Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation. It is ironic that the constituency boundaries revision does not affect me or my constituency to any great extent other than that the boundaries and populations will be marginally moved and that will create difficulties in terms of logistics in how to facilitate the voters in a particular area.

In general, however, my view is that constituency boundaries should remain constant with county or other boundaries in so far as is possible. Over the years a certain continuity will have built up with public representatives and they will have come to identify with their respective areas, a development beneficial to the community at large. It is hugely important that the public have a rapport with their elected public representatives within a constituency boundary. It is important that public representatives devote their activities to addressing the issues that affect their constituencies.

When one unravels the fabric of existing systems, there is always a tendency to create something new on the basis that it will be better. That is not always necessarily the case. Some new constituencies will prove extremely difficult for travel for their public representatives. Two Members present, Deputies Smith and Perry, will soon experience this logistical problem in their respective new constituencies. In my time, 50 miles was the longest distance I had to travel and that was in the old Kildare constituency, which has since been divided into the smaller Kildare North and South constituencies.

When boundaries are rearranged, one factor that is always left out is the degree to which the voting public identifies with the people it elects. Some strange things have happened in this regard from time to time. Although a boundary change may have been well flagged in advance, there have been occasions on which people have refused to vote when they found they could only vote for a representative they had not previously voted for. These are not isolated instances but have come about on several occasions in my constituency in the past, as well as in others. I know it will happen again because of this boundary commission review.

When the terms of reference of the review are set down, it naturally follows that one has to start somewhere and end somewhere else. However, as we all know, wherever one starts, the ripples extend right out to the perimeter. It is at that particular juncture that people find themselves squeezed, as it were.

Some people will take great pleasure in the fact that public representatives will find themselves challenged by boundary revisions and the subsequent unease that creates. Apart from the pleasure it gives some people who like to comment on these matters, it does not do anything for the public or improve or extend the remit of the public representative. Neither does it improve the quality or level of representation. It could, however, have the effect of removing the public representative to a distance further afield from those who elected him or her.

There is a theory that there is too much interaction between the electorate and public representatives. I do not agree with this as I believe it is good and important that elected public representatives engage with the electorate to such an extent as to be able to identify how the legislation they pass in Parliament affects them. If we lose that vital ingredient, there is no other avenue for the public to express themselves other than waiting for the next election. It also has the possibility of creating instability, particularly at times of economic difficulty. The one thing we now know we need more than anything else, and which will continue to be needed for some years to come, is stability. We must have reliability, continuity and stability. There must be a recognition that those outside this jurisdiction looking to invest in this or other jurisdictions will, in the first instance, seek out places that have the ability to provide stability.

I am concerned that we are heading towards a situation in which the electorate is more removed from its elected representatives than in the past. Some other jurisdictions - some closer and some further afield - have had that tradition over the years. In some jurisdictions, the electorate very seldom sees its public representatives. Some may say, cynically, that it is better that way. I do not agree. The interaction that takes place here between elected representatives and the electorate is good for Parliament, democracy and the public. That does not mean to say that elected public representatives should always bend to the ever-changing whims of an electorate. It does, however, encourage public representatives to be responsible and ensures people's expectations are not unnecessarily raised. It also ensures that we are realistic, that we give leadership and that we give sound advice to our constituents and, in turn, that they will benefit economically from that. We have much to work on in this area, provided we do not expect to wave a magic wand and come up with some new invention for the democratic system to make it much more responsive and effective, because there is a contradiction in that as well.

Strange things happen from time to time. I remember making comparisons between our system and those in other European countries. We have long since abolished the dual mandate which allowed Oireachtas Members to be local authority members. There was a significant amount of applause from certain quarters when that was abolished. I totally disagreed at the time because I believed it was a negative and unnecessary development. It removed people who had knowledge at national parliamentary level from local authorities. With that went much of the power that was vested in local authorities previously. Events since have shown that. Hence the need now for local government reform. I know there were some who took great pleasure in the fact that Oireachtas Members were no longer members of local authorities and it was thought to be a good idea. However, I have not seen the benefits of it.

I recall meeting a gentleman from Belgium who was mayor of his town, a member of his national parliament and a Member of the European Parliament. While he would not have the same travel problems as one would have here, he was adequately able to represent his constituencies at all levels. He was always present and active. This increased the extent to which he was required to have a working knowledge of what happened in his constituency at local, national and international level. I am not saying it is possible to do the same in this country but I believe it was possible before the dual mandate was abolished. It was also much more beneficial for local and national democracy. While there are certain pundits who will strongly disagree with me, I strongly disagree with them as well. I reserve the right to hold that view on the dual mandate and will continue to hold it.

We should learn from our mistakes in the past and improve on our current position. Ultimately, it should be an objective of constituency reviews that we make the constituency relevant as far as the public is concerned and we do not become slaves to someone else's grand theory about what democracy should look like. Incidentally, the basic democratic system of direct elections to the national parliament is the ultimate one.

I realise various pundits have put forward suggestions on what might be improved but I do not believe in that concept either. I believe the system we have is the best one. I do not believe in list systems. The direct election system is the best. I believe that we should have a greater emphasis on continuity in so far as elected public representatives have a greater affinity with constituencies than might be the case if there were a series of electoral boundary revisions which ultimately created new and different boundaries after each revision to such an extent that there was a lack of identification with a particular area when it came to public representation.

I do not accept the notion of those who believe that legislators should sit in a glass tower where legislation becomes impersonal and is done in a vacuum. As public representatives, the best lessons we learn come from listening to the views of our constituents and their reactions to the legislation that we pass or do not pass from time to time. We should keep an eye on it. We should remember that this a basic concept and tenet of democracy. If we do not, cannot or are unable to relate to the electorate and explain the situation we find ourselves in, and if we cannot identify with them and they with us, then we will lose the battle and democracy may well be replaced by something else. There are some who would regard that as a great idea but I do not concur.

I hope that when the next constituency revision takes place - ultimately it will occur because of changes in population - some of the boundary changes that should be addressed again will be addressed in a positive way with a greater and due regard for county and other boundaries that have existed in the past and within which we have become familiar with working.

See this speech in context