the county but the city and we must therefore be very careful. I fully understand the passions that abound on this issue in Leitrim. I have spoken to people there, and they are worried that they will not have a resident Deputy. I told them they had a super Deputy in the shape of Deputy Ellis and that all they need do is vote for him to ensure he will be there again next time; I got the plug in.
My point is that we must be careful regarding the extraordinary and uniquely Irish relationship between the citizen and the elected representative. It is easier to see the Taoiseach of this country than a planning officer in one's county council. Most people will accept that as reality.
Indeed.
That is a very healthy situation. Academic observers and critics, and some people in the media who tend to be cynical — we are never short of cynics in this country — have disparaged that relationship, but we must be very careful about accepting it. I make the point that it is, first of all, not appropriate to this legislation. Second, I am grateful the Senator has made it clear he is not in any way casting aspersions on the commission, which has operated within the terms of reference that we set it. It would not be possible to make the change now. If we are to have a debate on the size of constituencies, we must put a great deal of thought into it.
The Minister has made some very interesting points regarding the level of representation, particularly in rural Ireland. I accept that if, for example, one made a constituency out of the entire county of Donegal, it would become quite difficult geographically for someone to represent such a large constituency. That consideration does not apply in urban areas such as Dublin, where constituencies are very small, geographically speaking. There is a different dynamic at work. It is a fact not unique to Ireland that in urban areas there tends to be a greater diversity of views than in rural areas. More parties are organised than would be typical in rural areas. An argument can be made to provide for a different structure.
In the past we typically had different structures for urban and rural areas, with five-seaters in the cities, while three-seaters were until recently almost exclusively a rural phenomenon, for geographical reasons as much as anything else. That has begun to change now, since the north side of Dublin now has largely three-seat constituencies, something that probably suits my party, so I am not commenting from a specifically party political point of view. Looking at Dublin — along with Cork, Limerick and Waterford by this stage — there is an argument that there is a diversity of political views among the population and that, ideally, all other things being equal, those should be represented in the Dáil. I know that the terms of reference are set down in the 1997 Act, but when we come to do this again, there is an argument that, in urban areas, we should predominantly have four-seaters rather than three-seaters.
I have listened with interest to the Minister, and there is no doubt that cynicism abounds regarding such matters as the two Houses rising tomorrow. People ask what we will all be doing for three months, as if we were going to be hunting, fishing and drinking in that order during the period. I wish that some of the cynics who expound that point of view would come and live with me for a week. I could offer to put them up in the house — although they might turn up, of course.
Does the Senator want Vincent Browne trailing around after her?
I would like to pick the person.
I wish that they were able to see the amount of work that goes on. That brings me to the relationship between a constituent and an elected representative at local, county or national level. I remember many years ago when I was first elected to the urban council; it was so long ago that I will not bother the Cathaoirleach by saying when. A local reporter asked me how I saw my role. At that stage the word "ombudsman" was entering use, and I told the person that I saw myself as such. I take that view because breaking down the mysteries of State organisations for a constituent is a substantial task. Through no fault of their own, they often find themselves quite unequal to it — as I sometimes do too.
I heard that the Minister had spoken about this matter. Can he do anything about telephones? I mean that not in the sense of communications. One rings an office number and is told to press 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 depending on the service. If one does not have the kind of telephone that accommodates such constant pressing, one cannot get through. One hears "The Rising of the Moon" or some inferior song being played endlessly while one waits to be connected with someone. That is always the case with Departments, State organisations and so on. I have not heard the Health Service Executive at it yet, but no doubt it is already picking whatever it intends to play.
People need help, and I accept what the Minister has said. When, in the run-up to a housing Bill, one is armed with the knowledge that a woman who has been on a list for a year and a half has not yet met the housing officer, one surely knows what one is talking about, as long as one has listened to the constituent. That applies also to the merits or demerits of shared ownership and some of the arrangements available from county councils for clients seeking housing. There is a great need, and I have always taken pride in the fact that, if one represents someone, one listens to them. One may not always be able to do it, but one listens to the point they are making and what they have to say to one. I therefore echo that point.
The unique relationship between the elected representative in Ireland and the citizen is part of our political culture. Most of the academic literature on this would argue that it is negative, but I find it very positive. It helps to mediate between the citizen and the State, humanising that relationship. It is obviously not possible in the context of this Bill to make the change, since this deals only with the current situation.
However, if Senator Bannon were here, I would point out that we would have to think long and hard about any future course of action. We had very large constituencies here at one time, and the argument has been made again in the context of the six-seater constituencies and of the Good Friday Agreement regarding Northern Ireland. Frankly, that argument is not valid, since we must administer and govern that part of the national territory currently within our jurisdiction. Second, any objective person will recognise that the arrangements that resulted from the Good Friday Agreement emerged from a very specific set of circumstances in the North of Ireland which thankfully do not apply here and have not done so for a long time.
On the issue of the number of three-seaters, there have been many observations. I do not think that it was the point that Senator McDowell was making, but there have been plenty of precedents in the past where we have had more three-seaters than currently. We will never achieve perfection on this issue, but the disposition and the arrangements that we have in place allow an apolitical, non-partisan, independent group to draw the constituency boundaries. That is as good an arrangement as we will get.
We have all had our fingers burnt in the past when there was political manipulation of electoral boundaries. I saw a study of the situation in California, which was quite disgraceful, and I would not like us to return to that. We should live with the commission and accept what it says. If we were to go down the route of larger constituencies, we should think long and hard about it. It is very interesting that Senator McDowell was arguing for a different mix of constituencies that would recognise the territory to be covered, a different issue from the subject matter of the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Amendment No. 10 is consequential on amendment No. 7 and both may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 5, column 2, to delete all words from and including "Carlow", in line 4 down to and including "Wicklow." in line 6 and substitute "Carlow.".
The Minister and I have a conflict of interest in regard to this amendment and he will be glad to know I do not intend to press it to a vote. I have put it down as a marker because although I accept the electoral commission's recommendation, I and many people in Carlow are unhappy about it. I acknowledge Senator McDowell's point that we should not get too obsessed with county boundaries. However, it is worth noting the constitutional stipulation that, where possible, county boundaries should be respected. This is not always possible and is generally impossible where counties include cities.
People in the area of Carlow to which I refer, which includes Hacketstown, Clonmore, Rathvilly and Ballyconnell, elect representatives to Carlow County Council, are represented on Carlow VEC, participate in the Carlow community games and are involved in GAA teams whose players also play for the County Carlow football team. These places have a clear link with County Carlow. I acknowledge that the Minister and his fellow Wicklow representative, Deputy Timmins, serve this area well. However, other Wicklow Members do not give it the same level of attention.
When the electoral commission next considers the situation of County Carlow, I hope it will take account of the content of my amendments. In 1997, the commission accepted the point I and others made that there was a need, based on population, for the Wicklow constituency to incorporate part of Carlow in order to justify its allocation of Dáil seats. This is no longer the case, however, because there has been an explosion in the population of County Wicklow in recent years.
The difficulty is that if the section of County Carlow to which I refer is reincorporated into the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency, the population of that constituency will be such as to warrant more than five Dáil seats. In that case, a section of south County Kilkenny would have to be moved into the Waterford constituency. I would be pleased with such a development for political reasons but that is an issue for another day.
I will tell Senator John Paul Phelan what Senator Browne has said.
Senator Mansergh mentioned that a section of south County Tipperary is included in the Waterford constituency. The possibility that some part of south Kilkenny might also transfer into the Waterford constituency is a nightmare.
I would be glad to devise a constituency especially for Senator Browne.
It would be good if Senator Bradford could do so.
I take this opportunity to put this issue of electoral boundaries on the agenda. Even the name of the Wicklow constituency is disingenuous and it should be renamed Wicklow North-Carlow East. North-east Carlow is quite a substantial section of the constituency and that should be acknowledged. Perhaps the Minister will give it back. I doubt the Minister will accept my amendment but I cannot be sure.
I will not, by analogy, press for a renaming of my constituency to Tipperary South-Waterford West. Senator Browne has a valid point in that county council boundaries often do not coincide substantially with electoral boundaries. In County Tipperary, for example, we have North Tipperary County Council and South Tipperary County Council and two electoral constituencies, Tipperary North and Tipperary South. However, the boundaries of the county councils and constituencies do not at all coincide with the result, for instance, that councillors serving on South Tipperary County Council cast their vote in Dáil elections in the Tipperary North constituency.
This causes difficulties in terms of making representations for the areas that arguably fall between two stools. The positive way of viewing this is that voters may be able to drum up Oireachtas Members in both constituencies on their behalf. On the other hand, however, issues may fall through the cracks. Changes in regard to electoral boundaries are dependent to some degree on population. Nevertheless, I hope that when this exercise is again undertaken, after the next election, this matter will be considered by the commission.
There may be a perception that the situation in County Tipperary is entirely straightforward in that the constituencies are close to the national average in terms of representation in proportion to population. However, there is this complication of the crossover of county council and constituency areas. Another issue is that much of the rural hinterland of Tipperary town that for decades was part of the Tipperary South constituency has gradually been transferred into the Tipperary North constituency. Many people living in that area find it unsatisfactory that they are located at least 20 miles from Thurles and 30 miles from Nenagh. Some have to travel across mountains to access the services available in the central locations of the Tipperary North constituency.
I am not sure why a part of west Waterford has been included for some time in the Tipperary South constituency. One must go up a mountain track to reach this part of County Waterford, which is four or five miles from Clonmel. It seems evident there will be substantial population swings by the time of the next census. For example, most of the towns in Tipperary are growing rapidly for the first time. This may make it possible to introduce some rationalisation of the electoral boundaries. It is desirable that this should be done and that towns should be connected more effectively with their hinterlands. Any such changes in regard to County Tipperary should conform, if possible, to the boundary line between north County Tipperary and south County Tipperary.
In the context of the electoral system, county boundaries represent a system that has developed historically. There is no constitutional requirement in this regard and the Constitution does not mention counties. Legal cases have been taken in regard to this and in one of them, the O'Donovan case, Mr. Justice Budd confirmed that the Constitution was not binding in this regard. Its terms of reference require the electoral commission to adhere as far as practicable to county boundaries but there is no constitutional obligation to do so.
I hope the Minister does not mind that he is being brought on a tour of the State. When Galway city became a borough it got some territory from surrounding rural areas. There was no great problem in this regard and the transfer was agreed between the two local authorities involved. However, difficulties have arisen in this regard in other areas. Senator Dooley gave the example of Limerick city taking territory from County Clare.
I ask Senator Kitt to deal with the amendments under consideration.
I wish to give an example as other Members have done. Senator Dooley presented the example of County Clare, which might have been entitled to five seats if it had kept its territory intact. Unfortunately, this did not happen. A similar situation obtains where Ballinasloe Town Council borders County Roscommon. The Minister is aware of the existence of such issues. We will not resolve them today. I present examples in which it may be simple to change the borough territory, such as Galway city and county. However, it is difficult to do so where adjoining counties are concerned. I would like the Minister to keep that in mind.
This discussion is very interesting. Senator Brady is correct on the 1961 Mr. Justice Budd judgment in the O'Donovan case. That was an interesting decision because most of what we have to say on the Constitution and the variance between the numbers of seats and Deputies flows from that judgment. Mr. Justice Budd made the observation that counties do not have a constitutional existence. They exist in law and practice since the 12th century and because we are close to them. Had we decided at the foundation of the State not to name constituencies after counties but according to a different nomenclature, such as electoral districts one to 42, we would not find ourselves in this ongoing debate. We are where we are, however.
To accept amendment No. 7 or amendment No. 10 would be to violate the decision of the commission. I am aware it is not the opposing party's intention to press the issue. We have to support the decision made by the commission. The issue noted by Senator Browne is correct. Deputy Timmons and I spend a lot of time in that small area of north-east County Carlow. For a debate in the Dáil, I calculated that, discounting driving, the per capita time I spend conducting constituency clinics in north-east County Carlow is longer by a factor of four to five than the time I spend in Bray, the town in which I live and where the population is located. As an Oireachtas Member, I have the job of covering the whole constituency. This poses problems. It is frustrating to look through the back window of my house at a chunk of land that has a Bray postal address but is located in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown constituency. The people living there feel cut off because a green patch separates them from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. It is difficult to attain perfection in this matter.
Returning to the matters raised by other contributions, if we start fiddling with names, we would have to make changes in north-east counties Cork and Carlow and elsewhere. The nomenclature issue becomes difficult at that stage. I am aware that amendments No. 7 and 10 are not being pressed. In accordance with the principle we all established that the commission should be supported, I would not be in a position to accept them if they are pressed. The debate is worth having, however.
A census is due in 2006. The Government would have us believe that it will remain in power until 2007. Recent weeks would suggest otherwise but we may return to a different political scenario in the new term. If the census is carried out in 2006 and figures are available by the time a general election is held in 2007, will there be a revisit and a rethinking of constituencies? A few months ago, an article in The Sunday Tribune reported that almost half of Dáil constituencies may be under-represented by 2006. If the election is held in 2007, numerous court challenges may be held. The Minister might clarify that point.
This touches on issues of constitutionality. A court challenge may be made at any time to any matter. By the time the election takes place in the spring or early summer of 2007——
What exact date?
Sometime in May, if I was a betting man. The Taoiseach likes long nights.
When the weather kicks in.
Let us not follow that route.
We will not discuss the date of the next election.
It is an interesting question. If the election was held at that time——
What time are we talking about?
We will not discuss the date of the next election.
I am talking about May 2007.
Good. That is very helpful.
If the election is held earlier, this debate would not be pertinent. If the election is held in May 2007, we will at best have the preliminary report from the 2006 census. Two documents will be published. The preliminary report was mentioned in The Sunday Tribune article, which, while I queried some of the issues raised therein, represented a good piece of journalism.
The preliminary report has no legal status. The argument has been made that, as the difference between the preliminary census report for the whole country and the final report which is published as volume 1 is only a couple of hundred people, it does not matter. However, it does matter because one must, if going before a commission on constituency revision which has legal status and addresses a constitutional issue, present the final version of the document. One cannot present the preliminary document.
Practical reasons exist for this. When the commission considers the data it possesses to draw up new constituency boundaries, it has to descend through electoral divisions as far as the smallest electoral unit. The variances between the preliminary and the final report may be found there. While the difference between the overall population figures contained in the preliminary and the final statutory reports may be 400 or fewer, the variations at the micro-level may be substantial. As Members know, a handful of votes may make all the difference on election day. It is better to get the registration right than to face that circumstance.
Will there be a legal challenge? Who can say? People with deep pockets can challenge anything. We have to make certain, when drafting this legislation, that we operate to the best of faith within constitutional case law. This law is based on the opinion of Mr. Justice Budd and subsequent Supreme Court judgments. Preceding Mr. Justice Budd's 1961 judgment is a discussion of the output that the census should use. The judge makes it clear — this is where constitutional case law arises — that one should operate based on the final and complete report rather than the preliminary one. I thank Senator Browne for presenting me the opportunity to address that issue in this House.
Is amendment No. 7 being pressed?
It is being withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 11 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Who will move amendment No. 8?
I will do so in the absence of Senator Bannon.
He is in Athlone.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, column 2, line 6, to delete "'Wicklow"' and substitute "'Wicklow-North East Carlow".
There is not much need to expand on the amendment. It gives constituencies a proper title.
The amendments are being discussed together.
Senator Bradford may speak to amendment No. 9. Amendments Nos. 8 and 11 are similar. County Sligo is with south County Leitrim and County Roscommon is with north County Leitrim.
Leave that to me.
They have been given proper titles. Senator Bradford and I want the constituencies to be given proper geographical titles so as to reflect their contents. The constituency of Wicklow is misleading. It is County Wicklow and a sizeable section of north-east County Carlow. That could be reflected in its title.
I am grateful to Senator Browne because, in the context of this amendment, he anticipated the point I was about to make. He used the example of the proposed division of County Leitrim. I do not understand why the commission decided to attach this designation under its new dispensation. Not only has it split the county, but it accentuates the division that many of us have been attempting to heal for decades. In all previous legislation on Sligo-Leitrim, Donegal-Leitrim——
That would be more appropriate when we discuss——
It is in the context of——
We are discussing——
We are, but the argument used——
——Wicklow and Wicklow North-East.
However, the argument——
We will discuss the Schedule afterwards and that will be the appropriate time to debate this matter.
I fully appreciate that ruling. I was waiting for it. The argument used to pursue this amendment——
Senator Mooney can put all of those arguments when we discuss the Schedule.
I do not mind. I am valid in making the comparison——
The Senator will be valid when we discuss the Schedule. We are discussing an amendment that does not make reference to that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 5, column 1, line 11, to delete "Cork East" and substitute "Cork North-East".
I accept what the Minister stated on the previous amendments, that since the introduction of the independent electoral commission the political parties have accepted per se the recommendations from the various commissions in totality. I have no difficulty with that. We generally accept the constituencies, whether they are redrawn or remain in place. For the general elections of 1969, 1973, 1977 and 1981 the constituency I formerly represented was termed Cork North-East. The next commission, without revising the constituency, perhaps only adding one or two townlands, renamed the constituency Cork East.
Any member of this House or any person with reasonable knowledge of Irish geography knows will that towns such as Mallow, Mitchelstown and Fermoy are as much north Cork as any town can be. If one examines the components of the Cork East constituency one sees the rural districts of Mallow, Mitchelstown and Fermoy are included. I request that we revert to the position of the 1960s and 1970s. Last night or the night before the Cathaoirleach met the former Dáil Deputy, Mr. Dick Barry who represented that constituency for a generation when it was called Cork North-East. The people of Mitchelstown, Mallow and Fermoy clearly live in the geographical area of north Cork. They also live in the north Cork council and administrative areas. The constituency title should reflect that.
I do not question the work of the commission. The name of a constituency is of least concern to it. Obviously I could not make a submission to the commission concerning this issue. If a submission was made it would have been on the basis of second-guessing that the commission would allow the constituency to remain in place.
Yes.
As it turned out, the Cork East constituency was the only Cork constituency untouched and unaffected by the commission. There was little point in suggesting to the commission that if it did A, it should be titled B. I did not make a submission on the title of the constituency. The Minister may not be able to respond favourably.
It is common sense.
I am not second-guessing the redrawing of any constituency. I simply ask that the constituency be termed what it was previously termed, which was its absolutely correct geographical title, Cork North-East.
I hesitate to take issue with a Cork Senator although many of my ancestors came from Cork. What Senator Bradford argues is tradition versus geography. In any common sense definition, places such as Youghal, Cloyne and Midleton are in east Cork and not north-east Cork. I assume it was done because it is a more accurate geographical description, which on the whole should be preferred even if tradition goes with another description.
I will return to the point I made earlier. This is essentially an issue of nomenclature and does not interfere with the principles of the commission. I must admit to the House, being a truthful man and a novice in office, that when this issue first arose I was disposed to agreeing. I then received advice as to why I should not, which is why I mentioned the nomenclature earlier. If we had decided to name the constituencies as, say, electoral districts 1 to 42, it would have lost the attraction and the romance——
It would have lost the flavour.
——of the title of the county but it would also have got rid of much of this debate. I understand the point made about Cork North-East. It seems to be a common sense geographical definition. Carlow and Wicklow are mentioned. What would we call that? Would it be Wicklow North-East Carlow? Then there would be Kilkenny and the rest of Carlow. It becomes odd as we go down the list. Part of Meath West is included in Westmeath. Senator Mansergh only dipped his toe in it. Tipperary would be extremely confusing. Tipperary North includes the northern part of the administrative area of Tipperary South. Limerick East has a small part of County Clare. Tipperary South touches on parts of Waterford.
All of the constituency Senator Bradford is discussing is in County Cork.
I suggest to Senator Bradford if this causes offence locally a submission should be made to the next commission. At that stage the population will have changed and he might be worried about more than nomenclature.
He will be in the Dáil by then.
I am happy where I am.
No doubt if he gets there——
If he gets back there.
——it will be deserved because he made a distinguished contribution when he was there. He has been a good and constructive representative both there and here.
If we were to make this change in one or two constituencies we would have to make it in quite a few others. I am not in a position to accept the amendment. I am not unsympathetic. When I thought it was simply north-east Carlow and Wicklow I was most disposed to agreeing but on seeing the floodgates that would open I must refuse the amendment.
With all due respect to the Minister I do not see that the south coast of Cork can reasonably be called north-east. I accept that might apply to Mallow and Mitchelstown but I do not see how it applies to places such as Youghal, Midleton and Cloyne.
That issue is between Senators. I will not enter into discussion.
Senator Mansergh already made that point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."
I am watching proceedings even though Leitrim has been eliminated.
I thank the Senator for his observance.
I thank the Cathaoirleach for his indulgence.
The Leitrim Observer is watching.
I will speak on the Schedule and the new designation of Sligo-North Leitrim and Roscommon-South Leitrim. I understand the Minister's firm position on refusing to accept amendments, and do not expect him to argue it again. I wish to make my argument. The first electoral changes to Leitrim, and the first breach of the county boundaries, were in 1961. The designations used were Sligo-Leitrim and Roscommon-Leitrim. In 1969, the then Minister with responsibility for local government, Mr. Boland, in his wisdom decided it was not enough to split Leitrim in two and split it in three. He created an enclave around Kinlough, near Bundoran, where he took 8,000 Leitrim voters to prop up south Donegal which at the time, like most of the western seaboard, was haemorrhaging people.
In regard to the other two constituencies comprising 11,000 voters, it is rather interesting to look at the figures now. That would be a total of 30,000. The current population of the county officially is 25,000. Eight thousand came under the new designation of Leitrim. The commission did not make any designation of territory in terms of Sligo-Leitrim, Roscommon-Leitrim. Under one of the Minister's predecessors, Jim Tully, a further revision was made and again the designation by the Minister was in terms of Roscommon-Leitrim, Sligo-Leitrim.
The first commission did its revision under the Lynch Administration and after 20 years it restored the county to a single political entity. That argument was redundant, therefore, until today. Considering that we have been speaking in this debate about legal precedent and constitutional positions, I do not understand how the commission decided that the new designation should be Sligo-North Leitrim and Roscommon-South Leitrim. There was no precedent for that. The point I was making earlier about Leitrim, as the Minister is fully aware, and as the House is by now even more aware to the point of mild irritation and a good deal of boredom, to which the Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, devoted a significant part of his Second Stage contribution, and I pay tribute to him for that, is that there is deep hurt in County Leitrim but it is as much about the psychological impact it is having on the county rather than any political fallout.
On the psychological impact, I quoted the former Senator, the late Paddy O'Reilly, in an earlier debate not necessarily relevant to constituency change, when he referred to the geographical make-up of County Leitrim as a "geographical monstrosity" because the drumlin hills are on one side and there are mountains on the other. The Minister and I have often spoken about history, going back to the 12th century, the creation of the counties and the divide and conquer policy of the English at the time. In our part of the country they split up the traditional Breffni Ó Raghallaigh and Breffni O'Rourke and created this "geographical monstrosity", as the late Senator O'Reilly called it.
Nothing to do with me.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the esteemed Leader of the House.
A Senator
Her antecedents.
Perhaps it is my antecedents.
Since that time there has been an effect on the psyche of people from the north of the county who, as the Minister will know from his many visits, as will other Senators, including Senator McHugh, who is closest to me geographically. The people refer to themselves as coming from north Leitrim but there is no north Leitrim entity. It is something that goes back to the mists of time. People from the south of the county, however, do not refer to themselves as coming from south Leitrim. I can make that point because I am in the middle, so to speak, in Drumshanbo. We can look down on both of them. We are the true Leitrim people.
I must say to the Minister, through the Chair, that it is the GAA which is to blame for all of this; I hope he understands that. This is nothing to do with constitutional commissions. This is to do with the GAA, which nurtured, engendered and cultivated the concept of county identity, which has got everybody riled across the country.
I think the Senator is right.
1890.
Exactly. From 1884 on the county was sacrosanct and one wonders what might have happened if the GAA had not arrived. I say that with my tongue very firmly in my cheek but there is a historical reality to that as well.
In the context of the Schedule, in addition to the deep hurt caused to many people in Leitrim there is also the deep psychological impact of not only splitting the county politically but also putting them under these designations. I realise the Minister cannot do anything about that; it is like a sacred cow. It is even worse than the United Nations. The United Nations is a great institution, notwithstanding its flaws. This report is being presented as a great achievement. I understand we cannot touch it because it will unravel everything. I understand also the political reality but I have to put on the record that this report is condemning the county of Leitrim to another identity crisis until such time as another commission is put in place.
I will conclude on a positive note about which Senator Brady will be aware. A report presented to Leitrim County Council two weeks ago based on the statistical evidence of new house buildings and various other improvements in the county indicated that the current population of Leitrim is estimated at over 28,000. It must be borne in mind that according to the last census the population was 25,100 or 25,200,
It is growing.
This is a marvellous achievement and the Minister deserves great credit for the job he is doing in his Department, as do all the other members of the Fianna Fáil Administration.
Senator Mooney made some valid points. I have an interest in this as well because in 1969, part of Leitrim was in part of Donegal South. I have done some study of this matter. Regarding the Minister's own constituency, in 1921, Kildare and Wicklow were one constituency but as a general trend there has not been much movement. In fairness to the case made for Leitrim, however, Leitrim has been bandied about, so to speak, going from Roscommon to Sligo to Donegal.
I could think of a few more words.
Perhaps people should have a voice on future commissions.
In regard to Donegal, in the 1918 Westminster elections, Donegal had four constituencies — North, South, East and West — and as late as 1977 we had one constituency. To return to a point raised earlier by the Minister, people want a connectivity with their politicians. That desire is growing and we should focus on it. Perhaps in time Donegal could be a four-seater constituency again if the trend continues. Leitrim may even have a constituency of its own.
We had one from 1927 to 1949.
The constituency of Leitrim?
The constituency of County Leitrim.
On the commission report, there are issues we can deliberate on in the future. It is an excellent report and the people involved must have put a good deal of effort into it. I congratulate the people involved, one of whom is the Clerk of the Seanad, Deirdre Lane. I commend the report and the people involved for all their hard work.
I take up that positive note from Senator McHugh because I had written a note to myself to both welcome and congratulate the boundary commission, its independence and the independence of its findings. It is an entity in itself that is not subject to any political compulsion and it has produced a wonderful report. I understand the reason Senator Mooney could not congratulate the members of the commission.
I have a particular cause for joy because I am very happy that Westmeath will be linked with Longford again. I started my career as a Deputy for Longford-Westmeath and I intend to end my career as a Deputy for Longford-Westmeath.
It is out of the closet now.
It is not out of the closet now. I have found that the Shannon binds us instead of dividing us, as was the case in its previous exposition. The former Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds, and I co-existed very happily——
Do tell us more.
——despite appearances. If the Cathaoirleach will give me some licence I want to refer to a place called Tang.
I know it.
I am sure the Cathaoirleach knows it. There was a councillor living there. Tang is two miles from Ballymahon. It is a small townland. It is not a village. There is a school there but not a pub.
Are we in Longford now?
There is also a church. As one approaches the townland there is a sign which states "Welcome to County Westmeath" but the people of Ballymahon go to mass in Tang. They have two masses in Tang said by a priest who believes in short masses. There was a famous Battle of Tang in 988. The book about Cornelius Rabbit of Tang should not be confused with the Battle of Tang. I arrived at the church with my truck, my guys and my microphone. Then Albert arrived with his truck, his guys and his microphone, and it became a question of what would happen. We knew the priest was nearing completion in the church because we had a scout going inside to keep us informed. We did not know what would happen or whether we were going to drown out one another. However, a very nice councillor from Longford said "Get up on the one truck the two of ye. Aren't ye both Fianna Fáil?" We did, and we said our piece.
I welcome Longford back into the constituency. The people of Longford and Westmeath are strong soul-mates. I have retained great friendships all over Longford since I ran, but particularly in north Longford. I look forward to renewing those acquaintanceships and friendships, and to working together in a voting sense.
That is a convention speech.
It was very moving.
There is much sympathy in the House with the case of Leitrim. I come from what is in another sense a partitioned county. I have sometimes felt it was partitioned in 1838 as the most troubled county in Ireland, and that perhaps there was an element of divide and rule about that. However, there are certain practicalities in that regard.
The question raised was where the counties would be without the GAA, which is a sound point. It is one of the great ironies of history that the counties that were quintessentially English creations are today quintessentially GAA creations. However, if we did not have the GAA, every other Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government would change county boundaries. None of us would know from one year to the next the name of the administrative unit we were supposed to be living in. That is what has happened in large areas across the water due to endless local government reform. In many ways, I would say: "Thank God for the GAA."
One point relevant to the future involves the issue of the minus 11% tolerance. In the particular circumstances, although it had not been lived with before, perhaps we should have lived with it to keep Leitrim together. With regard to the total for all the constituencies, it would not have taken that much skin off anyone's nose.
I could not agree more.
When one is talking about the county with the smallest population, which certainly lives up to its reputation as being "lovely Leitrim", a little more tolerance should be shown if that type of issue should arise again, although I am not suggesting we have unlimited tolerance. If Sligo-Leitrim had been left alone, I wonder whether there would have been a revolt or whether the Supreme Court would have knocked it down.
While I question that decision, I am a strong supporter of the system and of the convention that one does not change a recommendation. Anything we may say comes under the heading "for future reference".
If one wants to discover anything about the geography of Ireland, even interesting events like the Battle of Tang, the place to come is Seanad Éireann.
On the last point, to be fair, the commission did not have that option. If one considers the judgment in the O'Donovan case and the constitutional law provisions, Mr. Justice Budd suggested a figure of plus or minus 5%. To go beyond that would certainly lead to a constitutional challenge.
I do not understand why north Leitrim does not want to be called "north Leitrim"——
It does.
——-and south Leitrim "south Leitrim".
The south does not see it the same way.
I understand. It is usual that the north side and south side have difficult relationships, but there you are.
We are quite happy on the north side and south side of Dublin.
It disrupts the karma.
Leaving karma and all the rest aside, I will continue to support the commission's finding with regard to Leitrim, although I fully understand the hurt felt on the issue.
On another point, I can only claim credit for the four children I have. I cannot claim any credit for the——
We gathered that. It was the development we were talking about.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
During the run-up to an election, the three-week period to register to vote creates a farcical situation. In many cases, people must go to their Garda station but when they do, the green man is on the door and the station is shut. They cannot register and must go away. Most of those who have not registered are busy people. I heard of one case in which several people had to travel from Naas to Maynooth. When they arrived at the Garda station there, the green man was on the door. Of course, the green man——
He does not speak.
——-does not speak and could not do anything for them. Such people leave the Garda station disillusioned. They say "To hell with them. We are not going to register at all". They forget about it and do not bother to register. Something will have to be done in this regard. There should be some way of getting a form and registering with the local authority. The system is not satisfactory at present.
When the Minister cogitates about electoral register reform and the process leading to it, he might consider my strong belief that there should be no opinion polls for approximately three weeks before the vote. Padraig Flynn, a much demonised person now, introduced an amendment in the Seanad to a local authority Bill with regard to voting and opinion polls which was voted down, although I am not blaming those who voted it down. Be that as it may, opinion polls alter the way people intend to vote. For the election period and the tight three weeks between names being registered and voting day, opinion polls should not be allowed in any constituency. I know Deputy Hogan has put this point strongly on behalf of Fine Gael. However, I am not saying this to engage the interest of the Opposition but because it causes distortion.
Far worse than opinion polls are planted opinion polls, such as was carried out in Meath and given to a local newspaper despite being completely incorrect. What chance has a candidate going forward for election? I distinctly remember that one week before the election in 2002 a local newspaper, the Westmeath Independent, which is the Athlone newspaper, stated my poll results were so impossibly high I would break all barriers. When I called at a door after that, people asked why I was coming around or why was I killing myself canvassing. It was difficult to change that perception.
This area would make for a very fertile Private Members' Bill, although the Minister might have his own ideas on that.
I thank the Minister and his officials, as well the Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, who introduced the debate, for a very interesting debate on Second Stage. The Minister was about to say what I want to say. The debate was very good humoured. In many ways we were very frustrated because we were not going to make changes if we accepted the commission. Ministers from all parties have chopped and changed, resulting in part of north Galway being in the same constituency as south Roscommon and part of south Galway being included with north Clare. These are some examples of the gerrymandering that took place. A commission was badly needed though if we comprised the members of the commission we might do it differently. I thank the Minister and his officials for their work and we look forward to the Minister coming back to the House. At that stage he might deal with some of the ideas put forward that are not dealt with in the Bill.
I thank the Minister and welcome the issuing of guidelines in the autumn. These will be presented to the joint Oireachtas committee. This is central to the democratic process. I am glad to be able to go home to Donegal and report to the three pensioners whose votes were intercepted in the last local election that there will be a full examination of the present system.
I thank the Senators who have contributed to this good natured, constructive debate. The issues considered were wide-ranging and issues relating to nomenclature will factor into the discussions of the next commission.
Regarding Senator Paddy Burke's point about the green man at Garda stations, in circumstances where the green man cannot stamp one's card it is possible to go to the local authority. Perhaps this is not very well known and should be examined in discussions in the autumn. In addition to thanking the Senators who made a contribution I also thank the staff of the House who dealt with the Bill in an expeditious manner. I wish everyone who has a practical and personal interest in the matters discussed the best of luck in the new constituencies when they come into effect in the next general election of May 2007.
Question put and agreed to.