Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil supports the Bill. The boundary commission has been a feature of the system since before I was elected a Member of this House, which was not today or yesterday. It is fair to say no Government of any persuasion has ever sought to interfere with the recommendations of a boundary commission, which is good. With all due respect to all sides of the House, if politicians were to start interfering with independent reports, particularly on the drawing of constituency boundaries, we would be at the beginning of a slippery slope.

Following the previous revision in 2008, a number of local representatives in my area who were members of the Minister, Deputy Hogan's, party, Fine Gael, suggested to the public press that the commission had been interfered with in some way by the then Government. That was a gross libelling of members of the commission. The commission has never been influenced one way or the other by a Government. There is not a scintilla of evidence to support that assertion. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. With the Acting Chairman's indulgence, I will give the House the benefit of my experience.

There have been seven or eight constituency revisions during my time as a Member of the House, all of which, bar one, were introduced by a Fianna Fáil or Fianna Fáil-led Government. Only one was introduced by a Fine Gael-led Government. They all had one thing in common, namely, they led to a reduction in the area of my core vote. On each occasion I lost a loyal cohort of voters and had to work immeasurably harder in the remainder of the constituency to make up for that loss. The apogee of that process came in the famous constituency revision following the 2007 general election which resulted in my constituency being reduced from a five to four seat constituency and the removal of the remaining part of my home area, an area in which I had received 4,500 first preferences in the preceding election. That was at a time when Fianna Fáil was in power and I was a member of the Cabinet. It was not a very palatable change, but there was little I could do about it and I would not have sought to do anything about it either. I recall being at the Cabinet table when the then Minister for the Environment announced that the constituency commission report was out. I did not see the report until several hours after the Cabinet meeting had concluded. The revision being proposed by the Minister in this legislation is the first since I became a Member of the House that actually benefits me in terms of my being able to represent much of my home area again. When I first saw the report, I was so overcome by excitement and exhilaration that I thought I might vote for Fine Gael in the next general election. Thankfully, that madness passed as quickly as it had come on me.

On the procedure to be used generally, the Minister will know that there are criteria set out in the original legislation to which the commission must adhere, including in considering county boundaries, physical features etc.. I know it is extremely difficult for a commission to adhere to these criteria based on changes in population, given the significant shifts during the past two decades. I may be wrong but recent revisions appeared to breach rather than observe these criteria. Perhaps the Minister or his officials might consider examining whether the basic legislation could be amended to ensure these criteria would be taken seriously. They serve a purpose and the commission is supposed to adhere to them.

The shape of constituencies is only one part of the overall constitutional jigsaw. The reality - any objective outside observer would have to admit this - is that the Irish political system is not fit for purpose. I recall saying this many years ago when giving an interview to a national newspaper. It was more fit for purpose then than it is now. I recall being called in by the then Government Chief Whip - Fianna Fáil was in government at the time - and being admonished and having my knuckles wrapped for saying it. I also recall being given the cold shoulder by some because in their view I had let down the club. If it was true then, it is even more true now. I could spend from now until midnight outlining the deficiencies of the system. The fundamental fault lies in the imbalance between the Executive and the Houses of the Oireachtas. It cannot be truthfully said both Houses of the Oireachtas are in a position to properly hold the Executive to account and that has been the case for many years. It has probably been the case since the inception of the State. The only time during my long career that I saw the Oireachtas have power was when a Government was on its last legs and trying to appease the Oireachtas because it had lost its majority and was struggling to buy time. Apart from such a scenario, it is one way traffic. I studied with some respect the Fine Gael and Labour Party election manifestos on which they fought the last general election. Having done so, I thought a constitutional revolution was on the way. Following the election, the Fine Gael-Labour Party Government was formed and the two parties sat down to draw up a programme for Government. That document contains words such as "radical" and "fundamental" and phrases such as "dragging the Dáil into the 21st century" and "significant revamping". I suppose it was written in the first flush of enthusiasm. While I have noted a resiling from some of the manifesto commitments, to which I will return, the enthusiasm remains.

While I recognise that there have been some changes, if one looks at the performance to date measured against the fine words, one sees that terms like radical, fundamental and significant are inappropriate. Deputy English and others referred to the reduction in the membership of Dáil Éireann. The Fine Gael manifesto was very specific and stated that 20 seats would go but only eight went. The Minister has said that if he wanted to get rid of any more seats he would have to hold a constitutional referendum because of the 30,000 per member rule. We have had many constitutional referenda and the Minister could have held one during the Government's honeymoon period when a proposal to the people that we reduce the number of TDs would have been passed with no difficulty. I welcome the idea of fewer TDs and, indeed, I have seen a Private Member's Bill drawn up by Members of the Minister's own party which seeks to reduce the number of TDs to 100 and to create single-seat constituencies. Whatever about the latter part of that proposal, I find the first part very acceptable. While a reduction from 166 to 158 is welcome and is some form of progress, it is hardly radical or fundamental.

See this speech in context