Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I will be making a short contribution to this debate and will not be using the full time or anything close to it. This is because usually on Second Stage I outline the amendments I intend bringing forward and the rationale for them. Given that we accept the independence and impartiality of the commission, we will not be bringing forward amendments to its suggestions regarding the boundary reviews and constituencies. I will make a number of brief points related to the legislation and the recommendations the commission has made.

First, it is abundantly clear that there is not popular support for increasing the number of Deputies. This is something of which we are aware. Most people would like to see the resources going to other areas, be it employing more gardaí, nurses, doctors, teachers and speech and language therapists. If more resources were to go into democratic structures, there is a very strong case in Ireland for putting that into local democracy. We are one of the weakest countries in Europe and the OECD for local democracy and this is where extra resources should be put in. Failing to do so means we continue to have some of weakest public services in a number of areas. Other countries with stronger local democracy deliver stronger public services through their local democratic structures.

A second point I make was referenced by a previous Deputy. It has very strong merit. I thank the Library and Research Service for its excellent Bills digest where this is also discussed. There is very strong merit in the proposal of permanent constituencies with fixed boundaries. This is where the boundaries do not change but the number of seats allocated is revised due to changes in population. This should be looked at and there is merit in this approach. Some of the constructive reasons why this should be looked at is because it potentially provides stability, certainty and a level of continuity. It means county boundaries can be respected. It also potentially allows for better alignment. If constituencies are not constantly shifting, statutory structures and how they are aligned at a more local level can be aligned with Dáil constituencies. I refer to boundaries for the HSE, An Garda Síochána, drugs task forces, local employment services and all these different things. As a public representative, one can see over time how constituency boundaries shift. The statutory agencies sometimes shift to coincide with those and then the constituency boundaries end of shifting again and it can be very disruptive. As there is no standard for them to work within, it makes it harder then to have a consistent set of local boundaries that fit political structures and other public services which can mean you do not get the kind of liaison between different public services you might otherwise want. Therefore, there is a case for that. It is worth noting that several other EU countries with multi-seat constituencies have fixed boundaries and constituencies. Countries such as Spain, Belgium, Luxemburg, and Portugal use those.

The chopping and changing can be very alienating for communities. One example is an area that will now be in the constituency I represent, Balgriffin. Approximately 15 years ago, this was in a constituency called Dublin North. It was then shifted into a different constituency altogether called Dublin North-East, which no longer exists. Then it was shifted back into Dublin North called Dublin Fingal, and now has been shifted back into Dublin Bay North. Balgriffin is a developing community with very important needs. It potentially affects the representation of the community if it is constantly getting shifted back and forth. People living there are probably wondering what will happen in the next boundary review and whether they will simply be shifted off somewhere again. Even for public representatives who will be working on the issues that affect that community, this is potentially disrupted each time that community gets shifted and the new set of public representatives obviously have to become familiar with the issues and so forth and take up the work on it. We have seen previously how Swords, which is close enough to my constituency but not in it, was split in half, put into Dublin West and put back into Dublin Fingal.

There is a strong case for this at least to be investigated and properly examined by the Electoral Commission. It would require an amendment in legislation to allow for larger constituencies. It was disappointing to see submissions made to the commission arguing for six-seat constituencies from parties that voted down amendments that would have allowed for this and that supported the Bill restricting that cap of five-seaters. It was strange to vote down the legislation that would allow for six-seaters and then subsequently to ask for six-seaters in submissions having passed legislation that made that impossible. That needs to be revisited. The case has been made that looking at places like Wicklow and Wexford, six-seat constituencies would have meant they would not have been broken up in the way they have been.

The Electoral Commission is doing important work in its areas of research. The scrapping of by-elections would be a highly regressive move. We live in an electoral system where often, but not always, certain significant parts of the electorate vote for the candidate and not the party. For them, if a by-election arises, not being able to have a say again would be unfair. They do not necessarily vote in a party candidate, though some voters do. It would give particular power to party insiders and party hacks who decide those list systems and who goes forward on them. We see that, generally, where there are alternative lists, there is not scrutiny of them because the assumption is they will not be utilised. By-elections can also give important feedback to the political system for both Government and Opposition. When that feedback is listened to and heard, it can be useful. Taking that away from voters would be regressive. Another area the commission is looking at in research is about including people more in the democratic process, including disabled people, young people and migrants. These are important areas.

The final point I wish to make is about the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, and its oversight of the electoral process. Where are the legislative measures to beef up its powers? These have been promised by successive governments since 2014 but have never been delivered. Why have they not been delivered, when we see all these other reforms going on with regard to the electoral process? SIPO itself has been calling for increased powers of investigation and enforcement for 20 years. Given that all of us take the democratic process so seriously and given these resources are going into the process and the Electoral Commission that is set up, why is this deficit of SIPO powers still outstanding and when will we see progress on that?

See this speech in context