Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 5 Mar 2013

Vol. 221 No. 10

Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill 2012: Second Stage

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

The purpose of the Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill 2012 is to provide for the number of Members of Dáil Éireann, revise Dáil constituencies in the light of the results of census 2011 and provide for the number of Members to be elected for such constituencies. In the programme for Government we committed to reducing the number of Deputies following the publication of the results of the 2011 census of population. A first step towards achieving this was taken in the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2011, in which the range for the total number of Members of the Dáil was set at not less than 153 and not more than 160. The Bill provides for a total number of 158 Members of the Dáil and delivers on the programme for Government. We will see this change in the 32nd Dáil.

In debating and deciding on the Bill the Oireachtas will meet its constitutional obligation to review and revise constituencies with due regard to changes in the distribution of population. We have legislative provision for supporting the Oireachtas in this task. The Electoral Act 1997 provides for the establishment of a constituency commission and for that commission to report to the Ceann Comhairle. The most recent commission reported to him on 21 June 2012. The Government gave consideration to the recommendations of the commission and agreed to implement them. The Bill provides for this.

While the Oireachtas has in the Electoral Act 1997 made additional provisions for constituency reviews and revisions, it is the provisions in the Constitution which have primacy. Bunreacht na hÉireann makes clear and distinct provision for the membership of Dáil Éireann. Article 16.2.2° provides that: "The number of members shall from time to time be fixed by law, but the total number of members of Dáil Éireann shall not be fixed at less than one member for each thirty thousand of the population or at more than one member for each twenty thousand of the population". During the years the ratio has tended to be at a lower to middle end of the scale. With 166 Members and based on the 2011 population, there is one Member to every 27,640 of the population. The ratio was 25,541 per Member at the last revision. As a result of the Bill, the ratio will be one Member to every 29,040 of the population. While this is the highest ever ratio in the State, it is within the constitutional limit.

Article 16.2.3° of the Constitution provides that: "The ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country". This is not currently the case. For example, the population to Member ratio, based on the results of census 2011, in the constituency of Laois-Offaly is 11% above the national average, while in Kildare South, it is 9% above. In Kildare North it is more than 8% above the national average. At the same time, it is 10% below the national average in Dublin North Central, 8% below in Dublin South Central and more than 7% below in Limerick city. The ratio between the number of Members and the population of each constituency, based on the most recent census, is not the same throughout the country. This requirement is qualified in the Constitution by the phrase "as far as practicable".

The Bill addresses the need for the ratio to be the same so far as it is practicable by providing for an arrangement of constituencies that allows for a high level of parity of representation. In all of the constituencies specified in the Bill the variance from the national average representation of one Member to every 29,040 of the population is within 5%. The national average is based on the total population of the State as ascertained in census 2011 divided by 158, the number of Deputies to be in the next Dáil.

This constitutional provision was considered by the courts in two cases in 1961 - the High Court case of John O'Donovan v. the Attorney General and the Supreme Court reference case relating to the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 1961. It was considered again in the High Court case taken by Deputies McGrath and Murphy in 2007 when it was argued that the constituencies on which the general election was being fought at the time did not comply with the requirement in Article 16 of the Constitution. In none of these cases did the courts quantify a precise degree of equality of representation required by the Constitution.

Article 16.2.4° of the Constitution provides that "The Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once in every twelve years, with due regard to changes in distribution of the population". This, in effect, requires that constituencies be revised whenever population changes ascertained in a census lead to population-Deputy ratios in individual constituencies that are significantly out of line with the national average. That is the case and the Oireachtas must respond accordingly.

Provision is made in section 5 of the Electoral Act 1997 for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to set up a commission to report on Dáil and European constituencies on the publication of the census report setting out the preliminary census result. The terms of reference of the commission are specified in the Act. These are, of course, subordinate to the relevant constitutional provisions.

The commission that reported in June 2012 was the fourth commission established under the 1997 Act. This was the first occasion on which a statutory commission was required to carry out a review of constituencies on the basis of a reduced number of Members of Dáil Éireann. It was also the first statutory commission established with authority to work on the publication of preliminary census results. This was in response to the 2007 High Court judgment in the Murphy-McGrath case. The court in that case had regard to the constitutional requirements and the high quality of the Central Statistics Office preliminary population data. It concluded that consideration should be given to the initiation of constituency revisions on publication of the CSO preliminary report on a census, with the revision work being completed when the final data were available. In 2009 the Oireachtas responded to that judgment by amending the Electoral Act 1997 to provide for the earlier establishment of a constituency commission.

The starting point, therefore, for the work of the constituency commission I established in the summer of 2011 was the preliminary census results. The commission remarks in its report that, in the event, no material differences emerged between the preliminary and final census results, but the ability to begin the preparatory work greatly facilitated the commission's timely completion of its mandate. It reported that the initial work of analysis of the effects of population changes and the reduction in membership was undertaken by reference to the preliminary census results published on 30 June 2011. The recommendations from this work were then formulated and confirmed on the basis of the definitive census results published on 29 March 2012. The report on the final results of the 2011 census of population showed the total population of the State as 4.59 million, an increase of 8.2% on the 2006 population. The commission had three months after the publication of these results within which to complete its work.

I will outline the main features of the commission's reports regarding Dáil constituencies. The commission recommended that the number of Members of Dáil Éireann be 158. It recommends that there be 11 five seat constituencies - the same number as at present; 16 four seat constituencies - one more than at present; and 13 three seat constituencies - four fewer than at present. That gives a total of 40 constituencies. The commission recommends that 11 constituencies remain unchanged. These are, as they are listed in the commission report, Longford-Westmeath, Meath East, Carlow-Kilkenny, Wexford, Louth, Meath West, Cork East, Wicklow, Clare, Dublin Mid-West and Cork South-West. The commission reported that it had considered making these constituencies conterminous with the relevant county boundaries. However, to have done so would have either resulted in variances in some of the constituencies concerned, which the commission considered unacceptable, or required changes to adjoining constituencies. The commission states in its report that it was satisfied, in the light of the constitutional requirements and its terms of reference, that the existing arrangement was acceptable from the point of view of equality of representation.

The commission recommended changes to constituencies in the following areas: Cork, Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Cavan and Monaghan, Dublin, Galway, Mayo and Roscommon, Kerry and Limerick, Waterford, Tipperary, Laois, Offaly and Kildare. In the Cork area the commission recommended a reduction of one seat to take account of the population as ascertained in census 2011 and in the context of a 158 seat Dáil. It recommended maintaining the existing five constituency formation in Cork but with the transfer of electoral divisions from Cork North Central to Cork North-West and from Cork South Central to Cork North Central. Acceptance of these recommendations in the Bill before us provides for an improvement in the representational ratio in these constituencies relative to the new national average of one Deputy per 29,040 of the population.

In the Dublin area the commission recommended a reduction of three seats in the context of a 158 Member Dáil. One constituency in the area - Dublin Mid-West - remains unchanged. Change is recommended in the configuration of all other constituencies and the names of four constituencies. The commission recommended an arrangement of constituencies outside the city that mirrors, as far as is practicable, the administrative county boundaries. The population, as ascertained in census 2011, allows this to be done and the Bill provides for the adoption of the commission's recommendations for the area.

In Dublin city there will be one less constituency, reflecting both the population as ascertained in census 2011 and a smaller Dáil.

The commission made recommendations for constituencies in Donegal, Sligo-Leitrim and Cavan-Monaghan, having examined a range of options for the area as a whole which are outlined in the report. It identified the particular challenges presented in reviewing constituencies in these counties. They include the fact that Donegal is contiguous with only one other county - Leitrim. Also, having regard to the population as ascertained in census 2011, an arrangement of constituencies based exclusively on county boundaries is not feasible. In the Galway-Mayo-Roscommon area the reconfiguration of constituencies recommended precludes direct comparison with the current seat allocation for the area, as it does also in the rest of Connacht and Ulster, but having regard to the population as ascertained in census 2011, an arrangement of constituencies based exclusively on county boundaries is not feasible. As the commission points out, the population of County Mayo can no longer form a five seat constituency, while County Roscommon does not have a sufficient population to stand alone as a constituency.

Implementation of the recommendations made in the Bill means the Connacht-Ulster area will be divided into seven constituencies instead of eight, as is the case at present. The seven constituencies will be represented by 28 Deputies compared to 31 at present.

In the Kerry-Limerick area the commission recommended a reduction of one seat to take account of the population as ascertained in census 2011 and in the context of a 158 seat Dáil. It recommended that County Kerry should form a five seat constituency; that there be two Limerick constituencies, namely, a four seat Limerick city constituency based on the existing constituency, with the addition of ten electoral divisions from the county, and a three seat Limerick county constituency.

In the Waterford, Tipperary, Laois-Offaly and Kildare area the commission recommended no change to the overall allocation of 22 seats. However, significant changes to constituency arrangements are recommended which address, in particular, the representational imbalance in Laoighis-Offaly and County Kildare that I mentioned.

The commission recommended that Waterford be a four seat constituency comprising all of the county and city area, thus ending the breach of the Waterford county boundary. There should be a new five seat Tipperary constituency, comprising 93% of the population of the county. County Offaly, with some population from County Tipperary, will form a three seat constituency. County Laois, with some population from County Kildare, will form another new three seat constituency. There should be a small realignment between the Kildare constituencies which should remain as a four seat North Kildare constituency and a three seat South Kildare constituency.

The commission was also required to report on the constituencies for the election of Members of the European Parliament. It recommended maintaining the existing arrangement of constituencies for the election of Ireland's 12 Members to the European Parliament. I am not, therefore, bringing forward in this Bill amendments to the Third Schedule to the European Parliament Elections Act 1997 in which the constituencies for European Parliament elections and the number of Members to be elected for each constituency are specified. However, as I have acknowledged recently in replies to parliamentary questions in the Dáil, the situation regarding the number of MEPs to be elected to represent Ireland in the next European Parliament is evolving. That is because there is a need to adjust the distribution of seats in the European Parliament to take account of the accession of Croatia this year. This is done on the initiative of the European Parliament which will vote on 14 March on a recommendation from its constitutional affairs committee on the composition of the European Parliament for the 2014-2019 term. The recommendation includes a reduction, from 12 to 11, in the number of representatives to be elected in Ireland. After the vote in the European Parliament, the matter will go to the European Council for decision by unanimity and with the consent of the European Parliament. In the event that the number of MEPs to be elected to represent Ireland is reduced, it will be necessary to review and revise the constituency arrangements. This issue can be addressed once decisions are made in the European Union. In the meantime, my Department is giving consideration to how such a review might be carried out, having regard to the provisions of the relevant legislation, that is, the Electoral Act 1997 and the European Parliament Elections Act 1997.

I will now outline the provisions contained in the Bill. The Bill generally mirrors previous Bills providing for the revision of Dáil constituencies following a census of population. Section 1 defines "Minister" as Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government for the purposes of the Bill. It also provides for the interpretation of the words "motorway", "road" and "street" in the Schedule to the Bill.

Section 2 provides that the number of Members of Dáil Éireann will be 158 after the dissolution of the Dáil next following the enactment of the Bill. Section 3 provides that after the dissolution of the Dáil next following the enactment of the Bill, the Members of Dáil Éireann will represent the 40 constituencies specified in the Schedule. Section 4 provides that the number of Members to be returned to each constituency will be as set out in the third column of the Schedule.

Section 5 provides for the repeal of sections 2(2), 3, 4 and 5 and the Schedule to the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2009. These specify the existing Dáil constituencies. The repeal will come into operation on the dissolution of Dáil Éireann next following the enactment of the Bill. This means that the existing constituencies will remain in place for the purposes of by-elections in the meantime.

They will also remain in place during the period for the purposes of referendum Acts. Section 6 contains standard provisions on title, collective citation and construction.

The Bill before the House represents a continuation of the long-established practice of implementing the recommendations of the independent Constituency Commission in full. It provides for the revision of Dáil constituencies having regard to the latest census of population. I commend it to the House.

I welcome the Minister to the House, as always. We in Sligo have grave reservations about the report of the Constituency Commission and the Bill. While I appreciate that the practice has become the automatic acceptance of the recommendations of the independent Constituency Commission, I recall that a former Taoiseach said Governments should not be bound by independent commissions or committees. The Government should weight up the pros and cons of a particular set of proposals. If it were simply a question of accepting the conclusions of independent reports, there would be little need for Government. It would just be a rubber-stamping exercise. At times, we require the expertise of Government, which has its finger on the pulse, to interpret how best to take proposals forward.

While I wholeheartedly welcome the reunification of Leitrim, the break-up of which, presided over by the previous Government, was wrong, the butchering of Cavan and Donegal and the splitting up of counties generally is fundamentally wrong. While I appreciate that when using a particular set of formulae it is not possible to respect county boundaries absolutely, there is a culture in this country which is reflected by county boundaries. There are people who might be close to a particular service in the next county but who choose to go to their local county town for administrative and service purposes. The challenge for the Houses of the Oireachtas, irrespective of the conclusions of any independent commission, is to come up with a formula that takes that into account, even if it means that from time to time that the normal criteria for Deputies per capita must be exceeded or not met. Counties must be kept together.

Fianna Fáil will table an amendment on Committee Stage to address the apparent contempt of the Constituency Commission for the poor people of Cavan and Donegal in naming the proposed constituency "Sligo-Leitrim". What will Peter McVitie, a former Fine Gael candidate in west Cavan and sitting councillor, think of that one when he goes to the polls? What will Barry O'Neill, a former Fine Gael Dáil candidate and sitting councillor, think on going to the polls when he is told he is in Sligo-Leitrim and should go to Deputy John Perry in Ballymote to be looked after? He will be told his local Deputy lives 60 miles away.

We will get someone nearer.

The Minister might get someone nearer. Senator Michael Comiskey, who is sitting beside the Minister, might like to be the man who is nearer.

Excellent choice.

At a minimum, the proposed constituency name must be changed to "Donegal-Cavan-Sligo-Leitrim", or whatever. One cannot do that to people. It is simply wrong. That point made, Fianna Fáil reserves the right to table amendments on Committee Stage.

On the broader electoral reform agenda, I realise that we are waiting for an independent commission to interpret the new local election areas. I did not have the benefit of the Minister's presence when I made a contribution on the matter in the House previously. I know there will be a report but the criteria and terms of reference provided for local elections seem to leave it very much open for Kilkenny, Sligo and other borough councils to elect an additional five councillors where such a borough council is abolished. Based on a figure of 8,430, Sligo will be entitled to only the minimum number of 18 councillors, which applies everywhere. It should therefore be entitled to a further four to bring the number to 22. That stands to reason, as Sligo is the ninth largest urban centre in the country and is even larger than the Minister's own city of Kilkenny.

Population comes into play.

Of course population comes into play, but is the Minister, an educated man, saying to me with a straight face that 32,000 people in Leitrim require 18 councillors while 65,000 people in Sligo can survive on the same number while coping with the challenges of supporting the ninth largest urban centre in the State? If he is, he must examine that.

Term of reference No. 5, in particular, clearly states that, in addition to the minimum number being 18 councillors, where a borough councillor is lost there may be up to a maximum of another four members. I appeal to the Minister to examine that area.

On the issue of broader electoral reform, the problem in this country is that we have a great sense of community but no sense of state and the reason we have no sense of state is that we have no sense of ownership of the public policy platform being pursued by Government. We all play the game in this House and in the other House. Manifestos are prepared and, as the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, told us recently, this is what is done at elections. We make stuff up, buy the electorate, get into government and do with it what we want. We heard that on "The Week in Politics". My view is that autopilot mode immediately kicks in. The Parliament is subservient to the Cabinet of the day. Its members announce polices in their parliamentary party rooms, on which there may be a debate, and the whip comes down and that is what is voted through, end of story. That system needs to change. Government needs to be outside Parliament. It needs to have to sell its policies even to its own party members. In the same way as one would see in the United States and as in the United Kingdom, there needs to be three forms of whip, where there can be accommodation of conscience issues and people are able, without the wrath of the party or threat of expulsion, to voice real opinions on behalf of the people. Then they may feel that have more of a sense of state, more of a sense of ownership of the policy being pursued from time to time.

What we have in this country, and it is not a question of criticising the current Government or absolving those who were there in the past, is a functional, democratic dictatorship. That is the reality. When the Minister announces a measure, it will go through. One of the things I am against, and it is the last thing people want to hear, is a Senator talking about the abolition or maintenance of the Seanad. In general, I will be staying out of that debate but I would make one point. I find it incredible that a Government has effectively manipulated a scenario to guarantee the abolition of the Seanad. That is a fact and it will be proven to be correct. Dare I say it, when the Bill is published towards the end of this week, as we have been told, I wonder what it will be called; to me, Hitler called it the Enabling Act and we all know where that led, and I am not joking in that regard.

It is incredulous for the leadership of the mainstream parties of the day, whether it be Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Labour Party, to have put forward as an electoral stunt the abolition of this House when it was non-Senators who made sure that it was never reformed. We could do three things immediately without referring to Senator Crown's Bill or the 17 reports that were written. We could abolish the whip today, all EU scrutiny should be done by these Houses and all public appointments could be ratified by this House. That could be done between now and the referendum and it would not cost anything. The media do not cover this House. It is a done deal. The Seanad is going to be abolished. The media is supporting it, we have been elected to it as a stunt and the Government will have all the control. I wonder when the people were throwing out the Shah in Iran did they think the same and they woke up to the Ayatollah the next day. Was that the right thing to do?

On the matter of public appointments, we all despise the cronyism over the years. We heard many comments in opposition about how the Government was going to change this situation, how people would have to apply for jobs and their expertise would be judged and we all support that. Some 70 people applied for jobs in the Heritage Council and two people got the jobs. We can imagine how those 70 applicants felt when the two people who got the jobs did not even apply for them.

A 70-member board.

The people who got the jobs did not even apply for them. One is a former Labour Party press officer and the other was an activist in President Higgins's campaign.

They are well qualified.

In the defence of those people, it is possible because it is a small country to trace political lineage to anybody. I am sure those people are exceptionally well qualified to do that work but in the interests of their integrity, the process, the Heritage Council and particularly the 70 people who applied for those jobs, we need to know how that process was conducted. We are not doing either of these Houses any service----

The Senator has exceeded his time.

I thank the Acting Chairman for her indulgence.

I also welcome the Minister of the State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, to the House. The Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill 2012 was introduced on foot on the publication of the Constituency Commission report in 2010 and is part of the Government's programme of political reform. The Bill proposes, for the first time since 1980, a reduction in the numbers of Members of Dáil Éireann. Several commentators have argued that it will have little impact. However, I believe the reduction will have a greater impact along the western seaboard than in the greater Dublin area because of the country's population imbalance.

I am pleased the Government is playing its part in a radical reform agenda. The provision for a reduced number of Deputies delivers on the Government's commitment to lead by example and lead from the top. Real and tangible reform is being achieved which will make the political system leaner and more efficient for citizens. This reform follows up on other Dáil reforms such as the reduction in the pay and pensions of Members, the removal of increments, the reduction of expenses and longer working hours, as well as shorter holidays. These appropriate reforms were needed and no one would think otherwise as we cannot ask others to do what we are not prepared to do ourselves. I refer to these reforms because they seem to have been forgotten about entirely by the media and the general public.

The Minister is also implementing reform of local government in this legislation. Given that the country continues to run a current deficit of €1 billion per month, it is incumbent on us to reduce our cost base in every sector, including in this House. While most of us would not like to see it abolished, there is room for reform.

Reducing the number of Deputies was a commitment in the programme for Government with the objective of reducing the cost and size of government. Savings of approximately €2.2 million are forecast as a result of this reduction. It is also estimated that €420 million, a significant amount, will be saved through the Putting People First proposals recently launched by the Minister.

The legislative framework for the next general election will be different from that of previous elections due to the proposed reduction in the number of Deputies and the requirements of the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012 that parties must ensure that 30% of their candidates are women if they are to receive State funding. With the reduced number of Deputies, there may in fact be fewer women Members in the next Dáil. This positive discrimination, however, can only be viewed as healthy progress for democracy in terms of increasing the level of female participation in national politics over time and reflecting the fact that 50% of the population is female. I would like to see gender quotas implemented at local level too as most individuals who put themselves forward for electoral politics start their journey at local authority level.

The comprehensive local government reform plans, published by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government last autumn, will see a reduction of 700 councillors nationally. The Government's intention to introduce reforms can clearly be seen in this reduction in representation. The Minister is the first in many years who has been brave enough to reduce the number of the country's politicians. As well as reducing the number of Deputies by eight, this Bill reduces the number of constituencies to 40. There will be 11 five-seat constituencies, 13 three-seat constituencies and 16 four-seat constituencies. While 11 constituencies remain unchanged, major changes will be made to constituencies in Cork, Dublin, Waterford, the Kerry-Limerick area, the Donegal-Sligo-Leitrim-Cavan-Monaghan area and the Galway-Mayo-Roscommon area. This is causing some unease in my home town of Ballinasloe, which now finds itself in Roscommon-Galway.

The representative role of Deputies will be altered because each candidate at the next election will be required to gain a larger share of the vote to win a seat than heretofore given the reduction in the number of Deputies. If the Bill is enacted, there will be fewer Deputies from which to form future Governments because, as we know, apart from the possibility of appointing two Ministers from the Seanad, if it is still in place, all Ministers must be Members of Dáil Éireann. There will be fewer Deputies to undertake Oireachtas work. This will mean those on committees will be required to put in more effort and focus more on their role in this regard. We know that many Deputies spend a good deal of their time ensuring they work for their constituencies and, possibly, are not making as much of an impact at national level as they would wish.

An electoral system is needed with a better chance of producing Deputies who can put the broad public national interest before the local interest. No matter how loud individuals or groups shout and no matter how worthy their cause for local politics, they should not dictate what happens in national politics. Society, as well as the economy and the political landscape, has changed. It is increasingly recognised in all areas of life that the old ways are not working and that it is time to change them. It is time to grasp the nettle of electoral change. While it may be outside the scope of the Bill, with a constitutional convention and a referendum planned on the future of the Seanad, we should seek a wider debate on a complete overhaul of the electoral system.

According to the terms of reference of the constituency commission, breaching county boundaries was to be avoided as far as was practicable. This does not apply in the case of local government boundaries in Dublin, although the commission recommended adhering to these where feasible and practical. Where two counties are in a single constituency, it is not considered to be a breach of the boundary between them, for example, the constituency of Sligo-Leitrim North. Some ten county boundaries are breached by the proposed revision of constituencies. Politicians and political scientists have recognised the problems breaching county boundaries can cause for voters, including electoral alienation and low turnout. The revision of constituencies will impact on individual politicians and political parties, as well as voters, as they familiarise themselves with the new arrangements. However, over time the electorate and politicians will, I hope, become accustomed to the change and it will be less of an issue.

Media coverage of the constituency commission's report has thus far focused on the potential impact on incumbent Deputies and the political parties, rather than examining the benefits for our democracy and the electoral process in the medium to longer term. The reduction in the total number of seats in the Dáil means there will be fewer opportunities for women to win seats. However, larger constituencies are considered better for the election of female candidates and the Bill proposes the smallest number of three seat constituencies in the history of the State since 13 three seat constituencies have been proposed.

I must ask the Senator to conclude now.

Mr. Adrian Kavanagh, the political scientist, has suggested women candidates may be successful in the newly enlarged constituencies based on evidence from the last local elections. This is to be welcomed because it is the Government's aim to increase the level of female representation.

It gives me pleasure to support the Bill. No doubt there will be difficulties and teething problems for many Deputies as they come to terms with the new electoral arrangements.

I realise the Minister is leaving, but I imagine that when Senator Michael Mullins referred to reducing the number of politicians, he was referring to reducing the number of elected politicians. I realise the Minister has a good deal of power and influence, but reducing the number of politicians sounds like a "Ballymagash" headline.

I welcome the Minister to the Seanad. While he is here, we should commend the work of Senator John Crown for the introduction of the Seanad (Electoral Reform) Bill. This week the Seanad will examine all aspects of political reform and the Bill before the House is relatively non-controversial on its own.

At least once every 12 years we need to legislate for the number of Teachtaí Dála, as set out in Article 16.2 of the Constitution. That Article sets out clear parameters for the numbers of Teachtaí Dála who will represent the citizens based on the census. The Minister outlined the role of the commission in that regard. It is ironic that while the Seanad is currently debating political reform for the Dáil as provided for by the Constitution, the future of this House and whether it will be reformed, retained or abolished will not be subject to a similar type of commission or political reform debate in the Dáil.

I am encouraged by the Minister's programme of work to deal with reform of local government and I applaud his Bill on gender quotas in general elections, although I had hoped there would also be gender quotas for local elections. The Government has also established a constitutional convention that will make recommendations, on which I trust the Government will act. The convention introduces the role of deliberative democracy into the wider debate on political reform. I look forward to the recommendations on the voting age and electoral systems coming before us.

However, reducing the Dáil to 158 Teachtaí Dála could be seen as a cosmetic exercise if the Government does not take further reform of the Houses of the Oireachtas into account. It does not solve the question of how to run the Oireachtas efficiently. The committee system is not efficient or productive. I have been in this House as a Taoiseach's nominee for two years and I find the committee system is, almost deliberately, packed with work. The number of committees has been reduced on foot of a Government promise but this has made the Oireachtas less efficient and productive, and the committees face several policy traffic jams. I am concerned that a reduction in the number of Teachtaí Dála will lead to greater inefficiencies if the rest of the processes and workings of the Oireachtas are not reformed with that in mind.

One could argue that fewer Teachtaí Dála, set alongside the slow progress of local government reform, will further stifle their legislative and policy work. I am not opposed to localism or parish pump issues, but we are trying to reconstruct the work of the Houses of the Oireachtas around policy and legislative issues. In the absence of reform, localism will continue to be the main workload for parliamentarians. The Minister brought this Bill before the House without considering simple issues such as working hours and how we can make the Houses more family-friendly or how we can increase productivity by establishing more committees. It is contradictory to reduce the number of Teachtaí Dála to 158 without also establishing a more efficient and productive process of political reform. As a reform on its own, the reduction will continue to move Irish democracy towards greater centralisation and Cabinet-controlled parliamentary democracy.

This might not be the Minister's intention but I was disappointed that I did not hear about his overall vision and how this Bill fits into it. I heard more about the context of political reform from Senator Mullins than I did from the Minister. The reduction in the number of Teachtaí Dála does not warrant any great shakes when it comes to political reform. We need to be reminded of the broader context, some of which was promised in the programme for Government. Cutting costs is not necessarily the panacea for greater accountability. It will be up to the Seanad to argue that case later in this term. On this occasion, I will be supporting the Bill in the hope that further reform of the Oireachtas will create a healthier parliamentary democracy. This might also include Seanad reform.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan.

I agree with practically everything the previous speaker said. As an Independent Senator, he has given us a good overview of where we are in politics at this time. I do not take much notice of the Fianna Fáil spokesperson telling us the Cabinet should be separate from the rest of us and that it should seek support through the party system before making decisions. He also suggested we take another look at how we fill positions on State boards. Fianna Fáil, the party that has filled thousands of State board positions in the past 50 or 60 years, seems to have suddenly woken up and decided we should use some new format. It never ceases to amaze me how Fianna Fáil Members can come in to the House and with a straight face seek to give advice to the Government. It is mind-boggling.

On the issue of localism in politics, I take a different view from the previous speaker. For me, politics is and should be about local issues and local communities. Of course, we must develop policies and a way forward for the Government and the economy. However, we must never forget that politics begins in local communities. I have been practising politics for 25 years at a local level and now at Oireachtas level. If we do not listen to people on the ground, we will lose sight of where we ought and need to go.

In the context of this legislation, everybody makes a play for his or her area. My county, Tipperary, which had two constituencies, will now be just one and its length, at approximately 110 miles, will be longer than the distance from my home to Dublin. Following the commission's recommendation, the new constituency will cover 93% of the county. Despite an increase in population of 8.2% in south Tipperary, the two Tipperary constituencies are being made into one. The Government decided to reduce the number of seats in the Dáil as part of the programme for Government and we are now seeing this being implemented.

We must also address the disparity in population densities. For example, counties Laois and Kildare are overpopulated as against the number of seats, while County Limerick and parts of Dublin are underpopulated for the number of seats allocated. We must ensure equalisation in this area, although there are swings and roundabouts. Some people will have concerns. For example, my colleague, Senator Rónán Mullen, might be concerned that his local area is being plucked out of its traditional constituency. When a job of work is set out for a commission, there are always difficult decisions to be made.

The Government is fulfilling the constitutional requirement under Article 16.2.4o to ensure reviews are carried out every 12 years. This change is being made partly as a cost saving measure, but the cost savings - no more than what would be saved in the case of the Seanad, an issue we will debate later this week - will be minimal. When talking about reform, we should not put it all down to the word "reduction". Reform is about changing the way we do things.

I agree with the previous speaker that the committee system is a joke. Every time we attend a committee meeting we never get through the agenda. There is a log-jam and we sit for hours in order to make a brief contribution on an item in which we have an interest only to be beaten by the clock. Members spend a full afternoon at committee meetings but end up getting nowhere. They only become frustrated and have no opportunity to contribute on the issues in which they have an interest or which are of importance to them. I agree with the previous Senator totally in that regard.

Electoral reform is needed across the sphere of politics. In the coming months I understand we will deal with the issue of local government reform.

The contents of the Putting People First document represent a step towards local government reform, but much more is required. I have said a great deal on this matter in this House in the presence of the Minister, and I will say a great deal more about it.

When the measure that has been introduced to deal with the gender issue is acted out at the next general election, I am not sure we will find that its results will be for the betterment of democracy in this country. I will have to wait and see. I hope I am proved wrong.

The Government has brought this legislation before the House on foot of the review it was required to undertake. It has made a good fist of the recommendations that were made by the commission. I look forward to seeing how this is implemented.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan. This is a pretty sad day in many ways. We have decided to attribute all the blame for the things that happened in this country between 2008 and 2010 to the Members of the Oireachtas. The number of people in this country has increased by 341,000, according to the census, but they will be represented by eight fewer Members of the Dáil. I think that is a tragedy. There is enough of a democratic deficit in this country without leaving an extra 341,000 people to be represented by eight fewer public representatives. People in the Dáil, and to an extent in the Seanad, have to stop beating themselves up about the problems I have mentioned. To the extent that they were caused by elected people, that was solved when the number of seats held by the party that was in power for 80 years, and its supporters, decreased from 85 to 19. They are gone. There is no need to punish this Oireachtas for what the previous Oireachtas did. Instead, we might take a look at the people who were supposed to be regulating the banks, the bankers themselves and the senior officials, all of whom still seem to be here. Politicians have put their heads on the block quite unnecessarily. The political problem was solved. As the Minister, Deputy Quinn, has said, people used the ballot box. There is a completely different set of people here now. The basic point is that this is not the solution to the problems this country has encountered in recent years.

The Minister tried to tell us it is a good idea that Dublin has to make do with three fewer Deputies even though its population has increased by 83,000, or 7%. The population of County Cork has increased by 37,000, but it will lose a Deputy nonetheless. County Tipperary is losing a Deputy even though an additional 10,000 people are living there, with population increases in both constituencies. Having succeeded in our efforts to build up the country in this way, now we are withdrawing the people's democratic representatives. There has been an 8% increase in population across the Ulster counties that we control. In the intercensal period, the population of County Cavan increased by 13.9%, the population of County Donegal increased by 9.3% and the population of County Monaghan increased by 8%. It does not make the slightest sense that those counties are losing 25% of their Deputies when Ulster has been the best-performing province with a population increase of 10.1%. This compares to an increase of 7.5% in Connacht, 6% in Munster, 9% in Leinster and 8.1% in the country as a whole. This measure is turning progress on its head. It should not happen. County Mayo is losing a seat even though its population has increased by 6,700, or 20% more than the population of one of the biggest towns in the county, Westport, which has a population of 5,443. We are rewarding the increased population by ensuring they will have one fewer representative in the Dáil.

As I have mentioned, the Ulster constituencies have come particularly badly out of this. Northern Ireland has a population of 1.789 million and the Northern Ireland Assembly has 108 members, which means there is a ratio of one member for every 16,500 people.

That is half of what the Ulster counties in the Republic will be with about 32,600 people per representative when this is finished. Some of them can pretend they live in Leitrim to get some kind of qualification.

One sees opinion polls stating that a majority of Nationalists in Northern Ireland now support the union. I can see why because they see what is going on in the counties of Ulster for which we have responsibility. Of the eight reductions, two were allocated to Cavan-Monaghan and Donegal. It is hardly an item when the North-South Interparliamentary Association gets together in Stormont on 26 April.

If the Government succeeds in abolishing the Seanad as well, and I believe the Labour Party is now a convert to this, there will be a massive increase in the number of people each Member of the smaller remaining Oireachtas must serve. Democracy did not cause the problem. The bankers who were in the Department of Finance and Department of the Taoiseach that night walked out with €64 billion. We have had no legislation to control those lobbyists. Reducing the number of Dáil Deputies and attempting to abolish the Seanad will not address what is wrong with this country. It is time politicians of all shapes, sizes and parties stood up for themselves. The reduction in the Dáil is about 5% and will be more if the Government succeeds in abolishing the Seanad. I will take the cut in pay. The Taoiseach said last week that the alternative to Croke Park II was 7%. The Senator means that a reduction of 7% was a much better solution. Whatever one is trying to save in getting rid of eight Deputies would be better saved by cutting the costs of the Houses of the Oireachtas to raise an equivalent amount of money. I do not see how democrats can come into a House and propose the reduction in numbers when the task facing this country and Oireachtas because of the events of 2008-09 is even more daunting than we had imagined. All the politicians in both Houses should be combining to tackle those problems rather than supporting the policy enshrined in this Bill of reducing numbers in a way that seems biased against the three Ulster counties. It will probably mean that the minority seat that has always been in Cavan-Monaghan will be abolished and I cannot see how that contributes to anything. We are trying to promote ourselves as a democracy and we ought to be more careful about the seats we are abolishing in areas where the population is increasing. It is a pity and a misguided way to tackle the problems of this country. Leaving banks, senior civil servants, bank regulators and lobbyists virtually untouched and beating up on Senators and Deputies is not the way to proceed.

I welcome the Minister and the opportunity to say a few words on this legislation. This legislation does not particularly excite me but the Minister's hands are tied in that he must respond to the census results and is constrained as to how many seats can be provided within the population structure. I listened with interest to what Senator Barrett said. He set me thinking and I think we need a much more lengthy and substantial debate on politics and political reform than we are having here. Perhaps that is part of the problem. What we call political reform in this country is usually some daft idea thought up in the midst of a political crisis and written down on the back of an envelope. I look forward to having much more to say in that regard over the next number of months.

What we need is better politics. We can have this debate about bigger or smaller politics and what the public wants. What the public wants and Ireland needs is better politics. Better reform of politics does not come about as a result of a simplistic slogan. What we need in this and the other House is a deep and substantive debate about reforming our political system. Certainly, the Dáil and our constituencies need reform, as do the Seanad and local government. The reform we need in local government is not simply about whether a council electoral area returns five or ten members. It is about the powers of local government and the devolution of power from the national to the local level.

That is what political reform is all about. It does not merely involve simplistic sloganeering.

The Bill relates to the size, scope and scale of Dáil constituencies. A further and fuller debate is obviously required in respect of this matter. I appreciate that the Minister's hands are tied in the context of the constitutional provisions relating to constituencies. However, we must consider alternative electoral systems. In that regard, we must examine the concept of single-seat constituencies. Before my friends in Sinn Féin become too excited, I refer here to Members being elected from single-seat constituencies and their numbers being topped up by means of a list system. This would give rise to absolutely perfect, fair and balanced proportionality in Dáil Éireann, because a party that obtained 10%, 14% or 15% of the vote would win a corresponding number of seats.

There are many ways of ensuring full and proper representation outside our current multi-seat constituency scenario. That scenario and the politics relating to it served the country well for a number of decades but the new challenges we face require the type of politics and politicians that the current electoral system do not necessarily provide. We must examine the electoral system and be somewhat more broad-minded in the context of the types of proportional representation, PR, we believe work. The last Dr. Garrett FitzGerald and, perhaps, Noel Dempsey, the former Minister, were the strongest proponents of single-seat constituencies, with the numbers in the Lower House topped up from a list system. The latter would provide fair and balanced representation. Consideration should certainly be given to this matter.

While the Bill is necessary in the context of the constitutional prerogative that exists, if it is in any way to be a forum for political debate then I hope the Constitutional Convention will be willing to examine the electoral system. I also hope it might come forward with new ideas. If it did so, then during the current Government's term of office we could discuss political reform in its broadest sense. Not just tomorrow night, but also in the course of the coming months, we will be discussing the reform, abolition or whatever of Seanad Éireann. Again, I hope the debate in this regard will be substantive rather than one that involves merely sloganeering.

There has been much discussion regarding the cost of politics. The reduction in the number of Deputies from 166 to 158 will save a certain amount of money. However, let us compare the costs relating to elected Deputies, Senators and councillors against those relating to unelected advisers, who are answerable to no one. Some of the latter can earn at least twice and in some cases almost three times what elected Members of Seanad Éireann are paid, which is about ten times what elected councillors earn. That is a matter upon which we could reflect. In the British House of Commons, parliamentary private secretaries work with Ministers and junior Ministers. These individuals are backbench MPs and they form the first link in the chain between the House of Commons and the British Government. It might be useful to consider introducing a similar structure here.

There is certainly a need for a substantive debate on politics. It must be acknowledged that what the Minister is doing by means of the Bill is something that simply must be done. He has very little discretion in the matter. The Constitutional Convention, the Government and both Houses should commence a mature debate on politics which does not merely involve voting at election time. I hope this subject will invite passion in all of us. Politics is about all the decisions made each day in respect of every citizen of this country. It is a matter of primary importance, and is certainly worthy of a substantive debate rather than just being the subject of people's attention for a few hours every four years.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan. I am sorry the Minister, Deputy Hogan, was not in a position to remain in the House to hear the contributions of all Senators, particularly those made by Senators Barrett and Bradford. I endorse almost 100% of what those two Senators said in respect of electoral reform and what is going to happen to the three Border counties as a result of this carve-up that is the Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill 2012.

Political reform is not about window dressing. Clearly the Government and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government are attempting window dressing. One element of the Fine Gael Party manifesto put to the electorate before the last election was to reduce the number of Deputies in the Dáil by 20. I am totally opposed to that and would retain the numbers in the Dáil at the current strength. However, the Fine Gael Party promised the electorate to reduce the number of Deputies by 20, but now proposes to reduce the number in the Dáil by eight. Why?

In a previous debate in this House, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, stated it would require a change in the Constitution to reduce the number in the Dáil by 20. Did he not realise that before he made such a promise? Of course, he did. The reason the promise was made was that the Fine Gael Party in government never intended to carry it out. Senator Barrett said in his contribution that the Labour Party has been converted to the Fine Gael position. I am disappointed the Labour Party has caved in to the Taoiseach's spontaneous decision to abolish Seanad Éireann. The Fine Gael Party was dipping behind the Labour Party in the opinion polls coming up to the Fine Gael presidential dinner in the Burlington Hotel. That is the reason for that idea as there is no logical reason to back it up. Yes, I agree we need to reform the Seanad. We will have an opportunity to discuss it tomorrow. Let us be clear the reason the Seanad has not been functioning at its capacity since the foundation of the State is that no Government wanted a functioning Seanad, including my own party, which was in power for most of that time. That is the reality. Let us be honest, and to repeat the call of Senator Bradford, let us have a logical and reasoned debate.

It states in the terms of reference set out for the Constituency Commission that it should in observing the relevant provisions of the Constitution on Dáil Constituencies have regard to the total number of Members of the Dáil and the need to avoid as far as practicable the breach of county boundaries. The Constituency Commission has not adhered to the need to avoid breaching county boundaries. Under the Bill, 22 out of the 40 constituency boundaries will be breached. So much for the terms of reference.

The Minister said it was not possible to carry out the reform of the boundaries without breaching county boundaries. I beg to differ. It is possible but it all depends on what one sets out to do. Is it a coincidence that we in the Border counties, as Senator Barrett pointed out, are losing two Deputies while the people living in the east are gaining representation? Is that an accident? The same is happening in the Putting People First action programme as the concentration of local elected representatives will be on the east coast. That is not acceptable.

During the debate in the Dáil, Deputies Ó Caoláin, Heather Humphreys, O'Reilly and Smith pointed out the proposal to divide the Cavan-Monaghan constituency and to disenfranchise 13,000 from west and south Cavan and transfer them to the Sligo-Leitrim constituency and likewise disenfranchise 6,000 from south Donegal and put them into what Senator MacSharry referred to as the newly named Sligo-Leitrim constituency. These people do not belong anywhere. The politician who is fortunate to be elected to represent the 13,000 people from west and south Cavan and the 6,000 from south Donegal in the next Dáil must deal with four difference local authorities and I do not know how many HSE committees. That is the reality of the representation these people will get in this so-called reform of the Oireachtas. It is not acceptable. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, to take that message back to the Minister.

Senator Barrett said that the population of Cavan increased by 14% but I ask what do we get as a result from this Minister and this Government; we lose a seat and our county is divided.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, to the House. I thank the Minister, Deputy Hogan, and his departmental officials for their work in bringing this Bill forward and also their work with the Constituency Commission.

As I am a representative from Leitrim I welcome the publication of the report and the reform of the European and parliamentary constituencies. This Bill will give effect to the changes and the county of Leitrim will again become a single electoral division, which is to be welcomed. Unfortunately, there had not been an elected representative from Leitrim from 1997 until last year.

The electoral division of Leitrim created uncertainty. It leads to local confusion and misunderstanding with regard to Oireachtas representation. There is confusion about where information about supports and services can be accessed. There is also confusion about how to access the local representative.

The county of Leitrim is like every other county in that it faces challenges in respect of immigration and lack of employment. With the current population of just over 30,000, it is important that the towns and villages work together. The division of a county with such a small population created a disadvantage for all the people of Leitrim. Without a solid base it was more difficult to elect a local Oireachtas representative as a strong voice to advocate for them and with the ability to address their concerns.

However, I am mindful in saying that the amendment to the electoral boundaries of Sligo-North Leitrim will move parts of west Cavan and south Donegal into one constituency with Sligo and Leitrim, thus creating the largest constituency, geographically, in the country.

I am aware that efforts are being made by public representatives to meet with community groups in both Cavan and Donegal to advise them of the upcoming boundary changes. I agree that the constituency name should include Donegal and Cavan as it is unfair that these county names are not included in the title of the constituency. I ask that consideration be given to including the county names. I welcome the people from Donegal and Cavan into the Sligo-North Leitrim constituency.

The demographics of west Cavan and south Donegal are similar to that of Sligo and Leitrim. I am positive that the constituency will work well as a unit. I also understand the feelings of Donegal and Cavan people. They are being divided now and we know exactly how they feel because we have been divided since 2002. I welcome them to the constituency. I would like to see the county names included in the new constituency name.

I welcome this Bill for its rather limited effect in reducing the number of Deputies. I have long called for a reduction. We really need a much greater reduction in the number of Deputies in order to make them work. The taxpayer is paying for backbenchers who say very little - or sometimes, nothing - during the year and who are told how they must vote by their own party. We need to get Deputies to work as legislators rather than purely as the representatives and providers of goodies for their local communities. If we are asking citizens to take cuts we should be looking at making significant cuts in this building - in Leinster House as a whole - which is a double building.

In terms of reforming the system, what is the Government policy with regard to the provision in the programme for Dáil sittings on a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. basis from Monday to Friday or even Monday to Thursday? This is a significant issue because according to the Committee of Public Accounts, it could save the Exchequer a considerable sum in overtime payments to staff. It might also make the system less focused on the local and more on the national interests as politicians would spend less time in their constituencies.

It would also encourage more women politicians, which has been a very apparent deficiency in our system. There has been talk of quotas for women, but that is the wrong approach. We must encourage women to run for office and the normalisation of hours could encourage them to do so. Perhaps by changing to a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. sitting day, citizens would be able to better identify with their representatives, which is always a good thing. Indeed, the Labour Party argued for a 50% increase in the number of sitting days for the Oireachtas. Can some member of the Government give me an update on the position of that proposal? Could it be included in this Bill to show that we are ramping up the work to deal with the crisis?

I believe we need a new system whereby the Oireachtas is more accommodating in its attitude to Members by allowing individual Deputies and Senators to bring Bills forward. The Tánaiste has said that if a legislative proposal has merit, the Government must be open and accommodating to it, even if it originates from an Opposition Deputy. The Construction Contracts Bill has been the exception rather than the rule in this regard. Unfortunately, Private Members' Bills are usually shot down or merely used for grand-standing. This part of the system is very dysfunctional and goes against the need for politicians to act as legislators.

The system for dealing with parliamentary questions in the Dáil is a charade. It is totally outdated. Why do we not publish all Government spending online on a single website? The system of parliamentary questions, especially on spending matters, is a farce in this day and age. The Government ignored my request for movement in this area. There should be a single national public spending website where a citizen can see where every cent is spent. This information is all over the place at present, and Ministers waste their time reading out replies to questions that have already been sent to the Deputies. It must be a little embarrassing for an adult to go through that charade.

We must cut the links between the Government and the Dáil to ensure the Dáil can properly impose checks and balances. Dr. Niamh Hardiman of UCD has written:

The real problem in the way the Irish committee system works, then, is tied up with the role of government parties in deciding the allocation of chairs, and the practice of party discipline within committees. Parties are nowhere mentioned in the Irish Constitution. But they are central to the culture and practice of politics in the Oireachtas. That is where reform efforts need to be concentrated.

That is an area ripe for reform.

There are also significant outstanding issues relating to a register of lobbyists. In the United States companies must reveal what policies they sought to influence on behalf of which clients. We must introduce something similar here. In addition, what about former politicians working for lobbying companies? There should be deadlines and fines for not signing up to the register or for furnishing misleading statements. There must be a far more open system and much stronger freedom of information access, given that it has been eroded in recent years. In Sweden every public sector document is in the public domain so people can check the information and hold the people in power accountable for their actions. I am not sure that would be welcome here.

I purposely concentrated on the overall issue of how the Oireachtas could be made to work better, rather than on the specifics of the Bill. I believe we can do a great deal to improve the operation of the Oireachtas. It is in our hands, and I would like to have seen it dealt with in this Bill.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan. We met last week on another issue and I believe correspondence about it has been sent to her since then. I hope we will be in contact again on that issue. This Bill is the responsibility of the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, and the Minister of State is deputising for him.

I support some of Senator Quinn's comments, particularly about the number of Deputies. I believe government from top to bottom is too fat and too big, and this Bill is only tinkering at the edges. I am not sure what reconfiguring the Dáil by cutting out eight Deputies will achieve. If anything, it will split counties, which I will discuss shortly. The Galway West-South Mayo issue is raising a great deal of concern.

We really should have been looking at reforming the Dáil, which is a mission of our Government, and at reducing the number of Deputies to approximately 100. The population of this country is 4.5 million and it is often compared to Manchester, although it is not comparable in many ways, including geography, rural areas, etc. We should have looked at other models and at how other countries do this to come up with a better figure. I am not pleased with this.

Abolishing the Seanad is very unwise. The Seanad should also be reformed and the number of Senators reduced. We are getting rid of town councils but are increasing the number of councillors in other areas. The whole thing raises more questions than it answers. The issue of lobbying, which was raised by Senator Quinn, is important. There should be a holiday period between the time one leaves politics and becomes actively involved with another organisation to eliminate any conflict of interest.

I formally call for the constituency of Galway West to be renamed Galway West-South Mayo. For the first time in my lifetime as a politician, we are taking in 10,000 people from south Mayo. It will include people from Ballinrobe, Cong, Cross, Kilmaine and elsewhere. Not to include south Mayo in the name of the constituency is bizarre. Why not give people from that area an identity? What is the rationale for not including south Mayo in the new constituency title? What do we have to lose by doing so? There is precedent with the likes of Roscommon-South Leitrim and Kerry North-West Limerick. Why not do so in this case? The people concerned are very upset. It is bad enough to be moved in with Galway West but to not even have the area acknowledged is worse.

I make a plea for the Galway West constituency, which will include 10,000 from south Mayo, to be renamed Galway West-South Mayo. If 10,000 people from Galway were being moved into Mayo, they would be rightly aggrieved if their area was not included in the constituency title.

I do not know if this has any implications for my own constituency.

What is the rationale for not changing the name to Galway West-South Mayo so that the people of south Mayo feel included, respected and wanted? Sin é mo cheist; tá sé an-shimplí ach ba mhaith liom freagra air. If the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, does not have the answer, will the Minister, Deputy Hogan, supply a written one?

I mean no disrespect to the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, who is welcome, but it is a bit disrespectful that we have had a conveyor belt of Ministers in a debate such as this and a switch over of Ministers when a Senator is on his or her feet. I say that in the context of having a debate on electoral reform.

A Senator, who is not in the House, spoke about simplistic slogans. I do not think we have had any simplistic slogans from any of the contributors so far. Until now, all the contributions have been very thoughtful, constructive and productive. Senators are quite rightly focused not only on what is proposed here but on the more substantial reforms which many of us in this House and outside it believe are necessary. The same Senator said we needed more substantial debate to deal with the wider issues. However, we are always putting off the time for that more substantial debate.

I am not in favour of this legislation and I will not support because I will not support window dressing. We have a golden opportunity to properly reform governance structures in this State. The Minister would have received real support from the Opposition and people outside the House if he had gone for the kind of reforms people want, namely, having political institutions fit-for-purpose and for 21st century Ireland which deal with the real issues affecting people and the real issues which brought our economy to a collapse in terms of the lack of regulation of banks and of other areas, which have not been touched.

All we are seeing here is the deck chairs being rearranged. It is all reduction, subtraction, cutting numbers, reducing the number of Senators, abolishing the Seanad altogether, if that is what the people decide, reducing the number of Deputies, reducing the number of councils and councillors and the measures in regard to the Údarás na Gaeltachta boards and elections. If one wants to talk about simplistic slogans, in simplistic terms, cutting is not reform, nor is abolishing. All we have from this Minister and this Government is cutting and abolishing with no real, meaningful and substantial reform. I will not support a Bill which does that.

What happened in this State over the past number of years was not because of a lack of oversight, accountability or transparency but because bad decisions were made by previous Governments.

The Senator's party was in government and had a sizeable number in opposition and if that is the case, it will have to take responsibility as well.

The point is that very bad decisions were made by government but we also had light touch regulation in the banks and across business generally. It strikes me that the very people who argue very robustly for a reduction in the number of Deputies and Senators are the same people who argue for the same light touch regulation to continue. A previous speaker, who is not in the House, so I cannot name him, is one those.

I want to see real and meaningful reform and to see local government reform which is about the delivery of services and ensuring local authorities have the funding and the ability to drive change economically and socially and to have responsibility for health and education. Some local authorities do not even have budgets to fix roads. We are being asked to pay a property tax and a separate water charge. There is no joined up thinking or service provision.

All we are seeing from the Government is a reduction in the numbers. I do believe abolishing the Seanad, reducing the number of Deputies, reducing the number of councillors and doing away with elections for Údarás na Gaeltachta is good for democracy. If this goes ahead and we have no Seanad, fewer Deputies, councillors and county councils and if we reduce the levels of oversight, accountability and transparency in the political system, we will pay a heavy price. There is nothing wrong with having robust Houses of Parliament and elected bodies. That is what democracy is really about, namely, ensuring we have people who can make decisions at national and local levels. All I see from the Government and the Minister, who unfortunately did not stay for the full debate, is cutting numbers to save costs. If the Minister wanted to save costs, he could have abolished any number of allowances which are available to Deputies and Senators, including Whips' allowances and all of those nonsense allowances, and he could have reduced pay.

There is any number of things he could have done to save the same amount of money but without having reduced numbers that will reduce the level of scrutiny and oversight that we need in the State at this time.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an tAire Stáit go dtí an Teach. It is always good to see the Minister of State, Deputy Dinny McGinley, who is one of the more seasoned performers and has a fantastic way of distilling information. He is most welcome.

Political reform has been needed for a long time and there have been many reports on the issue. Some of my more experienced colleagues will know the number of reports which have been produced on Seanad reform. Unfortunately, none of them has been implemented. It is my personal view that we need reform of the Dáil and committee systems and I hope that will happen. We also need reform of local government.

There is no point talking about reform unless one is prepared to do something about it. Many will not be happy with the proposed reforms to considerably slim down the costs associated with and structures of local government. As we have a population of around 4 million, the country is over-represented in political terms. I would much prefer to see reduced representation but with properly resourced representatives because we need to attract high quality individuals into politics at every level. We are fortunate that, despite the difficult terrain in politics, we have good calibre politicians across all parties. This is due to the Irish psyche and a dedicated belief in public service which we have spread to the areas of human rights and equality. For example, for many decades Irish missionaries have travelled abroad and worked in the Third World to try to improve the quality of life of others who are a lot poorer than what we are. There are human rights campaigners, from whom leaders have emerged, including Mrs. Mary Robinson and others, who have made a significant impact internationally. That is why I believe the calibre of public representative in Ireland is particularly good, in spite of the fact that in some quarters politics is not seen as a noble profession owing to corruption on the part of a very small group which has been well and truly investigated.

We will have a period of extensive change in the next few years and I hope that what emerges will be a leaner, fitter and fit for purpose political system that will truly represent what needs to be represented. I hope it will ensure politics returns to a better place and we must all play our part. We must have a responsible debate on and discussion of this issue. We must ensure - we owe this to the country and future generations of citizens - we will work hard to restore the integrity of the political system from top to bottom. I have no doubt that this reforming legislation will play a key incremental role in achieving that objective.

Tá fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. It is ironic that the Minister of State is present considering that one of the aspects of the debate to date has been the carving up of County Donegal.

One of the more significant events in the past week, according to media reports, has been the meeting of the Tánaiste and his Labour Party colleagues in the Seanad with whom he met with a smile on his face. I do not know whether it was a smile or a smirk because I was not present, but the reports seem to indicate that his opening remark was, "Your jobs are gone, boys and girls." I have a feeling this is a Government spin for the general public, that somehow the Bill is about reform. It has nothing to do with reform, rather it had to do with the optics. Senator Sean D. Barrett articulated this view very well, much better than any of the rest of us, when he analysed the legislation. It seems to be a sop to the public or the media that constantly attack the institutions of the State and politicians of all parties, the general corpus of politicians, as if there was an urgent need for reform that would be exclusive to these Houses. Senator Sean D. Barrett made that argument well and I shall not go down the same road. I share his views in that regard, that we do not hear about the other elements of Irish society, about all those who made decisions outside the political system that impacted on the political system and had the consequences with which we and the general public are dealing. In the context of reform, this is rather surprising.

Usually when a Minister comes before the House, it gives him or her an opportunity, irrespective of the legislation involved, to trumpet his or her brief or highlight the positive nature of Government policies. Strangely enough, that has been absent today. We heard a very dry and coldly analytical speech that stuck closely to the Bill without going into any of the other elements of political reform. I have long supported the view - I heard Senator Paul Bradford say this earlier - that there is a need for urgent reform of the political system. One of the basic problems and flaws is the current system of having multi-seat constituencies which exerts enormous pressure on Deputies of all parties, particularly where the Government parties have the majority of seats in a constituency. Usually the competition is not between the Government and Opposition Deputies but between the Government Deputies. It is all about who gets the letter or word out first and who is going to be the person seen to be championing a particular issue in the constituency rather than any concern about party political affiliations. Having a single seat constituency system would eliminate this competition almost overnight and help us to get away from the clientist politics constantly talked about.

I am not suggesting in any way that I am not defending the right of Deputies, Senators and councillors to represent the people who elected them. However, I can never understand the logic of the argument made by those who criticise the political system when they refer rather patronisingly to parish pump politics. For goodness sake, what is the purpose of somebody who goes before the electorate and puts forward his or her view that he or she wants to try to improve the lot of the people whom he or she represents? The people respond by electing him or her to the Legislature or a local council and somehow he or she is then to be spancilled in the sense that he or she is not to fight on the issues on which he or she was first elected. I fail to understand that logic.

It is time politicians took on those elements of the media which have no understanding of the way in which the political system works. This is reflected in many of the comments made, particularly on radio and television. How many times have we all listened to so-called experts - the political commentariat - make the most dreadful of basic mistakes when they describe the workings of both Houses?

I have not focused too much on the Sligo, Leitrim, Cavan and Donegal region. Of course, however, as a person from County Leitrim, it is welcome that the county has been reunited politically because when I stood on the other side of the House, I had to vote in favour of its splitting. I said at the time that if I was on this side of the House, I would vote against it, but I did not want to lose the Whip. As I had been elected as a Fianna Fáil Senator, I had to take the good with the bad. Having said that, I feel for the people of west Cavan and south-west Donegal, mainly because they have been eliminated from the political landscape because the constituency will now be referred to as Sligo-Leitrim. There is no reference to west Cavan or south-west Donegal. I heard Senator Michael Comiskey speak about meeting community groups. I would not like to visit west Cavan or south-west Donegal because the people are rightly annoyed at what the proposal will mean for them.

There will have to be a great deal of bridge building to try to bring the four counties together to ensure they will elect four individuals who will be representative of the varying interests and the different cultures, geography, tribalist nature and so on in the counties. All of that must now be addressed by the people in the area where I live, and my colleague in Cavan.

It was a very bad day when the Constituency Commission came up with a proposal that has made it necessary, as a result of the reduction to 158 TDs, to opt for the constitutional maximum of almost 30,000 voters per TD. All it had to do to retain two three-seater constituencies in Donegal was to end up with a figure of 27,000. If it had left the five-seater in Cavan-Monaghan the figure would have been just under 27,000. For 2,000 voters, therefore, the people of the north west of Ireland across two provinces and the Border counties will now be disrupted politically to an extent that I believe will reflect badly on this Government, but we will wait to see what happens.

Gabhaim buíochas do na Seanadóirí a labhair ar an ábhar seo tráthnóna as an méid a bhí le rá acu. I thank the Senators who made contributions to the Second Stage debate on the Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill. Based on those contributions, there is a general understanding of the need to respect the independence of the Constituency Commission and to accept its recommendations.

Many Senators raised concerns that relate to political reform in a wider and more general sense. I assure all Senators of the Government's continuing commitment to implementation of its programme for political reform. While it is far from complete, much has been achieved in two years, and the people of Ireland can look forward to further achievement in that regard over the next three years.

As the Minister stated in his opening contribution, in bringing forward this Bill the Government is continuing a long-established practice of implementing in full the recommendations of independent constituency commissions. This Bill will bring Dáil constituencies into line with the population as ascertained in census 2011, and in accordance with the constitutional imperatives and other legal requirements.

All of us recognise that it might have been possible for the commission to suggest solutions other than those recommended in the report, and it is appreciated fully that concerns arise from such recommendations. However, were Senators legislating for the maximum number of Deputies permissible under the Constitution, which is 229 Teachtaí Dála, there would still be some who would not be satisfied with some element or other of Dáil constituency arrangements. Lest Senators are worried about that point, I assure them that the Government is not going in that direction.

Some Senators drew attention to particular Dáil constituencies and made their pitches for their areas of interest, particularly those in which there will be constituency changes. However, as stated previously, these are the swings and roundabouts of constituency division in the context of an independent commission.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the Seanadórí for their input to this debate. There will be further consideration on Committee Stage of the specific elements of the Bill, including constituency names, if Senators wish to raise them on that Stage.

Question put and declared carried.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 12 March 2013.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 10.30 tomorrow morning.

Barr
Roinn