This meeting has been convened to consider Committee Stage of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2005. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, and his officials. With the agreement of members, I suggest that unless we have completed our deliberations on the Bill earlier, we will continue with them until 7.30 p.m. at the latest. We will deal with the need for a further meeting tomorrow if the necessity arises.
Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2005: Committee Stage.
The officials accompanying me today are Maurice Coughlan, Gabriel O'Duffy and Barry Ryan.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Has the Government given any consideration to increasing the number of Members of Dáil Éireann?
The independent commission has stated that 166 is the bottom line and the Government has decided to stick with that number.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendment No. 2 is consequential on amendment No. 1. Both will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 25, to delete "Schedule to this Act” and substitute the following:
"amended Schedule subsequent upon the creation of a six seat constituency incorporating all of County Leitrim”.
I will defer to my colleague, Deputy Harkin, on this amendment.
Will the Minister of State consider the creation of a six-seat constituency as a solution to the particular problem where it seems that County Leitrim may be without a resident Deputy? This is not definite but, given the figures, it is very likely. Under the terms of the Electoral Act, the independent commission must pay heed to county boundaries where practicable. This ensures that each county has a representative living within its borders. Given that the commission did not adhere to that stipulation, County Leitrim may now end up without a resident Deputy.
A number of possible solutions could be put forward in this regard, one of which is the creation of a six-seat Sligo-Leitrim-Roscommon constituency. I am aware that this would involve a change in the Electoral (Amendment) Bill but that is feasible and the Oireachtas has the power to make such a change. There are many other reasons a six-seat constituency is preferable but I will leave them until later. What is the Minister of State's view on this proposal?
As I am not a member of the committee, I am not in a position to bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage. However, I will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage seeking the amendment of section 6(2)(b) of the Electoral Act 1997 to allow, for a number of reasons, for the formation of six and seven-seat constituencies. The first reason for forming six-seat constituencies is in order to deal with the proportionality of representation, which would enable us to comply with the sensible terms of section 6(2)(c) of the Electoral Act 1997 which states “the breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as practicable”.
It is possible that Sligo, Leitrim and Roscommon could be grouped together as a six-seater. This may be necessary if the population continues to decline in the area. An amendment would give the electoral commission significant leeway in terms of how it will deal with these crises. It appears a crisis may arise, particularly on the western seaboard. However, the crisis may not be confined to that area. The issue concerns maintaining proportionality.
I will also oppose the Schedule, which gives effect to the recommendations of the constituency commission, on the grounds that it unacceptably dilutes the proportionality that is central to the proportional representation single transferable vote system. The Schedule is at variance with that proportionality.
Since the publication of the constituency commission's report, we have all been aware of the depth of feeling generated in County Leitrim on the issue of the county being split in two. The views of the people of Leitrim on the issue were presented very cogently to the committee this afternoon. However, the commission had no option but to recommend some change to the existing Sligo-Leitrim constituency because the minus 11.01 variance, which is below the national average representation of its 2002 population to seats ratio, is more than 3% greater than the largest variance recommended by any commission in the history of the State.
The commission has proposed a solution and its recommendations for Leitrim are in line with constitutional requirements, particularly those relating to equality of representation, and with the commission's statutory terms of reference as set out for it in the Electoral Act 1997. For the reasons outlined on Second Stage, we do not, therefore, intend to depart from the package of recommendations that have emerged from the commission's deliberations. The Government has accepted the commission's recommendations as a single package of interlinked measures bringing the Dáil constituencies into line with prevailing population patterns and in accordance with the constitutional imperatives and associated legal requirements.
We all recognise that it might have been possible for the commission to suggest solutions other than those recommended. I certainly wish it had done so. The commission took account of almost 100 submissions made to it in formulating its recommendations and its independent determination of the issues should be respected. By cherry-picking individual recommendations, we would undermine the reasons for establishing an independent commission. It is the Government's view that the precedent of adhering to the commission's advice should not be broken. Accordingly, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.
The Minister of State used an important word, namely, "interlinked". It was shown in the presentation of the Save Leitrim campaign, which we were privileged to hear earlier this afternoon, that a domino effect followed the decision to add some of the population of County Westmeath to the proposed Meath West constituency in order to achieve the desired outcome of six seats for County Meath. That approach was not necessary as the population of County Meath is large enough to sustain two three-seat constituencies. The domino effect across the country that I have mentioned resulted in the proposal to split County Leitrim. The other options that were available to the commission, which would not have resulted in the division of the county, should be reconsidered. The Minister of State seemed to suggest that the current proposal is the only solution. However, that is not the case.
I said there could have been other solutions, but the commission recommended the proposal in question.
Yes, I agree that there are other feasible solutions. Such solutions would allow each county to have a representative who is living in the county in the Dáil. A member spoke earlier about the possibility that County Cavan might not have a representative in the Dáil but the figures suggest otherwise. It has never happened that a five-seat constituency consisting of two counties has not elected a representative of both counties. I do not doubt that the electoral commission's proposal will mean there will be no Dáil Deputy who is resident in County Leitrim. The commission is breaching one of its requirements, which is that county boundaries be respected. The amendment before the committee envisages "the creation of a six seat constituency incorporating all of County Leitrim", as well as counties Sligo and Roscommon. Other solutions are also available to ensure that each county, including County Leitrim, has a representative in the Dáil.
I remind the Minister of State that the role of the electoral commission is advisory in nature. The role of the Oireachtas is to examine the commission's proposals and to decide whether it wants to adopt them. I do not question the commission's independence or integrity but I question its modus operandi. The problems in that regard were clearly indicated in this afternoon’s presentation by the Save Leitrim campaign. Rather than rubber-stamping the commission’s decision, this committee should question its modus operandi and the outcome of its deliberations. There are other solutions.
It is not good enough to tell the people of County Leitrim that they must put up with the decision that has been made because the elected members of the Oireachtas can change it. The commission has given its advice but it does not have to be accepted. I ask the Minister of State to take on board the points I have made. The many other reasons for establishing six-seat constituencies were mentioned earlier today. I will not cover that ground again because the Minister of State is familiar with such arguments.
The Minister of State represents a Government that asked for six-seat constituencies to be used in the Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. If six-seat constituencies, which guarantee representation from each county, are good enough in Northern Ireland, why are they not good enough south of the Border?
This important amendment represents the views of the people of County Leitrim and the members of various political parties. I distinguish between the opinions of politicians and those of the people of County Leitrim, who would like all the county to be in a single constituency. The people of the county are obviously disappointed by the proposal to divide it. As I understand it, however, nobody from County Leitrim — an MEP, a Deputy or anybody else — wrote to the electoral commission to make the case for the county.
If the committee starts to interfere with what the commission has done, it will return to the bad old days of the Tullymander, the gerrymander, the "paddymander" or whatever one wants to call it. We need to ensure that changes to the electoral system are made in an open and clear manner. The independence of the electoral commission should not be questioned by anyone. We should not interfere with the commission after it has made a decision. Now that it has made its decision, that should be it.
The committee should act constructively by taking on board the views of the people of County Leitrim, as they have expressed them to the joint committee. When the Government or the Oireachtas examine this matter again — according to the Taoiseach, that will not happen until after the next general election — those involved should read what we think and listen to what the people of County Leitrim want. We cannot interfere with the commission's work.
I could argue strongly that Louth, which is currently a four-seat constituency, should be given an extra seat. I have figures to support the argument that County Louth is entitled to five Deputies because it is at the upper tolerance limit. I could not argue that Cavan-Monaghan should lose a seat, as people have suggested today, because that is not acceptable. We cannot mess with that area because to do so would be to interfere with the electoral process after it has been examined by a commission that advertised nationally for people to make an input into its work.
Fine Gael does not intend to interfere with what the commission has done. It wants, however, to take on board the views of the people of County Leitrim. It will express the views of such people when this matter arises again in the Dáil. The commission will be asked to take on board the opinions which have been expressed during this debate and elsewhere. If the people of County Leitrim did not make it clear before or during the commission's deliberations that they opposed the division of their county, their argument does not have much credibility. The horse has left the stable and that is it.
Fine Gael will support this amendment. I ask the Minister of State to take on board the proposal that a formula should be found when the commission is next appointed. If the commission considers the arguments made during this debate at that time, it will understand the fears and concerns of interested parties. We cannot interfere in the work of the commission because to do so would be to give a future Government a mandate to engage in a gerrymander. We do not want that.
The joint committee heard an interesting presentation from the Save Leitrim campaign earlier today. All members of the committee have received correspondence and documentation from the campaign. I commend the work of the campaign, which has raised specific issues relating to the representation of County Leitrim and general issues about the revision of constituencies. Those involved have also highlighted the implications of the demographic changes which are taking place at present. I will discuss those ramifications in a moment.
The Save Leitrim campaign has provided details of the changes in County Leitrim's population between 1841 and 2002. Given that the 2002 census was the first since before the Famine to record an increase in the population of County Leitrim, it is ironic that we are now talking about dividing the county for the purposes of parliamentary representation. It is understandable that the proposal has given rise to fears in certain quarters. This committee should reflect on and consider the issues involved.
I share the view that the Oireachtas should ensure that the integrity and independence of the work of the electoral commission is protected. The Oireachtas can decide to set the constituency boundaries in contravention of the commission's recommendations. If it decides to do so, however, it will be a case of majority rule. To make decisions of this nature in that manner would not be in the interests of fairness and confidence in our electoral process. I do not support the proposal made by the Save Leitrim campaign for that reason, although I understand clearly from where it is coming.
I am surprised that the solution recommended by the Save Leitrim campaign, which takes account of the contiguity of the current constituencies of Meath and Cavan-Monaghan, was not considered by the commission because it would have fewer knock-on effects than the solution the commission chose. Perhaps the commission had a reason for that. The knock-on effect of adopting the Save Leitrim campaign's proposal would be to move part of County Cavan into the Sligo-Leitrim constituency. That would open up a three constituency scenario. The part of the Westmeath constituency proposed to be included in Meath West would be included in Westmeath while another part would be included in the old Longford-Roscommon constituency. For the Oireachtas to consider that degree of change to constituency boundaries would be to attempt to second guess the commission and redo its work. However, I would like to hear more about Deputy Harkin's idea of reconsidering the boundaries proposed by the commission. It might be possible to keep the overall boundary intact and have a six seat constituency where the commission concluded there would be two three seat constituencies. That proposal would not breach the boundaries set by the commission. It would simply change the number of Deputies but within the same boundary framework. I would like the Minister to respond on whether a major departure from the commission's recommendation could be considered.
We need to consider the terms of reference for the future. The Leitrim experience has shown the degree to which people in a county can be affected, irrespective of their political persuasion. It is not a case of saying people want to vote county because, arguably, if people in Leitrim did, they would get a Leitrim Deputy. They want the freedom to vote in accordance with their political persuasion, yet still have a reasonable degree of confidence that they will have political representation within the county. That desire should be reflected in future terms of reference.
A second point should be considered for future terms of reference and institutional reform. This issue arises because the population is growing around the big urban conurbations. If this trend continues, we will have a problem in that, although the population is growing, some areas will not grow as fast as the urban conurbations. Therefore, those areas will begin to lose Dáil representation.
I throw this out as a thought for the melting pot. Perhaps we need to consider the ways in which other countries have resolved this problem. For example, the United States has a bicameral system. Admittedly, the respective powers of the House of Representatives and Senate are quite different from those of the Oireachtas. However, the representatives of the US House of Representatives are elected proportionately in accordance with population — the various Congress districts are broadly based on population, like Dáil constituencies — whereas the Senate is elected from the states, irrespective of the size of their populations. Perhaps we should consider this model. In future, if we are faced with a situation where there is a big concentration of population in particular locations such as Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and so on, there may be a case for considering the use of the second Chamber and ensuring county representation in the Oireachtas in a different way. As I said, I throw out the idea as a thought for future consideration because this will be a continuing problem.
The immediate issue I would like the Minister to address is whether he considers the idea brought forward by Deputy Harkin could be accommodated within the context of the Bill, given that it would not breach the set boundaries.
A powerful presentation was made by the representatives of the Save Leitrim campaign. They made a substantial and compelling case in support of representation for Leitrim, as well as pointing out that the issue was not party political. It is unfortunate that there were not campaigns to save other constituencies because while proportionality is a massive issue for Leitrim, it is important to point out the issue goes far beyond the Leitrim county border. Dublin city is a further example. In Dublin city, north of the River Liffey, all constituencies have either three or four seats. However, south of the River Liffey, there is a reasonable number of five seat constituencies. One could easily argue that proportionality is an issue on the north side of Dublin, a concern I am sure the Chairman would share.
We need to make provision for bigger constituencies of at least six or seven seats. If constituencies of up to nine seats were acceptable shortly after the foundation of the State — they delivered excellent proportionality — what is wrong with having such constituencies now? Why are we rolling back on proportionality instead of enhancing it? The only way we can enhance it is by amending the Electoral Act 1997 to give the commission terms of reference which would increase its scope to deal accurately with this issue.
My constituency of Louth is the most under-represented in the State.
The Deputy is making up for that.
If it was not for me, it would be a crisis. I accept that. I suppose Deputy O'Dowd contributes also.
The people need three Deputies in the north of the constituency and one in the south.
I am working for them all. We need to amend the legislation but not only to deal with the current situation in Leitrim. We need to have a vision for dealing with what will be massive population shifts. I ask the Minister to reflect on this point and what is coming down the road in regard to proportionality throughout the State. The people of Leitrim are excellent at making their case. It is unfortunate that others are not as enthusiastic and ingenious in presenting similar cases — I refer particularly but not only to Dublin city.
I want to clarify one point. Were submissions made by Leitrim representatives before the commission met?
The Minister of State might answer that question.
I understand submissions were made suggesting various options.
I thought Deputy O'Dowd said no submissions had been made.
That is what I was told in the Dáil. Whether it is true, it is what was said.
Were submissions made by the political parties?
The Save Leitrim group stated that no submissions had been made by individuals living in County Leitrim.
But submissions were made by political parties.
Yes. The group made the point that there had been no consultation. People in Leitrim were not aware that submissions had been made on their behalf, or that is what we were given to understand. The people of Leitrim reasonably expected the electoral commission to stick to its own guidelines and not breach county boundaries. They were generally unaware that major political parties were asking that Leitrim be split and carved up. The people of Leitrim were not aware of these submissions and expected the commission to respect its own guidelines. However, they were wrong on both counts.
Were individual submissions made in respect of Leitrim?
Submissions were made by political parties and were available to the public for six months. They could have come in during that time and made further submissions, and this option was publicised. It was available to individuals, organisations and political parties, and some took it up. The Save Leitrim campaign did not come into existence or make a submission during the six-month period.
Will the Minister of State confirm that the formula adopted by the commission was proposed by Fianna Fáil? There is no point skirting around the issue. I have not read the Fianna Fáil submission, but I am told that it recommended a three-seater along the lines of what was eventually adopted by the commission.
One hundred submissions were made and evaluated independently and the commission issued an independent decision. The Labour Party, Fine Gael, the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil will state that there is general acceptance of that independence in terms of the commission's findings and rulings. It would be remiss of us to say the commission is independent and then suggest that it might have acted otherwise. That would be unwise.
I was not making such a suggestion. I want to be clear on the issue.
I am glad the Deputy has clarified the matter. It appeared he was pointing the finger in a particular direction.
The Minister of State is being overly sensitive.
I am not.
It either is or is not a factor.
With respect, the Deputy threw out the thought that the commission acted on a Fianna Fáil submission, which is disingenuous.
Deputy Gilmore should also look at the Fine Gael submission and he will find that there was a commonality.
I am perfectly capable of making a charge if I wish to do so. I was simply raising the question.
I have a right to correct an inaccuracy.
The Minister of State did not confirm or deny what I said.
I confirmed that Fine Gael also made a submission and that the Deputy should read that and not be selective.
He cannot read any submissions from Independent Deputies because none was made by them. Neither was there a submission from the Save Leitrim campaign. That is my point in respect of the integrity of the commission. We cannot change it at this point. There was no genuine campaign beforehand for the commission to listen to on an independent basis. Representations were not made by those directly involved so how can the commission be expected to know of them?
I am shocked by what Deputy O'Dowd suggests. He is saying that it is too bad that Leitrim left it too late.
Deputy Harkin left it too late and did not put in a submission.
It was very reasonable to expect the electoral commission to abide by its own guidelines. Deputy O'Dowd does not know the history of this matter, but Leitrim was once without a Dáil Deputy.
Deputy Harkin should show us her submission.
Deputy O'Dowd should show us his.
Fine Gael's submission is there, but Deputy Harkin has none.
I apologise to the Chairman, but I am somewhat annoyed. Fine Gael suggested that Sligo-north Leitrim would be a three-seater. Its submission was quite clear. I did not intend to make an issue of this today and did not raise the matter, but I will address it now. Both the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael submissions suggested that Sligo-north Leitrim would be a three-seat constituency and that south Leitrim-Roscommon would be the same. Very few, if any, people in Leitrim were aware that Fianna Fail and Fine Gael's head offices were making submissions on their behalf, which is why I am absolutely shocked at Deputy O'Dowd's suggestion that the people of Leitrim left it too late. It was a reasonable expectation on the part of those living in County Leitrim that the electoral commission would abide by its own guidelines and that the county would not be split. People in Leitrim had no knowledge of what the head offices in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were doing in their name and on their behalf.
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State. We have been told that we cannot interfere in this legislation. However, I hold the opposite view. The commission's role is advisory and the Oireachtas then decides. The Oireachtas is compelled to act if it is of the opinion that the advice from the electoral commission is unfair or inequitable to Country Leitrim. Members should not wash their hands like Pontius Pilate and say that somebody else made the decision and it is not our business. It is our business, which is why we are here. Let us make it our business and not pass the buck to an independent commission whose role is purely advisory.
The commission came into being as a result of political dissent over what Governments did in the past with regard to redrawing constituency boundaries. There will be a political carve-up if we do not have a commission. If the Government of the day was to put through its views in the absence of a commission, as happened in the past, people would regard it as patently unfair and unacceptable.
Everybody had the opportunity to make a submission. I agree and support the issue in respect of Leitrim and do not hold a different view. As a county, it should be a constituency. However, the commission has made its decision in the absence of any letter from Deputy Harkin or the Save Leitrim campaign. How can one be critical of the commission if this point was not brought to its attention? I know what the Minister of State's response will be, but I suggest that when all this is over and done with we should send a report of this debate to the commission in order that it can take these issues on board when next making a decision. In the absence of submissions, how can one expect the commission to get it right?
This should not be about people making submissions to the commission. People should have the right to do so. However, they should not be beaten over the head if they do not.
We should not be beaten over the head either.
That is an extremely important point. It is nonsense for people to talk about who did or did not make submissions. The issue relates to how we can put in place a formula which will allow the commission to do its work and achieve the greatest amount of proportionality possible. Let us take County Meath as an example. Is it best to draw a line through the middle of it and have two three-seat constituencies? I do not think so. The best way to allow the voters of County Meath to achieve real proportionality and representation in the Oireachtas is to have a six-seat constituency. This proves my argument in the best way possible.
In keeping with my proposition, let us consider crossing county boundaries. The EU election process is not necessarily corrupt to any great extent in terms of crossing certain provincial boundaries. The latter is happening but it has not set off any alarm bells. The precedent has been set that the commission can do its work in achieving a proportionality in terms of the number of voters, particularly in respect of the Dáil.
There is some merit in what Deputy Gilmore said about the Upper House. In considering that matter, there would also be a need to examine the question of Northern representation because Ireland has 32, not 26, counties. Those counties should all be included under the Deputy's suggestion, which merits further consideration.
The commission cannot do its work effectively if we do not change the legislation to provide the tools and ground rules it requires. The case was made earlier — it is worth repeating it to the Minister and his delegation — that the argument in respect of Leitrim was not party political or about any particular party, regardless of whether they made submissions. The flaw was in the terms of the division of the county and the way that occurred. It was not justly done. That is a problem. The amendment I intend to move on Report Stage would facilitate that in a broader way than the amendment in Deputy Cuffe's name. However, I support the principle behind his amendment.
An aspect that is emerging from the discussion is the need for the Oireachtas to address the terms of reference for the commission. That must be done in a more considered way before the next commission is established. The comments I made about submissions to the commission were not to suggest that people or political parties do not have the right to make submissions or that the commission acted in a partisan way. I am not suggesting that but there should be a process for the making and publication of submissions in advance of the commission having its final consideration of them. For example, I have no doubt that many people in Country Leitrim, had they known that submissions were made that prejudiced the integrity of that county, would have made submissions to the commission on that basis.
One of the procedures that should be established for the future, if necessary by amendment of the electoral legislation, is that when the commission receives its initial submissions they should be placed on its website or whatever for a period, not to allow people introduce new material but to facilitate them in responding to the submissions already made. I do not know if it would be possible to incorporate something like that in a report——
That is done by local authorities. For example, a local authority amending its development plan would be an excellent model along the lines the Deputy is suggesting.
It is done in various ways. People should have the right to respond to something that is being proposed for them about which they do not know anything until it is too late. That is something I will examine with a view to tabling an amendment on Report Stage to include that in future commissions.
I would like the Minister of State to return to the original issue raised, namely, the idea of the six-seat constituency. The problem that it is trying to resolve is twofold, namely, to retain the integrity of an individual county, which it would, and to give that county a reasonable opportunity of having representation, in whatever political form, in a future Dáil.
I do not know if any examination has been done as to whether six seat constituencies, of which we have quite a number in the local authority set-up, facilitate a wider spread of geographical or political representation. I can see where it facilitates a wider spread of political representation but it is unclear whether that also allows for a wider spread of geographical representation. I am of the impression, having had experience of six-seat constituencies at local government level, that local candidates tend not to come through in those constituencies. To what extent has research or analysis been carried out in that regard? An issue arises as to whether this can be done, given that it is not breaching boundaries, without inflicting damage on the report of the boundary commission.
The debate earlier on the Save Leitrim campaign gave us much food for thought with regard to the discussion on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2005. Subsequent to the creation of a six-seat constituency incorporating all of County Leitrim — and we broadened out that discussion somewhat to debate the merits of six-seat constituencies — we must accept that many people who would make such proposals would do so from a political point of view, not only in terms of representation of the people but also in ensuring that their party has a chance of winning representation in the larger configuration of a six-seat constituency. People should be honest enough to say that.
It is more than probable that smaller parties would win Dáil seats in six-seat constituencies. That is a statistical fact. However, in view of the configuration of voting, it is less probable in three-seat constituencies. People who suggest there should be six seats are making that case because it would facilitate smaller parties. There is nothing wrong with that because it is proportionality. However, people should at least be honest about the reason they are making the case.
On the issue of six-seat constituencies, Donegal could be such a constituency. In addition, Cork North West and Cork South West, two three-seat constituencies, could be amalgamated to form a six-seat constituency. It would be almost impossible, purely on a geographical basis, for a Deputy to carry out his or her Dáil duties in representing a constituency of that magnitude. The distance from south-west Cork to the northern most part of the county may be 100 miles. A Deputy would be unable to function if he or she had to drive large distances to represent his or her constituency. If a constituency is that large, they should be entitled to represent the entire constituency.
That brings me to the issue of the publication of the boundary commission report. There is merit in the idea that the commission would publish its interim findings to allow an opportunity for the public to make submissions on them. The commission could then produce a final report based on all the submissions received. I accept there was an issue about whether submissions were made but many people do not campaign on issues until such time as they have been decided.
With regard to Leitrim, we should reflect on the fact that the boundary commission produces and publishes its report and that thereafter follows a consultative process in which people can make submissions on foot of the report. The commission can take into account those submissions and if a fault is discovered, there is at least an opportunity to address it. However, that is an issue for another day.
On the issue of the integrity of the boundary commission, it is wrong for us to say that certain political parties made submissions which happened to coincide with the findings of the electoral commission. The latter is wholly independent. In my constituency, I am very disappointed that it will be much more difficult for me to be returned to Dáil Éireann because of the boundary commission's findings but I must accept that and move on.
On the issue of a county not having Dáil representation, it could be argued that many people in north Waterford, parts of Carlow, Westmeath and elsewhere are disenfranchised in that an integral part of their counties are included in other constituencies. The only issue at stake here is whether Leitrim is entitled to a Dáil Deputy in its own right. One could argue that there is an opportunity to have two Dáil Deputies representing Leitrim after the next election, one from the north of the county and another from the south. That is a distinct possibility.
That is not so. There is not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.
We must be conscious that we are bringing party politics into this issue. As elected representatives, we should not be involved — with the exception of highlighting matters, through submissions, at an open forum where everyone can inspect them — in this matter at any stage. If we start tinkering with it and tabling amendments to address what are seen as inadequacies in the boundary commission's report, we will set a dangerous precedent. We should avoid doing so because we encountered problems in the past with Tullymandering. Difficulties also occurred in Northern Ireland in this area. The only fault with our open system is that there should be an opportunity to table submissions on the findings of an interim boundary commission. A final determination could then be made on foot of all submissions received.
I am happy to facilitate this debate and allow a voice for Independent Deputies to be heard. I accept the view put forward by Deputies Gilmore and Kelleher that we should not question the independence of the electoral commission. At the same time, however, firing a shot across the bows — such as, for example, in the form of this amendment — to express concern on particular issues can be beneficial. Small parties and independents are justifiably frustrated with three-seat constituencies and with the situation in Leitrim.
One of the more important aspects of today's debate is the concern that the electoral commission should, as would be the case with a county development plan, display a draft proposal for comment. That could be examined by the Minister in a future review of the legislation. I am happy to have allowed this debate and to have moved the amendment on which Deputy Harkin spoke. I formally request a vote on it.
I thought I was superfluous to the debate, which I enjoyed. I will start with the final points made by Deputies Gilmore and Kelleher. We must examine the idea of the commission having a website for submissions on the next occasion. It would be worthwhile as we want clarity and to make as many people as possible aware of what is happening. I hope we can look positively on that suggestion. I take Deputy Kelleher's point on a draft proposal but I can also see major difficulties with his suggestion. We can examine the matter and tease it out but having draft proposals and pressure groups could be fraught with danger.
It is extremely important that we understand the commission's position on the boundaries issue. The commission's terms of reference include avoiding breaches of county boundaries as far as possible. Commission recommendations have been criticised — as has been the case here — for not adhering to county or provincial boundaries. While attachment to such boundaries is understandable, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the commission's terms of reference are subordinate to the relevant constitutional provisions which do not refer to counties or provinces. In the celebrated High Court judgment in the O'Donovan case, Justice Budd stated:
... although a system in the main based on counties has in fact been adopted, there is nothing in the Constitution about constituencies being based on counties. The Constitution does not say that in forming the constituencies according to the required ratio, that shall be done so far as is practicable having regard to county boundaries.
Deputy Cuffe's proposed amendment refers to the creation of a six-seat constituency. That would be contrary to section 6(2)(b) of the Electoral Act 1997 which states one of the commission’s terms of reference is that each constituency shall return three, four or five members. Introducing a provision for larger constituencies is the wrong way to proceed. The Bill gives effect to the commission’s terms of reference as set out in the Electoral Act 1997. Any proposed legislative change to introduce six or seven-seat constituencies should have been put forward at the commencement of the process and not at the end.
I commend Deputy O'Dowd on the points made regarding the next commission. The constituency of Longford-Roscommon was situated in two provinces and a number of elections submissions were made on that point. However, no one referred to the important fact that this commission's report has rectified that matter.
Arguments in favour of the introduction of six or seven-seat constituencies are on the basis that larger constituencies deliver a greater degree of proportionality. One must accept that proportionality of the PRSTV in individual constituencies falls as the number of seats is reduced. It is also important to point out that the PRSTV system has never claimed to achieve perfectly proportional results. Some PR systems are more proportional and others are even less so. To have a perfectly proportional system, there would be just one constituency in the entire State. Everyone recognises that would be impractical.
The constituency size in Ireland has been restricted to three, four and five seaters since 1947. We all accept that this strikes a reasonable balance between the competing considerations involved in this issue.
I do not accept that.
Neither do I.
As Deputy Kelleher stated, there are practical issues involved in having larger constituencies. Alienating people from politics is already a significant issue and we are concerned that larger constituencies would cause greater alienation.
While it can be argued that Leitrim may not have a representative after the next election, major proportions of an area might not represented in a six or seven-seat constituency. The Bill is sensible and practical and allows those elected to be more in touch with their constituents and to be within a reasonable distance to serve them well.
We must put the amendment at some stage. I ask speakers to avoid repetition.
I appreciate the time constraints and I will not detain the committee. I agree with Deputy Kelleher that the issue is whether Leitrim will have a Dáil Deputy resident in the county. There are wider issues involved but that is what we are dealing with and that is why this amendment was tabled as a possible solution.
I was surprised to hear the Minister of State suggest there would be greater alienation if we had six-seat constituencies. I am shocked to hear that because the Government supported the creation of six-seat constituencies in Northern Ireland. Such constituencies do not represent perfect proportional representation but they are more proportional than three, four or five seaters and the Minister of State acknowledged that. How can the Government propose six-seat constituencies north of the Border as a good model to ensure proportionality, while claiming that such constituencies could cause alienation in the Republic? Does the Minister of State have an explanation in that regard? I thank Deputy Cuffe for allowing me to take the lead in the debate on this amendment.
Conditions in Northern Ireland are different to those which exist here. This amendment is contrary to section 2(b) of the Electoral Act 1997. The commission was set up to operate on the basis that each constituency shall return three, four or five Deputies. Having given these terms of reference to the commission, it is not possible to change them. We cannot move away from those facts and we must stick by the terms of reference. If the Deputy wants to make submissions before the next electoral commission, that is fine. On this occasion, we cannot accede to the amendment put in front of us.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Nil, 9.
Tá
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harkin, Marian.
Níl
- Blaney, Niall.
- Cregan, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (2), line 27, to delete "on 28 March 2005" and substitute the following:
"following the revision consequent upon creating the new six seat constituency incorporating all of County Leitrim".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) Section 6(4) of the Electoral Act 1997 is repealed.".
Section 6 of the Electoral Act 1997 sets out the terms of reference for a constituency review commission. Under subsection (2)(c), the breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as is practicable. However, under subsection (4), a county boundary does not include the boundary of a county borough or the boundary of any of the three Dublin administrative counties. Dublin Dáil constituencies can, therefore, include the city and any of the three counties. The purpose of the amendment is to include the Dublin counties in the definition of “county boundary” for the purposes of future terms of reference of the boundary commission.
The effect of the proposed amendment would be to lead to a situation whereby the commission's terms of reference would require it to avoid breaching city boundaries and Dublin administrative county boundaries, as far as is practicable, in formulating the Dáil constituencies. The boundaries of the 32 counties of Ireland have been in existence for many centuries. In the past 200 years these counties have become a well-established focus for community activity. On the other hand, the administrative counties of Fingal, south Dublin and Dún Laoghaire have been in existence for just over ten years. While they are forging ahead in serving their communities, they do not have the distinct identity of the long-established counties.
By treating the administrative counties in this way, the effect of the amendment would be to impose far greater restrictions on the commission in dealing with Dublin city and county, the most densely populated part of Ireland, than on the rest of the country. It would be inadvisable at this time to tie the commission's hands in this way. Over time, as the individual identities of Dublin counties develop, we might revisit the issue. For the moment, however, I do not favour any alteration to the commission's terms of reference in this regard.
With regard to avoiding the breach of city boundaries generally, the reality is that development around cities has long spilled over into adjoining counties. Many people living outside a county boundary feel a strong degree of affinity and loyalty to the city and would prefer to be included in city constituencies. Another point to note is that the populations of, for example, counties Limerick and Waterford are too small to sustain three-seat constituencies, the smallest permissible constituency size. For these reasons, we should not require the commission to avoid, where practicable, breaching city boundaries. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment on the basis that we can further consider the case of Dublin as it develops.
This is an issue we can consider in the future. I have put down a marker and, having done so, I withdraw the amendment.
In the event of Dublin having three separate Gaelic football teams, would they be synonymous with the new county areas?
It does not have one team at present.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
I oppose this section because I wish to put down a marker in regard to election spending, which I understand comes under the relevant part of the principal Act. I wanted to express a concern that the costings of the litir um thoghchán — the election literature — and party political broadcasts will not contribute towards the limits on spending laid down in the legislation. My concern is that this will allow the parties with greater access to cash to, in essence, increase the spending of their candidates in an election situation. It will militate against independent candidates and smaller parties that might not have access to the same kind of funding.
I oppose the section on that basis.
Section 6 addresses a technical issue raised by the Standards in Public Office Commission in regard to the definition of election expenses for the purposes of the Electoral Act 1997. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule to that Act sets out certain items that are not regarded as election expenses for the purposes of the Act. Following the decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court in 2002 in the case taken by Mr. Desmond Kelly, section 33 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2004 deleted from paragraph 2 the references to services, facilities, etc., provided out of public funds.
The effect of the deletion is that, in accordance with the court ruling, such services are now reckonable for the purpose of making a statement of election expenses to the Standards in Public Office Commission. However, the deletion of section 33 was inadvertently drafted to also remove a number of other items which were not at issue in the court case from paragraph 2 of the Schedule. These items are the free postage provided for candidates, known as litir um thoghchán, a service provided free by an individual or provided by an employee of a political party, normal media coverage and transmission on radio or television of a broadcast on behalf of a candidate or political party.
It was never intended that these items would be regarded as election expenses for the purposes of the 1997 Act. Moreover, all but one of these items were expressly exempted in the 1997 Act, the other being exempted by law in 1998. This section does not, therefore, add any new exemptions but rather restores those which were inadvertently deleted from the relevant legislation. The effect of the deletion of this section would be to prescribe as election expenses expenditure items which were intended to be treated as such. If, for example, the litir um thoghchán is treated as an election expense, any candidate using it is likely to immediately breach the election expenditure limit. In the Dún Laoghaire constituency, for example, use of this facility, for an electorate which numbered 91,522 at the last election, would cost almost €44,000. This must be viewed in the context of the spending limit of just under €39,000 per candidate.
There is no reason a candidate should be required to account for a facility that is available free and to all candidates. Expenditure limits would have to be increased across the board to cover the cost of the litir um thoghchán, thus negating the purpose of the exercise. Section 6 inserts a subparagraph in paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the 1997 Act clarifying that the items at issue are not to be regarded as election expenses at presidential, Oireachtas or European elections, thereby returning to the position in respect of these items before the enactment of the 2004 Act.
There is no reason that the Minister of State cannot make a change to ensure that only one litir um thoghchán is delivered to each household. The Minister of State probably shares my experience in regard to the volume of presentations from people outraged that six copies of the litir um thoghchán may be delivered in the case of a large family. Many of these voters would be happy to receive just one item of literature and this would dramatically reduce the amount of paper generated.
The more worrying aspect of this relates to party political broadcasts. The major parties are essentially now given free rein to spend as much as they like on their advertising campaigns through party political broadcasts. Whether they work with Saatchi and Saatchi, Ogilvy or some other advertising company, the large parties will have access to significant amounts of funding in this regard. The sky will be the limit in terms of the money to be devoted to party political broadcasts. This is a worry for democracy and a matter of concern for the smaller parties and independent candidates. In order to level the playing field somewhat, it should be included in calculating candidates' funding.
Ironically, it was the Standards in Public Office Commission which raised the matter of the exemptions that had been inadvertently deleted and argued that the original position should be restored. This section adds nothing new but serves only to reinsert those provisions that were inadvertently removed. I am prepared to review the situation where a copy of the litir um thoghchán is sent to every registered voter in a household. However, rules have been put in place by the Standards in Public Office Commission in regard to access to the media which will govern the amount of money that can be spent. What is being done through the provisions of this section is absolutely outside of those rules and is something that has been recommended by the commission.
The reason the commission drew this matter to the Minister's attention is that the previous Minister, Deputy Cullen, made a mess of the legislation by removing the relevant provisions. This is another of that Minister's many errors. If someone were, even at this late stage, to mount a High Court challenge even to the results of the European elections, the reality is that every candidate theoretically could be exposed because all of them would have exceeded the limit under the law as it currently stands. We should not lose sight of this.
I expressed my dissatisfaction on Second Stage with the inclusion of other unrelated items in a Bill which deals with the report of the electoral commission. Any matter not recommended in the commission's report should not be included in the legislation but should instead be covered under separate legislation. We must ensure that the entire electoral process and the electoral commission's role therein are sacrosanct. This Bill should stand alone in terms of its function in regard to the commission's recommendations. Mistakes made by a Minister are a separate matter and should be addressed elsewhere. However, I will not labour this point.
I agree with Deputy Cuffe's comments regarding the litir um thoghchán. Perhaps a more apt spelling for "litir" would be "litter" because that is what people are faced with at election time. It is an appalling waste of resources and it is time to consider other options such as "e-mail um thoghchán" or "text message um thoghchán". Voters are fed up with the waste of paper caused by the existing system by the time an election is over. I reiterate that it is because of Government mismanagement of the legislation that this section is required. This is not the first issue that the former Minister, Deputy Cullen, has messed up.
I am concerned at some of the views expressed about the litir um thoghchán. I take grave exception to any attempts to undermine the democratic process whereby electorates are informed of the candidates in their constituency. The litir um thoghchán is an integral part of any election and, with respect to Deputy Cuffe, a person must be easily upset if he or she is troubled by a few letters through the post box in the days before an election.
I was referring to the sensible people in Dún Laoghaire.
We may as well ban canvassing and the distribution of candidates' literature if that is the approach we mean to take. Citizens are entitled to information and we should not go down the road of deciding that there should be only one litir um thoghchán per household. Every voter on the register of electors is entitled to information about the candidates who wish to represent his or her constituency. Perhaps the concerns of Deputy Cuffe and others could be accommodated by the use of recyclable paper.
We have been recycling Deputies for years.
We are all aware that people consider it the greatest affront when they are not canvassed for their vote. No candidate is able to visit every voter in their home and the State has an obligation to inform every citizen on the register of electors of the candidates in their constituency. The only difficulty in this regard is that the register is not sufficiently accurate but that is a debate for another day. I advise against any change in respect of the litir um thoghchán. There could be a situation, for example, where the head of a household is a committed activist for the Green Party and may hide the litir um thoghchán because he knows that other family members may vote for a Fianna Fáil candidate if they become aware of that option.
I wish to raise three issues. Deputy O'Dowd said that the change being implemented in this legislation is primarily intended to deal with the revision of constituencies. Is this the only electoral legislation that will be brought before the Houses by Government before the next general election?
With regard to party political broadcasts, can the Minister of State clarify that the legislation permits the exclusion of the actual cost of such broadcasts but not the cost of making them? Must a party pay the filmmaker's charge and account for that cost?
The legislation relates to transmission only.
I am not sure if my point is directed to the Minister of State or the broadcasting organisations. A system of proportionality is worked out, based on the results from the previous election, for party political broadcasts and the coverage of an election. It is unfair and presumptuous of broadcasters to assume that the outcome of an election will mirror that of the preceding election. This introduces an element of bias into an election campaign and is in breach of broadcasters' obligations to give a balanced coverage.
It was interesting to look at television coverage of the recent British general election. All three of the main political parties received fairly equal coverage. However, the same does not apply here. An automatic bias is built in to the process which, with respect, largely benefits the Minister of State's party. I do not know how the matter will be resolved. I have had discussions with the State broadcaster regarding what it sees as its obligation to reflect the outcome of previous elections in determining the amount of air time each party gets for its political broadcast. The process is actually timed. The Labour Party might be pursuing a major issue in the middle of an election campaign but if the stopwatch indicates that we received a certain number of minutes and programmes in the previous two weeks we cannot be given more. This is daft and the matter needs to be examined.
There is a problem regarding the election address as a result of various introductions by An Post. There was a time when political parties or candidates put copies of the election address in envelopes and posted them out. The address, in the form of a letter, was sent to each individual voter. An Post then offered to do it using a system of labelling. The form of literature used to facilitate this is quite small and lends itself to pure sloganising. It does not allow for any development. A candidate should be able to communicate with the individual voter by way of a letter.
Despite progress in media and communications, it is now more difficult than ever for a candidate to communicate with an individual voter as a result of people's working arrangements and their not being home. We must retain the principle of an election candidate being able to send a letter or communication to a voter stating that for which he or she stands. We need to discuss with An Post a way of returning to a situation where we are not producing junk mail — this is how many people now interpret it — containing slogans. We must return to a situation where we can send a real item of political literature explaining who the candidate is and what he or she is about. This would contain more information and not just crude advertising.
Who actually issues the letter?
The candidate.
The candidate uses the An Post facilities.
Proportionality is not a matter for this Department but for the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.
Is the Minister of State referring to the Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources?
The matter should be addressed to that committee and the relevant Minister.
We have no proposals for further electoral Bills, although I cannot speak in absolutes. However, no Bill is envisaged.
Is no preparatory work under way with regard to future electoral legislation?
The Minister has said that there is an ongoing review. However, the Deputy asked whether there is any electoral Bill proposed at this time and the answer is no.
I agree with Deputies Gilmore and Kelleher with regard to the litir um thoghchán. I also agree with the Minister of State when he says that they are equally available to all. There is a certain fairness about the system in that regard. Nonetheless, I understand Deputy Cuffe's view and we should all consider using recyclable paper such as that employed by the Green Party.
Will the Minister of State clarify the issue in respect of party political broadcasts? Does the term "party political broadcast" mean that the facility is only available to political parties? It is not an equitable system if so, because it is not included in election expenses.
Broadcasting is an issue for the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The radio and television transmission of a broadcast on behalf of a candidate or political party during a national or European election does not count for expenses purposes.
I understand that. However, are these broadcasts only available to political parties? If they are, then not everybody is on a level playing pitch because broadcasts are not counted as election expenses. I do not know the answer; I am simply asking the question.
I do not have the information because it is a broadcasting issue. However, I can obtain it for the Deputy. I cannot give her an definitive answer at this time.
Question put and declared carried.
Section 7 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."
I am concerned that this may include part of the amendment which I wish to bring forward. On that basis, I must raise it as an issue about which I have concern. I will attempt to amend the Schedule on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their attendance. Does the Minister of State wish to comment?
I thank the Chairman for the effective and efficient way in which he has run his business. I thank the members for being constructive in opposition and my own party colleagues for being as constructive as always. I am delighted to have come through my first outing on Committee Stage without having my wings clipped too much.