John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, to make his statement under Standing Order 43.

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Constituency Commission presented its Report on Dáil and European Parliament Constituencies 2007 to the Ceann Comhairle on 23 October 2007.

At the outset, it might be helpful for the House if I outline the principal constitutional and other legal requirements relating to the revision of Dail constituencies. Article 16° of the Constitution provides: "The ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country."

This provision was considered by the courts in two cases in 1961, the High Court case of John O'Donovan versus the Attorney General and the Supreme Court reference case relating to the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 1961. It was again considered in a High Court case last year taken by Deputies Finian McGrath and the former Deputy Catherine Murphy where it was argued that the constituencies on which the general election was being fought did not comply with the constitutional requirement contained in that article. In none of these cases did the courts quantify the precise degree of equality of representation that is required by the Constitution.

In his judgment in June 2007, Mr. Justice Clarke emphasised the urgent obligation on the Oireachtas under the Constitution to revise constituencies in circumstances such as those we now have. For example, at paragraph 4.23, he stated that where census figures show that current constituencies are no longer proportional, "....the Oireachtas has an immediate and pressing obligation to put in place measures designed to remedy that problem by enacting appropriate amending legislation". At paragraph 8.1 of the judgment, he stated: "...the obligation to review constituencies is one which places an urgent burden on the Oireachtas. This burden is all the more so when constituencies can be demonstrated to have as high a degree of lack of proportionality as was undoubtedly demonstrated to be the case on the facts of this case."

Examples of significant disparities in terms of population to seat ratio based on Census 2006 include 21.24% above the national average in Dublin West; 17.76% above the national average in Dublin North; 13.79% above the national average in Meath East; and 10.6% below the national average in Dun Laoghaire. These constituencies are still in place.

Article 16.2.4° of the Constitution provides that: "The Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once in every twelve years, with due regard to changes in distribution of the population, . . ." This, in effect, requires that the constituencies be revised whenever population changes shown in a census lead to populations per Deputy in individual constituencies that are significantly out of line with national average representation. Mr. Justice Clarke's judgment, as I said, emphasises that there is an urgent obligation on the Oireachtas to revise constituencies as soon as it becomes clear from a census that the existing constituencies no longer have the level of proportionality that the Constitution requires.

Section 5 of the Electoral Act 1997 provides that, on publication of the relevant CSO report on a census, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government must set up a commission to report on Dáil and European constituencies. The terms of reference of the commission are specified in the Act, which are subordinate to the relevant constitutional provisions.

For over half a century after the founding of the State, changes in constituencies were formulated and advanced by the Government of the day. The first constituency commission was set up in 1977 to report on constituencies for the first direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979. The first Dáil constituency commission was established in 1980 on a non-statutory basis and such non-statutory commissions continued to report on the constituency revisions until the enactment of the Electoral Act 1997. The commission that reported in October 2007 is the third statutory commission established under the Act. It is the long-established practice for the Oireachtas to enact, in full, constituency revisions recommended by the independent commissions created for this purpose over the last 30 years.

Under the 1997 Act, a constituency commission was established on 26 April 2007, chaired by the honourable Mr. Justice larfhlaith O'Neill, a judge of the High Court. The other members of the Commission were Mr. Kieran Coughlan, Clerk of the Dáil; Ms. Deirdre Lane, Clerk of the Seanad; Ms. Geraldine Tallon, Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; and Ms. Emily O'Reilly, the Ombudsman.

Section 6 of the 1997 Act provides that a constituency commission shall, in observing the relevant provisions of the Constitution, have regard to the following: the total number of members of the Dáil shall be not fewer than 164 and not more than 168; each constituency shall return three, four or five Members; the breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as practicable; each constituency shall be composed of contiguous areas; there shall be regard to geographic considerations, including significant physical features and the extent and density of population in each constituency; and, subject to these provisions, the commission shall endeavour to maintain continuity with regard to the arrangement of constituencies.

The commission's report recommends that total Dáil membership should remain at 166, in 43 constituencies, the same number as at present. A total of 19 of the proposed constituencies are identical in name, area and level of representation to an existing constituency. A further 18 retain the name and level of representation of an existing constituency, but differ from it to varying degrees in area. Many of these changes are small and involve a relatively minor reallocation of population, for example, from the Cork East, Cork North-West, Donegal North-East, Kildare South and Laois-Offaly constituencies. Therefore, many parts of the country are not affected, or are not affected significantly, by the commission's recommendations.

Inevitably, however, given the constitutional requirements as regards equality of representation, there are significant changes in some areas where the 2006 census indicated notable population growth or decline compared to the national average. An increase of one seat is proposed in both the Louth and Dublin West constituencies, together with changes in the areas covered by the constituencies. A reduction of one seat is proposed in both Dún Laoghaire and Limerick East, with the latter to be renamed as Limerick City. Changes in the areas covered by these constituencies are also provided for. It is proposed that the area and name of two constituencies should change and that Kerry North and Limerick West should be amended to Kerry North-West Limerick and Limerick, respectively.

The commission's terms of reference include the avoidance of breaches of county boundaries as far as practicable. Commission recommendations have at times been criticised for not keeping to these boundaries. The current report involves three new breaches of county boundaries, in Kerry-Limerick, Louth-Meath and Offaly-Tipperary. While attachment to county boundaries is understandable, the terms of reference of commissions are subordinate to the relevant constitutional provisions, which do not refer to counties.

In the High Court judgment of Mr. Justice Budd in the O'Donovan case, it was stated:

. . . although a system in the main based on counties has in fact been adopted, there is nothing in the Constitution about constituencies being based on counties. The Constitution does not say that in forming the constituencies according to the required ratio, that shall be done so far as is practicable having regard to county boundaries.

There is no absolute prohibition on the breach of county boundaries. Indeed, the experience has been that at times the constitutional provisions require such action.

On European Parliament constituencies, the commission recommends, in a context of 12 representatives from Ireland in the Parliament, a reduction of a seat in the Dublin constituency and the transfer of the population of counties Longford and Westmeath from the east to the north-west constituency.

We can all recognise that it might have been possible for the commission to suggest solutions other than those recommended in the report. However, the commission's independent determination of the issues, taking account of submissions made, should be respected. By cherry-picking individual recommendations, we would undermine the reasons for establishing an independent commission in the first place. It is my firm view that the precedent of adhering to the commission's advice should not be broken.

Deputies from all sides will undoubtedly have views on specific recommendations. While some views may be quite positive, it is probably human nature that those who are not happy with the report will contribute more to discussion on it than those who are content with it. I have no doubt that there will be cross-party concerns about recommendations affecting particular local areas. I fully acknowledge and respect such concerns, which reflect the inevitably significant impact of the relevant constitutional requirements on areas with population trends which diverge from the national average. They are also, in terms of their cross-party nature, a mark of the independence of the commission in carrying out its work. In this regard, it should be noted that the commission gives careful and considered reasons in its report for the recommendations it makes.

Consistent with past practice and taking account of the urgent need for the Oireachtas to legislate in accordance with the commission's report, the Government approved the drafting of the necessary Bill to give effect to the commission's report at its meeting on 30 January 2008. Drafting of the Bill is at an advanced stage and my Department and the Attorney General's Office are working to ensure that the Bill will be published as soon as possible.

The Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2008 will also provide for future commissions to be established on publication by the CSO of the preliminary figures in respect of a census and for the work of a commission to be finalised after publication by the CSO of the final census figures. The Bill will bring nomination procedures for non-party candidates at European Parliament and local elections into line with those enacted for Dáil elections in the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2007.

I look forward to the contributions of Deputies on this important issue. However, I must stress again the need for action. There is, in the words of Mr. Justice Clarke in paragraph 8 of his judgment, "an urgent constitutional imperative on the Oireachtas to deal with any disparity as a matter of urgency". The Bill I propose to bring before the House shortly to implement the commission's report will do that.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is rather surprising that we have on the agenda today statements on the electoral boundary commission, although I am sure there is a good political reason for that. The Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, stand accused of acting illegally in respect of the electoral boundaries. At least, it can be shown that there has been an unjustifiable delay in giving effect to the recommendations to the constituency commission, given that it was approved for drafting by Government on 30 January 2008. It is clear that because of these delays the Oireachtas, or more appropriately the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government who has responsibility in this area, is in breach of constitutional law and is open to challenge.

The Government has ignored the report of the Electoral Boundary Commission and deliberately delayed its implementation, in spite of a High Court judgment in 2007 whereby Judge Frank Clark stated that the Government would be obliged to implement the recommendations of the commission with minimum delay. I know things happen slowly around here, but——

John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Did the Deputy not hear what I said in my speech? I quoted that judgment.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The definition of a minimum delay seems to depend on who one is. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Taoiseach have ignored the commission, statute law, the Constitution and the clear direction of the courts with regard to the implementation of the report of the Electoral Boundary Commission with minimum delay. The Green Party seems to be happy to sit idly by and watch this happen under the watchful gaze of one of its own.

I was bemused recently when the Taoiseach, then Tánaiste, was expansive on the Order of Business about Members here having a second bite of the cherry with regard to the report of the Electoral Boundary Commission. However, I was less bemused when I looked into what he was proposing. When he said that Members should have an opportunity to give their views and send them back to the commission — to do what, he did not say — that could, if one was an undying optimist, be regarded as Fianna Fáil finally accepting the primacy of the Dáil. In the same week that he proposed this new review role for the Dáil in respect of the boundary commission, the Dáil was told by the outgoing Taoiseach when commenting on tribunals that there was a different or better way to deal with things. The former Taoiseach told the Dáil that a better way of dealing with investigations into ethical wrongdoing or corruption by Members through tribunals was by a committee of the House. This road to Damascus conversion is a bit rich from a party which has been in power for the past 11 years and has sat on meaningful reform of the Dáil. The one exception — Leaders' Questions — came from the then Ceann Comhairle rather than resulting from openness on the part of Fianna Fáil.

The Taoiseach has received plaudits for his eulogy at the late Patrick Hillery's funeral on what was interpreted by some in the media as affirming a departure from the dark Haughey era. However, on Question Time he proposed to review the report of the Constituency Commission, placing himself slap bang in the middle of that same era.

Constituency revisions, before the onset of the Constituency Commission in 1980, had a chequered history. Since Jack Lynch, a noble predecessor of the Taoiseach, established the commission in 1980, all its reports have been enacted into law by both Houses without amendment. The one exception was in 1988 when the then Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey, tried to rig the terms of reference by excluding the creation of five-seat constituencies, save only in exceptional circumstances. In 1988 the commission was not on a statutory footing so Charles J. Haughey, as he would, and the then Minister for the Environment responsible, the redoubtable Padraig Flynn, who had other things on his mind as well, probably felt the commission was fair game for a bit of muzzling. The report of that commission was never enacted or even initiated as a Bill as Charles J. Haughey led a minority Government. That was the only occasion in its 28 years when a commission's report was not enacted.

The situation is very different now that the Government has a comfortable majority. One can only imagine what kind of stricture we would have were it not for the fact that the Minister stated today that he accepts the independence of the commission without reservation. I welcome that.

Under the Electoral Act 1997, the commission is a statutory independent body so the bar is raised even higher. Yet the Taoiseach, in a contribution to the Dáil some weeks ago, proposed to set aside the commission's report and the law of the land. He cast doubt on the validity of the current report. He engaged in a breach of trust with the membership of the commission, which does an excellent job. It is in place to ensure the integrity of the electoral boundary process, which is important in our democracy. The Taoiseach informed some of his electorate in south Offaly that he would sort their problem out and ensure they were not moved into the Tipperary electoral area.

The Taoiseach stated that Members have the right to change the recommendations of the commission's report. While technically correct, that can only be when the recommendations are before this House as a Bill. Today's format of statements is a meaningless exercise. In any event an electoral Bill has never been amended. If we were to follow the Taoiseach's confused thinking on this subject, Members, as legislators, would be given the opportunity to change reports from the numerous commissions and so on, for example, on the health services.

Why should the Constituency Commission's reports be treated differently? Constituency boundary changes do not suit all parties at various times. What is gained in the roundabouts is lost in the swings. That is the price to pay to allow the independent commission, headed by a High Court judge, to get on with its job, which is thankless at the best of times but is a very important one in protecting our parliamentary democracy and the integrity of our electoral process. I do not want us to go back to the bad old days of the 1960s and 1970s when parties and Governments did not adhere to the proper and appropriate ways in which constituency reviews could avoid the charge of gerrymander.

I hope the Taoiseach sees the errors of his ways, learns his lesson and backs off with this reckless proposal. If this is his line of thinking about what he can do with constituency boundaries, it does not augur well for his tenure as Taoiseach. We do not want to go back to the dark days of the Haughey era with the manipulation of our electoral process.

It was a Fianna Fáil-Ied Government that implemented the Electoral Act 1997. If there is a problem, why not introduce primary legislation to amend it? It is classic Fianna Fáil practice — speaking out of both sides of the mouth at the same time. It is only by proposals from the Government regarding the terms of reference, now legally enshrined in the Electoral Act, that anomalies arise, such as in the case of Leitrim, south Offaly and Dublin North and Carlow-Kilkenny. In the last review, Carlow-Kilkenny, for which I am Member, had to put up with the swings and roundabouts. I did not have much support from Government figures, including the Taoiseach, to address that anomaly. People accepted that one had to be within the constitutional limits for constituency size and they got on with business.

Instead of today's statements, we should be dealing with legislation to implement the latest report's recommendations. I am surprised the Minister has not taken the opportunity to introduce a Bill rather than having these meaningless statements.

Part II of the Electoral Act 1997 provided for the establishment of a Constituency Commission upon publication by the Central Statistics Office of the census report setting out the population of the State by area. The Constituency Commission reports on the constituencies for the election of Members to the Dáil and the election of representatives to the European Parliament. The review does not apply to local electoral areas. Section 9(4) states: "As soon as may be after the establishment of a Constituency Commission, and, in any event, not later than six months after such establishment, the Commission shall present to the Chairman of the Dáil".

There is a significant dispute between the parties as to the proper interpretation of a "census" as that term is used in Article 16.2.3° of Bunreacht na hÉireann. That dispute is brought into stark relief by a consideration of the timing of certain important events. The census was conducted in April 2006. On 19 July 2006 the Central Statistics Office published a so-called "preliminary report". On 29 March 2007, the Central Statistics Office published what was called the principal demographic results.

In a case brought before the last general election by the former Member, Catherine Murphy, and Deputy Finian McGrath, interpretation of these terms was adjudicated on by Mr. Justice Clarke. He stated it would be in order for preliminary results from a census to be taken into account when establishing a Constituency Commission but the recommendations of the commission cannot be finalised until the final census figures are compiled. The Oireachtas has chosen to enact the 1997 Act which provides, in Part II, for the establishment of a Constituency Commission and the reporting by that commission to the Chairman of the Dáil within a specified period.

Given the urgent nature of the obligation on the Oireachtas to ensure that the period between the publication of a new census disclosing a population disparity in the constituencies and the enactment of new constituencies to deal with that disparity, it seems that the Oireachtas would have to give urgent consideration to whether it would be appropriate to amend the 1997 Act to enable the processes set out in that Act to commence after the publication of a preliminary report. It gives the option to the Minister, which he has indicated he will enshrine in law, to intervene with regard to the preliminary figures.

The judge was quite forceful in his judgment:

However it seems to me to be clear that if, without justifiable reason, the Oireachtas did not take appropriate steps to ensure the minimum delay between the finalisation of the ascertainment of the population in a census and the determination and enactment of a law providing for new constituencies, then it might be appropriate for the court to take further action.

It would seem the Minister is open to challenge because he has not observed the court judgment. If any Member wished to take that challenge it would go back to the High Court and the Minister would be forced to act. Six months later is not in my view the definition of "minimum delay".

This has been a meaningless exercise. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, has now informed the House that he is implementing the electoral boundary commission's report in full and this is to be welcomed. He is not engaging in the charade that has been suggested to him by the Taoiseach in revising boundaries in order to suit certain individuals. The electoral boundary commission is set up for one purpose, to look after the boundaries according to the Constitution and to ensure that the people are sovereign in these matters and that nothing is done as a means of suiting the particular individual interests of any Member of the House.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Labour Party fully supports the principle that decisions in regard to constituency boundaries should be made by an independent commission. It was my party colleague, Deputy Brendan Howlin, who introduced the Electoral Act 1997, which provided for this. The Government and Oireachtas should accept the final report of the commission and enact legislation providing for the changes recommended.

I have full confidence in the independence and integrity of the members who make up the commission. However, they are no more infallible than the rest of us, as it seems, unfortunately, some of the recommendations made in the most recent report would seem to indicate. We are not privy to how the commission reaches its conclusions as it quite properly conducts its business in private. The current procedure is that the commission is established by the Minister; it is given its terms of reference, based on the provisions of section 6 of the Electoral Act 1997; and it then invites submissions from the public and interested groups and in due course issues its final report.

Reviewing the way in which the current system is scheduled I believe the law should be changed to allow for a two-stage process prior to the finalisation of the report. This could be done by the commission, having considered initial submissions, publishing a draft report and inviting further submissions from the public and interested parties. This would at least allow people who believe that a particular recommendation is illogical, irrational or inconsistent with the commission's own terms of reference, to make that point. The commission would be required to consider such submissions but, of course, would be under no obligation to act on them. The final report would then be accepted by the Government and Oireachtas and its recommendations implemented. Such an approach would greatly add to the quality of the commission's work and would greatly improve both the consultation process and inform the recommendations of the final report.

In my view the Oireachtas should act on the suggestion made by Mr. Justice Frank Clarke of the High Court in his judgment last August that urgent consideration should be given to amending the Electoral Act to allow the constituency reviewing process to begin from the time of publication of the preliminary rather than the final census figures. In his judgment Mr. Justice Clarke accepted that the current constituency boundaries, on which last year's election was fought, were seriously out of line. The Oireachtas should now take the opportunity presented by Mr. Justice Clarke's comments to ensure that the people are never again asked to go the polls on outdated constituency boundaries. Furthermore, it is clear there is no longer any need to await final census figures to ensure that accurate data is available to allow a Constituency Commission to redraw boundaries. With the sophisticated information-gathering systems now available to the CSO, it has been clear for several decades that the differences between preliminary and final population figures are insignificant. There is therefore no reason the constituency review process cannot begin when the preliminary figures are published, which is generally about 12 months before the final figures become available.

There is no doubt that had the constituency boundaries been reviewed in advance of the recent election to reflect the changes in population experienced since 2002, then the outcome in a number of constituencies would have been different. Whether these would have been sufficient to alter the overall outcome of the election and the configuration of the present Government, is anyone's guess but it is a question that needs to be asked.

The terms of reference for the commission set out in the 1997 Act should be amended to protect our system of proportional representation and this should be a key term of reference for the work of the commission. Given the position of the stipulated voting system within the Constitution, this is not a point of debate but rather a constitutional requirement. In practical terms this means that if there are two or more possible configurations for constituencies in a particular locality, with due regard being had to all relevant factors, then the commission's leaning should be for the one that provides for a smaller number of constituencies returning a greater number of members rather than for a multiplicity of three-seat constituencies. It is therefore unnecessary to set out the basic maths which goes to show that the purpose of a proportional representation-single transferable vote election is most successfully achieved in constituencies which return more Members.

In a submission made last year, the Labour Party argued that a fundamental requirement for the commission was to protect the element of proportionality to ensure the closest possible correlation between the share of the votes a party gets and the number of seats it secures. Statistics provided to the commission by the Labour Party clearly demonstrate that larger constituencies provide the greater degree of proportionality. Unfortunately the commission took little account of this, leaving the proportion of three, four and five seat constituencies largely the same. More than one third of all constituencies are now three-seaters, the configuration that produces the least proportional outcome. For example, because the Ceann Comhairle is automatically returned, Kerry South will actually become a two-seater, which comes close to rendering the constitutional right of the people of Kerry South to proportional representation null and void.

The people of Ireland have voted in referenda on two occasions to retain proportional representation. We should ensure that the value of this system is not undermined by inadequate terms of reference given to the commission. I would suggest that the 1997 Act be amended by the insertion of the following new paragraph in the commission's terms of reference:

The Commission shall, so far as practicable, recommend such arrangements in relation to the constituencies as are best calculated to result in an outcome where the number of members of each qualifying party elected to Dáil Éireann, as a proportion of the total number of members of the Dáil belonging to qualified parties, is the same proportion as the total number of first preference votes obtained by the candidates of each such qualifying party at the general election bears to the total number of first preference votes obtained by candidates of all qualifying parties at that election.

The terms of reference could also be changed to allow for the creation of six-seaters, where appropriate, which are more favourable than two three-seat constituencies side by side. These changes would result in a more open and transparent system for reviewing the constituencies, while preserving the principle of an independent process. It would provide results in which the public would have greater confidence and provide a bulwark against the further erosion of our system of proportional representation.

The commission should be looked at in the overall context of institutional reform, leading to a broadening of our democracy which would result in some of the most significant changes to the manner in which in which elections are organised and conducted in the State.

To achieve this goal I intend to bring before the House an electoral commission Bill which would establish a new electoral and public offices commission that would take over the powers of the existing Standards in Public Office Commission and the Referendum and Constituency Commissions. The new body would also take over from local authorities the responsibility for the electoral register and from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the responsibility for the running of elections. This Bill would provide for major changes in the process by which the constituencies are revised. In redrawing the constituencies, the commission will be required so far as practicable, to recommend an arrangement of constituency sizes and boundaries that is best calculated to produce an overall proportionate result. To achieve this result, we will be able to recommend constituencies returning three, four, five or six Members. The bar currently stands at five-seat constituencies. The commission would also be able to commence work on redrawing constituencies based on the preliminary census figures, rather than having to wait for the final report, which is the situation at present. The commission would then produce a preliminary or draft report, which has not been done in this case where the commission has arrived at its findings and we are debating them. That situation should be reversed so that a consultation and information process can be put in place first. In that way, we would not be debating something after the stable door has been closed. Having considered the submissions, the commission would then produce a final report when the final census figures are available.

The publication of a preliminary or draft report would address one of the major shortcomings of the current system — that once the commission produces its report, there is no way of asking it to the review the decision, no matter how illogical, irrational or inconsistent it may have been with its own terms of reference. Some the recommendations made in the most recent report, such as the effective dismemberment of County Limerick and the transfer to 14,000 voters to the Kerry North constituency, would fall into this category.

The other major area of reform concerns the compilation of the electoral register. Despite some belated efforts made prior to the last general election to update the register, anyone involved in active politics will be aware just how inaccurate the register remains.

The Bill I am promoting on behalf of the Labour Party also proposes to transfer to the Constituency Commission the functions of local authorities in preparing and publishing the register of electors. The commission must seek to achieve the comprehensive, accurate and timely registration of persons entitled to be registered as electors in an efficient and economical manner. It also proposes to entitle the commission to information from statutory bodies and utilities, so as to record accurately the names and addresses of electors. The Bill allows for the use of people's public service identity in order to establish their true name and address. A public service identity consists of a person's PPS number, name, date and place of birth, sex, address and nationality.

The electoral process is the cornerstone of our democratic system. It is essential that the public should have full confidence in the reliability of the electoral register and the way in which constituency boundaries are determined. We must examine both these matters together, including how elections are run in terms of structures and systems. In addition, we need to have a commission with powers governing all these areas, which would deliver a more open and transparent system for reviewing constituencies while protecting the principle of an independent process.

A new type of commission is required that would provide for the assurance of an electoral register and an electoral system in which the public could have greater confidence, and which would also provide a bulwark against any erosion of confidence in our democratic system.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue but I regret that we will not be having a vote on it. We could be doing something more important, which I will allude to later on. I am delighted that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, is present.

I sincerely hope that the Constituency Commission and the Minister will reflect strongly on what Deputies say here today. I also hope they will urgently reconsider the outcome of the commission's report. I have been straight with my opinion on the findings contained in the Constituency Commission's report. In short, I believe many of its recommendations to be ludicrous. I am not casting aspersions on the Constituency Commission itself. I recognise its members are all very eminent and honourable people. I am aware that they have no agenda in putting forward this report but I do not believe that they, or anybody this House, are infallible, as other speakers have said.

Some of the report's recommendations have been short-sighted. Let us look briefly at some of the areas which are going to be radically altered in the commission's new plan. Aside from my own constituency of Dublin North, many other areas are also affected such as Limerick West, which is to be incorporated into north Kerry, while parts of Meath East will move into the Louth constituency and parts of south Offaly into Tipperary North. In addition, Leitrim remains divided into two Dáil constituencies. There is a blatant ignorance of contiguous boundaries, especially in Offaly where the new constituency not only breaks geographical and county boundaries, but also provincial borders.

These proposals make no sense for many Deputies, especially my colleagues in Dublin North. I am referring specifically to the recommendation to transfer a large proportion of the town of Swords from the Dublin North constituency to that of Dublin West, some 11 kilometres to the west of Swords.

Swords is the largest town in north County Dublin and is the tenth largest town in the country. It is larger than Navan, Kilkenny or Sligo, all of which have their own urban district councils or town councils, which to date Swords does not have. Swords has a population of over 33,000 people and is a large sprawling town primarily comprising housing estates and a village centre. It is isolated from other areas as it is prevented from joining Santry and Ballymun because of its proximity to Dublin airport. It is also prevented from reaching as far as Malahide by virtue of the M1 motorway, and from Blanchardstown because of the miles of agricultural hinterland in between.

It is by far the most identifiable stand-alone town in the north Dublin region. Ideologically, the people of Swords very much identify themselves as north County Dubliners. They have issues that are specific to the north county region. In addition, they align themselves more with other towns in the area, such as Balbriggan, Skerries, Donabate, Rush, Lusk, Malahide and Portmarnock, rather than with the west Dublin areas of Blanchardstown, Mulhuddart and Castleknock. Simply to draw a line down Swords' main street and decide that everyone to the west of that line should now vote in a different constituency, Dublin West, 11 kilometres away, is at best short-sighted and at worst plainly inconsiderate — I mean inconsiderate in the most basic sense, as outlined in a report prepared by the Swords electoral boundary action group.

The independent Constituency Commission has not properly considered the issue of under-representation in Dublin North and Dublin West, or how best to deal with it. Both constituencies are significantly under represented in the Dáil. It is ludicrous to remove 13,000 people and relocate them on the Dublin West electoral register in order to support it as a four-seater constituency.

Ireland has experienced a major population boom which no one could have anticipated. My constituency of Dublin North has over 20% more citizens per Deputy than a more balanced constituency which has 30,000 people per Member. This is the issue at the heart of these proposals — to readdress the balance across the country's constituencies. Both Dublin North and Dublin West have too few Dáil representatives. The easy answer, which the commission recommends, is to remove a section of the population from Dublin North and add it to Dublin West, thus making Dublin West a four-seater constituency. As a result, the commission argues, the remaining population in Dublin North would be more appropriate to its current level of representation. This answer is simple and effective, no doubt, and in theory it works very well. However, my dispute is not with the method but with the result.

There are other areas contiguous to Dublin West, but why were they not considered? Why not consider the next census, which will undoubtedly see an increase in Dublin West's population and in Dublin North's, allowing it to be considered as an automatic four-seater constituency? This point has clearly not been taken into account.

What will happen in 2012 or 2017 when the Constituency Commission realises that Dublin West's population has boomed again and has the added burden of over 13,000 people from Swords still based in the constituency? The logical plan at that point would be to redraw the boundary lines again and reunify Swords in the Dublin North constituency. This makes the current exercise seem entirely pointless, not to mention the confusion and disenfranchisement felt by the people of Swords who will have spent at least two election campaigns wondering not who to vote for, but who they have the right to vote for.

Given Fingal County Council's new population projection for Swords, which will see its population reaching 100,000 with the advent of the metro rail system, the area will be operating as a city within ten to 15 years.

Dublin North will most likely merit a five-seat constituency and the commission does not appear to have taken that into account. Simply put, the proposal by the Constituency Commission to split the primary town of Fingal, in other words Swords, into two electoral areas is ridiculous. I understand the justification for the proposal. No doubt the issue can be explained away with mention of the constitutional requirement to restore balance to the constituencies. Constitutionally, every 30,000 residents are entitled to one TD in the Dáil. At present this ratio is not satisfied in Dublin North or Dublin West and the Constituency Commission has shown its willingness to ignore contiguous areas in its willingness to redress the balance. I pointed out the geographical location of Swords and how it is identified as a stand-alone area.

The Electoral Act 1997, the same Act which established the Constituency Commission, states that each constituency "shall be composed of contiguous areas" and "there shall be regard for geographical considerations, including significant physical features and the extent of and the density of population in each constituency". This means that the Constituency Commission is legally obliged to have regard to natural geographically boundaries and the recommendation to split Swords certainly does not run in tandem with that.

The commission has been at pains to point out its motivation for moving a proportion of Swords into Dublin West. This comes back to the issue of redressing boundaries. The commission will argue that the constitutional obligation to provide a balanced constituency far outweighs the legal ramifications of not obeying geographical boundaries, but I would argue that it is wrong, given that the answer to this quandary is found in the commission's report:

In weighing up the issue of equality of representation versus adherence to natural townland boundaries, the Supreme Court took the following action, as detailed in the Constituency Commission's report, namely, it deferred to TDs and local representatives to identify the problems arising out of the redrawing of boundaries. In the section of the report relating to equality of representation, the commission's report quotes the Supreme Court judgment on the matter of Article 26 of the Constitution and the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 1961. It states: "The problem of what is practicable is primarily one for the Oireachtas, whose members have a knowledge of the problems and difficulties to be solved which this court cannot have." The removal of 13,000 voters from Swords to Dublin West does not make sense given that we speak about splitting county boundaries, but splitting town boundaries is absolutely crazy.

Following the ending of this debate I would like the issue to be referred back to the Constituency Commission to reconsider not only my area but all the other areas because I do not believe we should automatically accept its report. Everything we do in this Chamber is debated and voted on. I am not casting aspersions on the members of the commission — they are honourable people — but in this instance I believe they have got it wrong. We should all be big enough to say, let us go back and look at it.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important matter and confess to a certain amount of puzzlement, in line with that experienced by the King of Siam, on different issues in relation to the Taoiseach's position vis-À-vis the Constituency Commission. Does Government common sense, if that is not a contradiction in terms, cross over from the role of Tánaiste to that of Taoiseach? Perhaps that should be rephrased to ask when is common sense not common sense but rather expediency. In April 2008, the then Tánaiste said that TDs should have a greater say in the creation of the electoral map, to have the right to change recommendations made by the electoral commission and to revise constituency boundaries. The Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, said that TDs were simply presented with a firm decision or an irreversible fact and did not have an input into what was happening. That was when he issued the immortal words and demanded more common sense solutions.

The ball is in the Taoiseach's court. He has the power to put his money where his mouth is and allow, as he said in April, "this sovereign Parliament" to take upon itself responsibilities in this area and devise a consensus around modifications on behalf of constituents who are dissatisfied. Does he really want to do this and bring the wrath of the electorate and their representatives on his head and open this House to charges of duplicity? There is, of course, a problem with his proposed course of action. As my colleagues, Deputies O'Dowd and Hogan, said in this House, the independent Constituency Commission was chaired by a High Court judge and all TDs had an opportunity to make their submissions known to it before it reached its conclusions. With any suspicion of gerrymandering hanging over the establishment of an all-party committee, as suggested by the Taoiseach, which by its nature would have a greater number of Government members than Opposition members, could this House retain its sovereign status, in anything but the most dubious way?

Could the Taoiseach's remarks have anything to do with the pressure brought to bear by Leitrim Fianna Fáil backbench TDs and councillors last year when they threatened to resign if the Oireachtas approved the recommendations of the Constituency Commission? Conveniently, the Taoiseach's contention that the Dáil had the power to stop the county boundaries being breached would bring the possibility of County Leitrim being reunited a step closer.

Since the 1980s the recommendations of the independent commission have been accepted by the Oireachtas without amendment. Chaired by a High Court judge and comprising the clerks of the Dáil and Seanad as well as the Ombudsman and the Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, in whom I have the utmost confidence, it is very much an independent process. Where changes have been made as in Louth-Meath, Dublin West, Dublin North, Dublin South-Dún Laoghaire and Limerick-Kerry a coherent and reasonable explanation has been given by the commission for its decisions. Dublin West and Louth will gain a seat while Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and Limerick East will lose one. Limerick has lost enough under this Government to date, including the Aer Lingus routes. The Government has practically denuded the entire west of other services. As highlighted, Leitrim remains divided.

Rather than attempting to overrule the commission, the Taoiseach and his Government would be better served by bringing forward legislation to implement the recommendations of the Constituency Commission given that the local elections are due to take place next year. We do not want a repeat of the fiasco with the electoral register that threatened the validity of the general election and the core of our democracy.

Prior to the general election last year, I highlighted the puzzling number of people whose names had been taken off the electoral register. We also saw that in some cases the numbers, taken from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government's statistics, on the draft register strangely and suspiciously exceeded the adult population in some areas, particularly along the Border regions. The total number of errors in the register was reckoned to reach 300,000.

The adult population of Longford is 24,810, yet the draft register contained 27,132 names, a difference of 2,322, or 9%, and Westmeath which has an adult population of 57,141 had 59,791 names on the draft register, a difference of 2,650, or 5%.

Historically, the constituency of Longford-Westmeath goes back to the foundation of the State and the Government of Ireland Act 1920, with a redrawing of the boundaries for 2002-07, and three elections prior to that, when it was redesignated Longford-Roscommon. An injustice remains, however, with several areas of County Westmeath — Clonmellon, Delvin, Fore, Ratharney, Bracklyn, Whitehall and the Castlepollard area — remaining outside the Longford-Westmeath constituency. There is also a question as to the reason the constituency has not been designated five seats.

In 2002, I made a submission to the Constituency Commission in support of the restoration of the Longford-Westmeath constituency, citing the facts that the population of the area is ideal for a Dáil constituency and that it was the historical constituency for the area. While both constituencies — Longford-Westmeath and Longford-Roscommon — do not breach county boundaries, the latter was an unrealistic constituency as the two counties are in separate provinces. The River Shannon was disregarded by the commission despite its terms of reference and the fact that just two bridges connect counties Longford and Roscommon, which have fewer land connections than England and France. The commission, in its wisdom, restored the previous status quo.

Just two years after redrawing the constituencies, the Constituency Commission chaired by Mr. Justice O'Neill has recommended that 24 out of 43 constituencies be reshaped and proposed small adjustments to the distribution of Dáil Deputies. The commission has proposed the creation of 24 new constituencies, with nine carried over from the 2005 Electoral Act and the remaining ten dating from an earlier period. Overall the commission adopted a minimalist approach in its recommendations. While the number of five seat and three seat constituencies fell by one in each case, the impact of the measure was neutralised by an increase in the number of four seat constituencies. The number of Deputies and constituencies remained unchanged at 166 and 43, respectively.

The immediate test of the commission is to conclude its ongoing deliberations on the boundaries for next year's local elections. The knock-on effect of population transfers arising from the decisions pending will be keenly watched by Deputies and prospective Deputies alike. Many potential candidates for the Dáil are rising through the ranks of local government. There has been condemnation in some quarters that the commission clung too closely to the existing model or that it has perhaps been too radical in those areas in which it opted to take a radical approach. Let us not forget, however, that unlike politicians from the Taoiseach down, the commission has no axe to grind and no fences to mend.

I compliment the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, on standing up to the former Taoiseach when he issued a statement on this issue in April last. Long may the cross-party support for the independence of the Constituency Commission continue.

Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the changes to the electoral boundaries. Since the independent Constituency Commission was first established in the late 1970s, the decisions of successive commissions have been accepted in full for Dáil, European and local authority elections. The independence of the Constituency Commission must be maintained.

Many speakers have referred to changes to electoral boundaries. One can always argue, irrespective of the changes or decisions made, that more appropriate boundaries are available. However, we must work within certain parameters and accept the recommendations of the Constituency Commission.

On a wider issue, the accuracy or otherwise of the electoral register has been discussed many times in committee and the House. It is vital for the maintenance of the integrity of the electoral process to make serious efforts to ensure the register is up to date. The census is the basis on which the Constituency Commission performs its function and census information must be used to ensure the electoral register is accurate.

The boundaries of my constituency of Cork North-West and other constituencies in the county have changed significantly over the years. Experts, including those working in the community and voluntary sector, have attended political meetings to express an opinion on which areas should and should not be included in various constituencies. The difficulty in these circumstances is deciding where to draw the line. My constituency spans the full spectrum of Irish life. It has a large urban area as well as a remote, rural hinterland and will soon include Ballincollig, a large satellite town of Cork city. In addition to the commuter belt, it includes villages and towns such as Rockchapel and Charleville and rural areas extending almost as far as Dunmanway. It includes both rich agricultural land and more marginal land. While some will argue that constituencies should be either rural or urban in character, my constituency, with its urban and rural mix, mirrors Irish life much more accurately than purely urban constituencies.

I note Deputy Ciarán Lynch has joined the debate.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have been in the House all morning.

Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He was not here when I rose to speak. The parish of Kilshannig has moved into the Deputy's constituency. It is strange that the urban constituency of Cork North-Central is being extended almost as far as Mallow, to within eight or ten miles of Kanturk and into east Cork. While I am aware that population factors were an issue for the constituency, nevertheless, a predominately urban constituency is extending into rural areas. As a result, it may more accurately reflect the make-up of society.

While we can discuss the decisions of the Constituency Commission, Deputies must not charge that certain of its decisions were politically motivated as to do so would bring us back to square one. The commission is appointed to report to the Ceann Comhairle within a specified timeframe. Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill, a judge of the High Court, was appointed chairman of the most recent Constituency Commission. While Deputies may have difficulties with its recommendations, we must accept its independence.

I note the criticism that changes to the boundaries of Limerick constituencies ignore county boundaries. While the terms of reference of the Constituency Commission included that it should in as far as possible observe county boundaries, the difficulty is that substantial growth in the population of urban areas means boundaries must be redrawn if the number of Dáil Deputies is to be retained at the current figure of 166. Some people have said the figure of one TD per 30,000 is the ultimate aim. Irrespective of the decisions that have been made, the most important thing is that our commission and the Oireachtas continue to involve people in the democratic process and that this issue is given due recognition. Serving the people in a democratic system is a noble calling. It is important to uphold the independence of boundary commissions and that the profession of politics is held in good stead right across the country.

Greater recognition should be given to the volunteers of our organisations. They are the real political people on the ground and they are active in community groups and so on. People are time poor when it comes to volunteering, so we should acknowledge the contributions made by those who get involved in political parties across the country.

It is important that the independent commission is seen to be removed from political interference. It has taken nearly 30 years to get to the stage where there is an acceptance of the independence of the commission. I am not too sure of the benefits involved in any submissions to the commission by the public. A high percentage of the submissions were about the sub-division of Leitrim, but they did not seem to be taken on board. When the terms of reference are brought before the Oireachtas, it is important there is a lengthy discussion on them so the views of practising politicians are brought to bear and laid before the independent commission.

I thank the Acting Chairman for allowing me to contribute. The most important thing is that we in this House make sure that everything done is for the betterment of democracy at every level.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Normally I welcome the opportunity to contribute to debates, but I am not sure of the purpose of this debate. Why we are having statements when the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has told us that drafting of the Bill is at an advanced stage? That says more about the lack of Bills to be debated before the summer recess than about anything else. In his speech, the Minister attempted to lecture us about a "need for real action" on this issue. He even quoted the judgment of Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, mentioning the urgent constitutional imperative of the Oireachtas to deal with this disparity. Where is the urgency of the Government in response to that judgment? It certainly is not evident by having statements in the House. If there was a real need for action, then there would be no talking shop exercise this afternoon. Instead, there would be a Bill before us to address the issues and to which we could table amendments and on which we could vote. I agree that action is needed but the responsibility for that action lies with the Minister.

I have a vested interest in this matter, and this report has a fairly drastic effect on me personally and on the constituency I represent. The electoral commission decided, perhaps not in its wisdom, to implement changes that have left a great degree of anger and confusion in my constituency, especially in south Offaly. They may be rejoicing in other parts of the constituency about the way things have turned out. I was surprised to hear the Minister say the changes are small and involve a relatively minor relocation of population. He cited the constituency of Laois-Offaly as an example. Clearly that is now the perceived Government view, and I assume he speaks for all Government parties, despite the efforts of some in Deputy Kitt's party to give a contrary view.

This commission was given its terms of reference by the outgoing Government last year. The anomalies that have been thrown up could have been reduced had clearer terms of reference been drawn. I agree the Constitution takes precedence, but why then has the Government tried to create the impression that this is not the case? Perhaps the Government has considered that the best way to resolve this would be to include the issue of county boundaries in the Constitution. However, I doubt that the Government will call for a constitutional referendum to deal with that issue.

The Minister has a responsibility to bring this legislation forward. He confirmed for us today that the Taoiseach had no real basis for his suggestion that this House could make changes. He is espousing the Government view that precedent should not be broken. If that is the Government view, then I am not sure what we are trying to attempt with this exercise. What happened to the Taoiseach's all-party committee and his need for consensus? What happened his feeling, as voiced by one of his local councillors in Offaly, that "as an elected representative he should have some input into it"? Has that view changed? Is precedent going to be the order of the day? Perhaps the Minister has finally found a voice and realises that if he hands the power to decide constituencies to Fianna Fáil, his party will never make another electoral gain.

It is little coincidence that Fianna Fáil TDs and councillors around the country have been spinning the same line on the issue. This line was also spun by their leader. Perhaps he will join in this exercise today and make a statement outlining the changes he proposes. How 166 TDs would ever reach a consensus on this is beyond me, but there is no doubt that the Government would have an in-built majority, which is the Fianna Fáil style of consensus. It is their way, or no way. Fianna Fáil politicians have toured the areas affected telling people they will fix the problem if the other parties agree, yet they have offered no solution to the problem. Perhaps they should start by telling the truth that they have a majority in this House and can do what they want anyway. It is not the Opposition they need to back their proposal, but rather the three Government parties and the few Independents. Together they can vote in or out whatever Bills they want. The Government accepts very few amendments put forward by the Opposition, so our view is ignored when it suits, but we are also wanted for consensus when it suits.

The Taoiseach found the report we are discussing to be anomalous, but the Government still appointed the judge who chaired that commission to be chair of the commission charged with informing the public about the Lisbon referendum, something the Taoiseach said is the top priority. If somebody acted outside his or her on the electoral commission, should he or she be allowed carry out this vitally important role? Perhaps the Minister could clarify the Government's thinking on this.

Let there be no doubt that the people of south Offaly want to continue to vote in the constituency of Laois-Offaly. Let there be no doubt that I also want them to be able to vote there. It lacks common sense to breach a provincial boundary. I am one of the worst affected TDs by this decision, but I do not pretend the commission should take my position into its considerations. However, the members of the commission should listen to the people from the area. The area to be changed to Tipperary North forms part of the Birr electoral area, which I served in Offaly County Council from 1999 and which my father represented from 1967. Shinrone is the heart of the area and has been my parents' family home for many generations. I have a strong allegiance to the area and have enjoyed serving the people there. Regardless of this report, I will continue to serve the people in the area but would like the opportunity to do so in an official capacity as well.

I know the people of south Offaly and they have no allegiance to Tipperary North. They find it incongruous that they should be shunted into that area. It also leads to a great deal of confusion. If the Government fell and a general election was to be held on the same day as local and European elections, who would be responsible for ordering the polling booths on that day and who would be the returning officers? Would they be from Tipperary North or from Offaly? People would be voting for Offaly County Council in local elections, in the constituency of Ireland East or Leinster in European elections and in North Tipperary, which is a different area of responsibility, in respect of the general election.

They are also being asked to vote for candidates who have no affinity with the area although this can be built up.

John Cregan (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about the hurlers?

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I can assure Deputy Cregan that they will not hurl for them either if they can avoid it. We should not underestimate the strength of resolve in this regard. Having discussed this matter with the people of south Offaly over the past few months, they want to vote in south Offaly and they also want to vote in a democracy. They do not want to vote under conditions whereby any party in Government can decide the boundaries of a constituency. People will put the opportunity to vote in a democracy first.

Rather than using this as a roll of lament for our individual losses, the Government should have used this opportunity to tell us exactly what it proposes. It has been talked to death in the areas affected and not one concrete proposal for change has been put forward. People should remember that while everyone thinks the changes in their constituency are the most important, the smallest change will have a domino effect on every other constituency. Any one change could make the legislation unconstitutional. Rather than hearing the Government talk about this issue, I want to hear how it will deal with it. The idea of all-party consensus is neither here nor there because the Government has a majority. The Government should tell us how it will use its majority, ensure the proposal is constitutional and also how it will be free from interference from politicians in a process in which we all have a vested interest.

John Cregan (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad to speak on this and it is important that we have an opportunity to contribute. I do not know what the outcome will be and it is probably a cynical exercise making statements on this matter, but I am bitterly disappointed at the findings and the report of the Constituency Commission. I am not crying for my own sake but speaking for the people I represent in the constituency of Limerick West. The constituency has been decimated by the findings of the Constituency Commission. Reference has been made to small changes and tweaking made throughout the constituencies and I understand that this is needed to ensure the appropriate number of constituents per Deputy. It is possible to satisfy the constitutional requirements in this way.

In my case, every voter west of Newcastle West has changed from Limerick West to the new constituency of Kerry North-Limerick West. The population of 13,000 has been disenfranchised by the findings. We have lost this amount and gained 17,000, but the Constituency Commission did not respect county boundaries in doing so. The earlier speaker referred to how it did not respect provincial boundaries. I respect the fact that the Constituency Commission has a job to do but until such time as there is political input into this, it will not be right. Deputies in this Chamber are like turkeys facing Christmas on a five-year basis. We must face this dilemma after a census of the population and it is not good enough. I accept the independence of the Constituency Commission and that the past system was far from independent and did not work. That is the reason this job of work was put into the hands of independent people. I accept that it has a job to do, but I am bitterly disappointed with its findings.

A population shift of 13,000 from the town of Newcastle West means that if one drives along the N21, people three miles east of the town cannot vote in Limerick West. They have been disenfranchised. Members on all sides of the House encourage people to vote but the message of the people of Abbeyfeale, Athea, Mountcollins, Toornafulla, Monagea, Carrigkerry and other places is that they will not vote because there is no possibility of electing a Limerick Deputy while this situation prevails. These people are disenfranchised and they are disgusted by it. They were satisfied by the representation of those they chose at election time, as was their right and entitlement, but this has been taken from them.

Our loss is the gain of Kerry North and I wish the people of Kerry North well. We are proud of our identity in Limerick, particularly in Limerick West. While we have an affinity with north Kerry in some circumstances, this is not such an occasion. Other speakers referred to the Taoiseach's suggestion in the House. Deputy Michael Kennedy feels strongly on this matter and made efforts so that this report could be made an interim report. If the glaring discrepancies could have been rectified, all-party agreement could have been reached. With 166 Deputies, it is a case of swings and roundabouts, losses and gains, but, on this occasion, the people of Limerick West are the losers.

The Taoiseach was sensible in suggesting, before he assumed office, that we must have some political input in future years. I support that and it is a pity that we cannot have such an input on this occasion. It is not because it affects Deputy John Cregan — it will be somebody else the next time. The report of the Constituency Commission is not sacrosanct and does not have to be adopted and rubber-stamped by this House. The precedent is that it always has been but the House is under no obligation to accept the findings of the Constituency Commission. That was a safeguard in itself, although it was never used. Another safeguard could be built in so that we could use it from time to time, if necessary.

I am getting the negative part of my contribution out of the way first because I will be more positive in welcoming my new constituents when I make a further contribution later this afternoon. This is a source of concern to my colleagues in Limerick West and those decent people who cast votes for all three of us and to whom we provide a service to the best of our ability and will continue to serve out of loyalty.