Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)

Tá áthas orm seans a fháil labhairt ar an mBille tábhachtach seo. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue once again and am relieved that the proposals contained in the constituency boundary report are at last being taken seriously. When I was last afforded the opportunity to speak on the Constituency Commission's proposals, it was merely to make a statement on them. I expressed disappointment at the time that members would not have an opportunity to vote on the issue and that it would be treated as an interim report. Such was the level of respectful objection among many of the speakers that the Minister, Deputy Gormley, agreed to bring the issue back to the House in the form of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2008.

Although I am disappointed that the Bill adopts the same recommendations as those of the Constituency Commission's report, I now have the opportunity, with other Deputies who suggested a re-examination of the recommendations, to appeal for real change. I hope we will have some leverage to compel the relevant committee to include our suggestions on Committee Stage.

When I previously spoke on this subject last May, I made clear my objections to some of the Constituency Commission's proposals. In particular, I remain convinced that the plan to rejig parts of north Dublin into the Dublin West constituency is ludicrous. Many other areas will also be affected. Limerick West is to be incorporated into Kerry North, parts of east County Meath are to be included in Louth, parts of south County Offaly will move to North Tipperary and Leitrim remains divided into two Dáil constituencies.

I acknowledge the reasons for this proposal and I am in no way criticising the commission itself as I know it is acting independently and has no agenda. However, I believe it to be short-sighted in some of its recommendations. In a bid to address the balance among the constituencies, the commission has commenced this slash and burn plan. It is arbitrarily hacking apart constituencies and adding a portion of one constituency to another. This slapdash approach will undoubtedly satisfy the representation ratio of 30,000 per Deputy but it is ripping apart communities and disenfranchising thousands of people.

The situation in my constituency of Dublin North and neighbouring Dublin West is a case in point. Both constituencies have too many people and too few public representatives. It is proposed to make up the shortfall in the hugely under represented Dublin West by chopping an area containing 13,000 people out of the town of Swords. This allows for the creation of one more seat in Dublin West. By shifting the boundary, the population of Dublin North is also reduced to such a degree that the ratio of seats to population is more closely satisfied.

Swords is the largest town in my constituency. It has a population of 33,000 and is growing rapidly. Fingal County Council estimates that the population of Swords will grow to upwards of 100,000 people in the next 20 years and is taking this prediction so seriously that members recently passed a plan, Your Swords, an Emerging City, to cater for the growth. Swords is already the tenth largest town in Ireland and is larger than Navan and Kilkenny. It is geographically isolated from Dublin West by virtue of 11 miles of agricultural land, while the M50 and the airport prevent it from sprawling into the more urban centres of Santry and Ballymun and the M1 means it will never grow as far as Malahide. Swords is one of the single most identifiable stand-alone towns in north County Dublin, so to split it between two constituencies seems madness. The proposals in the Constituency Commission's report, and now the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, definitely serve a purpose, but the same result could have been achieved through detailed consideration of all the constituencies. Proper consideration is necessary to prevent towns being split across different constituencies just to make up the numbers.

The proposal for Swords is preposterous. It is planned to split Swords down the Main Street, with everyone to the west of the street voting in Dublin West and everyone else voting in Dublin North. Consider the case of the River Valley area of Swords. This is a large housing estate which generates an enormous number of queries for me every year. The people are politically active and well aware of their public representatives. If somebody living in the Boroimhe Estate in Swords, for example, whose children go to school in Swords village, has a problem with that school, who will they consult? Will it be me as the representative for Dublin North or my colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, because they will now vote in Dublin West? What was a close-knit, politically active community will be bewildered as to who represents them on these issues. I predict their disillusionment with politics.

The same confusion will exist for local councillors as they prepare to work with the Deputies from two different constituencies to deal with the same issues. This is just one example of the jurisdictional problems that will arise from the proposal to split Swords and the River Valley-Forest Road area. The housing estates of Boroimhe, Ridgewood, Forest Road, Knocksedan and Highfields are all destined to join Castleknock, Blanchardstown, Porterstown, Clonsilla and Mulhuddart in Dublin West. All of these areas will have a weakened electoral power.

The hundreds of residents who contacted me after the commission issued its report live in fear of disenfranchisement. At the next election they believe they will be considered the last outpost before the boundary with Dublin North, and their views will not be canvassed. They are aware they will make up just 12% of the population of Dublin West and their opinions and needs will be secondary to those of the larger urban areas of Castleknock and Blanchardstown. Even more galling is the likelihood that when the population expands in both constituencies, which is certain, Swords will once again be reunified with Dublin North, making this exercise entirely pointless. If Swords grows to 100,000 people, as predicted, and similar growth is experienced in Dublin West it is likely that both populations will support additional seats in their own right.

Another ludicrous suggestion is the proposal to move the airport into the Dublin West constituency. If one asked anybody where the airport is located, Dublin West would not be the obvious answer. The airport is an ideological symbol of Dublin North. It is incredibly important to the population of Dublin North, whom I represent. To move it into the constituency of another group of Deputies is, at best, unwise and, at worst, ridiculous.

In addition, areas of Portmarnock are being moved from Dublin North to Dublin North-East. In fact, their removal is further proof of the slapdash approach the commission employed in making its recommendations. Deputy Terence Flanagan spoke on the Bill earlier. In the map used by the commission, two estates will remain in Dublin North while the rest of Portmarnock will be moved into Dublin North-East. This shows how ridiculous these proposals are. A small group of people living in Portmarnock, ten metres from their neighbours, will be represented by Deputies for Dublin North, and I will be happy to represent them, but the rest of the people will be represented by Deputies for Dublin North-East. These proposals are short-sighted and ridiculous.

I mentioned earlier that Swords is seen as a stand-alone town. It also identifies itself primarily as a north Dublin town. The residents of Swords have issues that are very specific to north County Dublin and they align themselves historically with the nearby towns of Balbriggan, Skerries, Donabate, Rush, Lusk, Malahide and Portmarnock. I have been contacted by hundreds of people from Swords on this issue. Never have I seen a proposal so violently opposed by such large numbers. Such is the level of opposition that the community has formed a non-partisan, non-political group called the Swords Electoral Boundary Action Group. I suggest that the Minister and the members of the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government examine the group's excellent submission document and take on board its recommendations.

The Swords Electoral Boundary Action Group raises the issue of contiguous areas and how the 1997 Electoral Act states that each constituency "shall be composed of contiguous areas" and that "there shall be regard for geographical considerations including significant physical features and the extent and the density of population in each constituency". This means we are legally obliged to take account of the natural geographical boundaries. I believe the 11 km of farm land and the N2 lying between Swords and Blanchardstown should be considered the boundaries.

The commission and the Minister have been at pains to explain the motivation for moving a proportion of Swords into Dublin West. Again, it comes back to the issue of re-addressing boundaries and both would argue that the constitutional obligation to provide a balanced constituency far outweighs the legal ramifications of not obeying geographical boundaries. However, in weighing up the issue of equality of representation versus adherence to natural townland boundaries, the Supreme Court, as outlined in the Constituency Commission's report, deferred to Deputies and local representatives to identify the problems arising out of redrawing boundaries. In the section of the report relating to equality of representation, the commission quotes the Supreme Court judgment on the matter of Article 26 of the Constitution and in the matter of the Electoral Amendment Bill 1961: "The problem of what is practicable is primarily one for the Oireachtas, whose members have knowledge of the problems and difficulties to be solved, which this court cannot have."

These reports should be interim reports. The Members of this House are better aware of the issues involved than a small group of people who are not as familiar with the areas. The commission's report goes so far as to suggest that where the boundaries of counties, townlands and electoral divisions are to be disrupted by proposed changes, there can be a departure from the constitutional requirements relating to equality of representation. It appears out of kilter, therefore, for the Commission to recommend the removal of 13,000 voters from Swords and to transfer them to the Dublin West constituency.

As I have said previously, and I will continue to say it until somebody listens, the proposal to split Swords between two constituencies is madness. It is a nightmare for the people of the area, the public representatives and the infrastructural services provided in the area. The local election boundary report did not recommend that Swords be split. The committee was recommended to follow Dáil constituency boundaries and it agreed that Swords should remain a single area. I am extremely disappointed the Minister has not taken the opportunity with this Bill to listen to the many Deputies throughout the House who can point out these deficiencies. I hope our proposals will be listened to on Committee Stage. That would be in the best interests of democracy.

See this speech in context