Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this important Bill. I thank the commission, led by Ms Justice Marie Baker, for its work. It was set up in February and its report was published in August. I thank also the Department for its work on the Bill.

I thank the Minister for the written copy of his detailed contribution. He stated, somewhat jokingly, that he hopes he will never again have to read through an entire report regarding changes or the absence of changes to various constituencies. The best way to do that, of course, is to follow up on the research that is going to come from the commission in regard to boundaries being fixed, bringing certainty such as that which the various academics have asked for and backing it up with research. We will then have certainty on the matter and flexibility regarding the number of Deputies, if not regarding the boundaries. That is one of the best ways for the Minister to ensure he will never have to repeat this exercise.

Unfortunately, however, it is going to happen again after the next census, which will be in 2027, because it did not happen this time. The reason it did not happen this time is that the commission was asked to base its analysis on the existing Electoral Act, which places a premium on the boundaries. I am not sure when Deputy Leddin was first elected to the House, but the county boundaries have been set and we must take particular notice of them. When the commission was acting, it was acting on the basis of what is set out in the legislation and also, of course, of what the Government asked it to do. There was no flexibility in regard to constituencies of six seats or more. I understand there have been no six-seaters since 1943, but at some stage prior to that, there was a nine-seater for Galway city and county.

It has been pointed out in that research that the more seats there are, the better the representation for diverse groups, from what I understand. Will the Minister of State tell us when we will have the research? Is a date set? I know other research is ongoing on reducing the age of voters to 16, on which I have very mixed views. I must put that on the record. Children are children in my opinion. Maybe we will come back to that another day. There is research on posters. I think they are a vital part of any election process. It is low-hanging fruit that we look at posters. I often see a hypocritical attitude in Galway to posters. TDs are held to the strictest accountability when putting them up and down, yet various clubs, such as rugby and soccer clubs and charities or clubs from any walk of life, erect posters yet the same accountability is not held to. That is a low-hanging fruit argument with which I do not agree at all. I am open to looking at recyclable materials but at the very least a poster alerts people that something is happening, that there is an election. It invites participation and even comments on your image. It is all part of the process. There are comments such as whether you did your hair right or not, particularly if you are a woman. That is all part of the process of an election and it raises awareness. Although I believe democracy is an illusion on my bad days, on my good, optimistic days, I believe it is all we have. We have to make it work. The election process is a vital part of that. The physical count is a vital part too. As someone who lost out by 17 votes in 2011, I know it from every side. I have the greatest respect for the process, county registrars who stand into the breach and all workers from local authorities and extras who come forward. I hope we never lose that.

The Bill will increase the number of TDs by 14. There is a narrative that we do not need to increase the number and it will cost a lot. It will cost some money, which is set out in the regulatory impact analysis. It is quite clear. What it will cost is open and accountable. It is also pursuant to the Constitution, in Article 16, which sets out that all TDs will represent a population of between 20,000 and 30,000. Rather than appealing to the lowest common denominator that we do not need TDs and so on, we must set out clearly for people what is involved. If we need to change the Constitution, which we clearly do, that should be the argument and the focus of our approach. I am watching this and I have been impressed by the various articles I have read by Michael Gallagher, as has already been mentioned, and Mr. Coakley and another person setting out how best to represent people and what the best changes are to make democracy mean something. Having the maximum number of TDs in the Dáil across all groups seems to be the best way. I am no expert. I am repeating parrot-like but I understood from what I read that we need more seats in any constituency. Unfortunately, with this, we increased the number of three- and four-seaters but the biggest increase has been in three-seaters. We also increased four- and five-seaters but a bigger number would put paid to our hypocrisy when talking about more representation in the Dáil. The best way to do that, it would seem, is to increase the number of TDs in any given constituency. I look forward to that when the research comes out.

I spoke about the illusion. That is something I experienced as a local councillor. I watched more and more responsibility being heaped upon councillors and staff without any more resources. At the same time, power was completely taken from them. I listened to the EPA telling us that Waterford and other local authorities have failed to inspect. I despair with that type of comment because, at the risk of boring the House, I will repeat that 23 years ago, we led in Galway in recycling. There were three different bins and we had an education officer. We did not work in a punitive manner. I say "theoretically" because no system is perfect and there were serious questions as to where the material was going but, theoretically, we led in Galway city and tried to lead in the county, as I gather, with education officers encouraging people, no incineration, zero waste and working towards all of that. We brought in a city plan that reflected those principles and what the people of Galway wanted. There were monster meetings in the Corrib Great Southern Hotel, which unfortunately is now gone and should have been bought by the State; one bad mistake after another. The point is that we were going in that direction 20 years ago. People came on board; they begged us. What happened? Power was taken from councillors. They can no longer make waste management plans. It is out of their hands. Many other powers were also taken away along with that. I am conscious that we are talking about increasing the number of TDs in the Dáil. I think Deputy Ó Murchú referred to it earlier when he said it is a glorified county or city council on occasion because we have failed to resource local authorities. The number of councillors in Galway in the city and county was increased which I did not think was necessary but I have an open mind on these things. However, they were not resourced and there was no restoration of powers. Councillors were increased up to 18 in Galway city and 39 in the county but we utterly failed to give them power back.

My colleague mentioned the County and City Management Association, CCMA, of which I despair. I put that on the record publicly without any hesitation. Power should be with the city councillors who have meetings in public, whether you like them or not, they are open and accountable and people can see that. After a battle in Galway to have a public gallery and people walking in like in a courthouse to watch proceedings, that all went by the board. Now, you have to phone in advance, perhaps a week beforehand. I am exaggerating but you nearly have to give a CV before you get in to see proceedings. I exaggerate but you have to give pre-notice. We have gone backwards in that regard.

The CCMA has huge power and all is done behind closed doors. It is never seen and there is no accountability. I have not seen any minutes. Perhaps I am wrong; somebody might correct me and tell me that the minutes are publicly available of those meetings in which decisions are taken. I have never seen them. It is important that we look at the Dáil as an assembly and a coming together of the representatives of the people. That ties in with the best part of the Lisbon Treaty - I think it is Article 10 but I cannot remember precisely - in which is stated that all decisions should be made as close as possible to the ground. The EU took off in a different direction, making decisions behind closed doors. The arms industry, which is very topical at the moment because of Gaza, is on equal footing with Commissioners, there is an open door to them, totally against the purpose of the article in making decisions as close as possible to people on the ground.

In the absence of that, this Dáil takes on even more importance, where people can trust politicians. They do not have to agree with us. I do not mind if anybody disagrees with me but they know where they stand with me and that is vitally important. That does not mean I am rigid or that I have a closed mind but I know what I know and I will go off, read and listen but you will know where you stand with me. That is what people have asked for, repeatedly, in every single election since I started this career. They want honesty, straightforwardness and hard work. I pay tribute to the TDs and Ministers who work very hard but the twisting of language and spin from advisers is not good. It creates a disconnect between the people on the ground who elected us and their belief that we can do what we said we could. As well as the numbers, what is fair and just and keeping the boundaries, that is equally important.

When Galway took in south County Mayo on the last occasion, including Kilmaine, Shrule, and, at the time, Ballinrobe, they were most unhappy with us. At least this has allowed them to go back into Mayo and have that recognition of the county.

It did not want us. It was a silly decision. It cut it off from Mayo and put it in with us. It was very good to me and I want to pay tribute to it. The decision never made sense. I welcome the fact that we now have a commission on a permanent basis. Up until 1979, there were serious allegations of gerrymandering. That is what led to the various commissions on an ad hocbasis. We now have a permanent one. We must resource it properly. It is pointless having a commission unless it is properly resourced.

SIPO has been mentioned. It is vitally important that we listen to what it has repeatedly told us and what it has written in annual reports. It has appealed to us over and over again to resource it so that it can carry out its job and has the resources to do that. We are not doing that. Increasing the number of Deputies without parallel changes is not a good idea.

See this speech in context