Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See this speech in context