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

I want to express my dismay, disgust and disappointment at the failed attempt to rectify a situation in the Kerry North and Kerry South constituencies. It was evident there was not enough of a population to support the retention of six Deputies in those two constituencies. Rectifying it should have been a simple matter of reducing the two three-seat constituencies to a single five-seat constituency. Such a move would have left the good people of west Limerick to keep their Limerick West constituency intact and have their own elected Deputies to make representations for them. Instead the commission decided otherwise and moved parts of west Limerick into the Kerry North constituency. Why was the single Kerry constituency option not taken rather than the decimation of the Limerick West constituency?

I understand approximately 17,500 people from County Tipperary will be part of the new constituency, Limerick. I welcome that I will be representing these people. They are used to good representation from Deputies Jan O'Sullivan, Michael Noonan and Kieran O'Donnell. They, like the people of west Limerick, who have been lost to north Kerry, are equally mesmerised as to why they have lost their Dáil representatives. It does not make sense to me.

I feel a distinct loyalty to the people of west Limerick who voted for me in serval elections. I want to assure them I will continue my representations for them. I will now be representing the good people from the east of the county — Caherconlish, Cappamore, Doon, Murroe and Pallas Green and other towns — and people from County Tipperary. I will do my very best to maintain the good representation they had. Since the Constituency Commission reported, we have been already active in this new part of the constituency.

I agree with the sensible statement by the Taoiseach before he assumed office that we should no longer leave our livelihoods in the hands of an independent commission. The House must have an input into deciding the revisions. While I respect the independence required for the Constituency Commission, in future an interim constituency report should be published and examined. The House should be allowed to make a political input to it with drastic changes taken out.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I concur with my Limerick colleague, Deputy John Cregan's references to the changes affecting our mutual constituency and to the fact that Limerick will lose a Deputy. I have some doubts as to the reason for the decision and I agree with Deputy Cregan that it would seem more logical to transform Kerry into a five-seater constituency rather than doing something that will significantly affect the people of County Limerick.

I refer to page 23 of the report. The statistics suggest that Kerry overall was more over-represented than Limerick, with the percentage variance from national average population per Deputy being minus 9.37% in Kerry North, minus 8.13% in Kerry South but minus 7.42% in Limerick East and minus 7.08% in Limerick West. If I am reading the figures correctly, it appears to suggest that logically it would have been better to reduce the representation in Kerry rather than in Limerick, if the representation was to be reduced. I do not understand the logic of the report's recommendation and there is nothing in the recommendation that explains the reason for it. I would have thought that in such situations an explanation should be provided. There does not seem to be any particular geographical boundaries to suggest the commission decided to basically chop up Limerick West and put part of it into Kerry, take a significant portion of Limerick East and put it into what is now Limerick and take a seat from my own constituency which was Limerick East, a five-seater that is now becoming a four-seater. There is no logic to it.

I draw attention to a debate in the House between the current Taoiseach and our party leader, Deputy Gilmore, when the Taoiseach who was Tánaiste at the time specifically said that this was in our hands. This is also clear from a reading of the document as it states:

The final determination of the constituencies for Dáil Éireann is a matter for the Oireachtas to prescribe in legislation. The Commission's role is advisory.

The Supreme Court judgment quoted in the report refers to Article 16.2.3° of the Constitution:

The sub-clause recognises that exact parity in the ratio between members and the population of each constituency is unlikely to be obtained and is not required. The decision as to what is practicable is within the jurisdiction of the Oireachtas.

I would have thought that, where possible, they would go as close as they could to reflecting the population. In this case, the decision to take the seat from Limerick does not appear to do this; it goes against the guidelines of the commission and I question the decision.

I presume the commission did not intend to split boundaries if at all possible but it has been done in this case. I also refer to the contribution of Deputy Kennedy who was vehemently opposed to what is happening in his area of the country. He suggested that this should be referred back to the commission for consideration in light of today's debate and this is a sensible proposal with which I concur.

Overall, there is distinct dissatisfaction with the recommendations in a number of constituencies. It relates in the main to the breaching of county boundaries without reference to the loyalties that exist. Deputy Cregan described his loyalty to the people who voted for him up to this and I have a similar issue with regard to areas such as Doon, Cappamore, Caherconlish and Hospital that will now be taken away. I have visited and met the people on a regular basis in these areas.. They are now gone from our constituency and will have to deal with a new set of public representatives. Where possible, large sections of population such as these should not have to move to another constituency. Ultimately, the important people to be considered are not public representatives, but the people themselves.

In the case of the changes in Limerick, a large section of the population of County Limerick — practically all of the county part of Limerick — is affected. The west Limerick people are going into Kerry and the east Limerick people are going into what is now Limerick. They comprise a large section of the County Limerick population and it will be a significant change for them. I question whether the turn-out in these constituencies will be up to the same level it has been up to now.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Constituency Commission report and congratulate the six members of the commission: Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill; our distinguished Clerk of the Dáil, Mr. Kieran Coughlan; our distinguished Clerk of the Seanad, Ms Deirdre Lane; our distinguished Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly; Ms Geraldine Tallon, Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; and the former Secretary General, Mr. Niall Callan. They have produced an excellent report. I note they asked for widespread consultation from the public and they received more than 300 submissions, including a lengthy submission I made on behalf of the Dublin North-East constituency.

Article 16.2.2° states:

The number of members shall from time to time be fixed by law, but the total number of members of Dáil Éireann shall not be fixed at less than one member for each thirty thousand of the population, or at more than one member for each twenty thousand of the population.

The desire is to maintain continuity in the arrangements of constituencies and, in general, the commission has carried out that task very well and deserves commendation. I am aware, as my colleague stated, of instances where traditional boundaries have been breached but the overall constitutional remit of the commission has been carried out well.

It would be a bad precedent if we were to dismantle this commission report and return to the days when politicians with vested interests decided in a committee how the Dáil constituencies would be revised. This would be a bad step backwards and would lead to the charge of gerrymandering, as was the case in the mid-1970s, for a particular election result. We should accept the commission report.

In my submission on behalf of Dublin North-East I made the case that we are an historic constituency going back to the mid-1930s, representing a wide district of the north-east city, from Coolock across to Howth, with very strong economic, community, administrative and cultural ties all across that area. Many of our community and administrative bodies, such as Northside Partnership, Coolock Development Council and others such as the Northside Centre for the Unemployed, operate across the territory. I note the sporting and cultural areas of the constituency.

The issue of breaching county boundaries was put to the commission by a lecturer from NUI, Maynooth. The Acting Chairman, Deputy Costello, will be interested to hear that he wanted to abolish Dublin Central and to bring about new central constituencies for the northside and southside. He did not seem to realise or else was not aware of the strong cultural affinities of the northside of Dublin with Dublin Central constituency as it now exists. Dublin North-East represents two counties, Dublin city and Fingal, but is a region in the cultural, economic and social sense. It would be a backward step to do away with the current configuration.

The main case I made for maintaining Dublin North-East and, with it, Dublin North-West, Dublin North-Central and the Acting Chairman's constituency, Dublin Central — in other words, the current structure of constituencies for the northside of Dublin — was that in my constituency and across the two "county boundaries" we are building a new city, the north fringe. This is a vast territory of more than 25,000 or perhaps 40,000 housing units with a possible population of 50,000. I argued strongly to the commission that it was very important that one group of politicians would be responsible for the invigilation of that development. We did not want two or three constituencies being responsible for an area because then nobody would be responsible. We wanted the same group of politicians. Both I and the Labour Party have over the years invigilated the development of the north fringe, which currently stretches from the coast at Baldoyle, through Clongriffin and Beaupark, onto Belmayne and across to Belcamp and Clonshaugh. We have invigilated a very important development for the city of Dublin. Even with the negative downturn in population we realise that, because of the north fringe, that area will grow much stronger. The resulting remit of the constituency of Dublin North-East included Portmarnock, which was brought in. Deputy Kennedy is particularly upset by the fact that, on the recommendation of this report, Portmarnock is leaving Dublin North and coming into Dublin North-East. Portmarnock and its surrounding district is extremely welcome in Dublin North-East because we have many cultural ties with it. The great Northfinch development encompasses Portmarnock, just as it does parts of my constituency. There are so many bodies, including the Portmarnock-Baldoyle Credit Union, that cross the boundaries.

The report should have re-examined the figure of 166 Deputies because there is no question but that Dublin is under-represented by at least two Deputies. Dublin should have a higher Dáil representation and Dublin North or Dublin West deserved an additional seat. In general terms, however, I am happy with the report. We should not spancel an independent commission or return to the bad old days of alleged gerrymandering.

Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share a few minutes with the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Finneran.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have sympathy for my colleagues and neighbours just across the border in County Limerick, two of whom I have had the opportunity of listening to in this debate. A sea change in representation is not welcome to the people affected.

I welcome the speech by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which clearly set out the constitutional and legal framework involved. I compliment the Constituency Commission on the basis that it has a difficult task of squaring circles. It is almost a Rubik's cube type of challenge. I am one of those who made a submission to the commission, although I must say that submissions were demanded very soon after the last general election. One needed to be reasonably alert to the time limits in order to respond. It would be better if the deadline came a bit later after a general election.

The problem with such a debate in this or the Upper House is that we are effectively commenting on a fait accompli, which means that at best our comments might be taken account of in about five years' time, if we are lucky. There is some merit in the suggestion made by the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, before he was elected Taoiseach, that a draft report should be published by the commission, perhaps setting out more than one option in some cases, so that the House could comment on the matter. I would not take the final decision away from the commission, but a draft report would make a debate like this one more useful.

The emphasis in the commission's work is on equality and that clearly takes precedence over county boundaries. I have just been doing duty in the Seanad where a rather different electoral principle applies and which possibly results in areas outside Dublin having, on average, a greater say in who is elected.

In the case of County Tipperary, there is a considerable overlap between the county and constituency boundaries. In other words, a large swathe of South Tipperary County Council's administrative area is in the Tipperary North constituency. In addition, Tipperary South takes in a bit of west Waterford, while Tipperary North is taking in a bit of north-west Offaly. There is a certain awkwardness in having a different area of representation — certainly in the country — for county council purposes, with county councillors straddling constituencies, compared to Dáil constituencies. In my own case, I would naturally prefer that the South Tipperary County Council boundaries would coincide with the constituency ones. At the same time, however, I have spent much of my life working on cross-Border co-operation and whereas, in theory, such areas could fall between two stools, on the other hand they may benefit from having the support of representatives from both sides of the border, which is a positive aspect.

My final point concerns a suggestion that, while not made by the Minister, was made outside the House. It is the question of whether we should revert to constituencies that are larger than five seats. For example, Tipperary was once a united county for Dáil purposes and up to the late 1940s it was a seven-seat constituency. In terms of terrain, however, it would be difficult for a Deputy to represent the whole county. As things stand, it takes well over an hour to travel from one end of the Tipperary South constituency to the other, and the same applies to Tipperary North. I would not advocate a single Tipperary constituency.

There is also a disadvantage, particularly in rural areas, in having constituencies of more than five seats since it would arguably make more tenuous the close link that exists between Deputies and their constituents. Obviously, the larger the area, the further one is from one's constituents, unless one divides it up geographically.

As regards the number of parties represented in this House, there are more today than on many occasions in the past. I am not in favour of the electoral system encouraging more fragmentation.

Up until the recent past, both Tipperary North and Tipperary South, which are three-seat constituencies, both elected an Independent Deputy. It is wrong, therefore, to think that three-seaters are incapable of electing Independent Deputies.

Michael Finneran (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, for affording me some of his time. At the outset, I wish to compliment the Constituency Commission. It had a job to do and it did it. The commission's recommendations do not satisfy everybody, however, which is the reason we are having this debate. Comments were made in advance of this debate, including by our current Taoiseach who commented on the report in a personal capacity. He suggested that some type of draft report could be debated here in advance of the commission's final decision. We should ask to whom we are talking. Is the commission still in place, or does it no longer exist on the basis that it has completed its report? I am not sure but perhaps at some stage it can be clarified whether the commission is there, or listing, at this particular time. Alternatively, are we talking to ourselves regarding this matter?

As a Government Deputy for the proposed constituency of Roscommon-South Leitrim, my particular interest is that strong representations were made by organisations, political parties and others, recommending that County Leitrim would not be divided. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened. The outcome of that is that the county of Leitrim does not have a resident TD. My constituency of Longford-Roscommon includes south Leitrim while Sligo-Leitrim includes north Leitrim. The people of County Leitrim feel they have not been treated a fair hand of cards in so far as they do not have a resident TD and I can understand that. The people there have made their position well known. It is unfortunate that a small county is, to some extent, seen as an area that should not have a TD. Under the present arrangements, including the recent report, it will be even more difficult for that to happen.

I respect the independence of commissions. It is good that we do not have the gerrymandering we may have had in the past. It is important that we as public representatives reflect the views expressed in our constituency clinics or wherever. I hope that somehow or other the wishes of the people of County Leitrim can be addressed in another report or in some other way.

I thank my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, for sharing time with me.

Dan Neville (Limerick West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Durkan.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. As some contributors have said, the change in Limerick is major as it involves 17,000 voters coming in from the former Limerick East and 13,000 going to Kerry North-Limerick West. The electorate there are extremely concerned and do not understand the reason for such a change. One can understand small shifts but not such a major transfer. The electorate in those areas have known their Oireachtas representatives, particularly TDs, for a long period. While there have been changes from time to time, it has been a change of one TD, but in this case there is a change in representation for a population of 30,000, which is a step too far.

I have visited the new area extensively since the change was made and have been warmly welcomed. I look forward to the challenge of representing those people and I air their concerns in regard to the changes taking place and the lack of connectivity which develops with years of public representation. The large geographical area of Murroe, Doon, Cappamore, Palace Green, Oola, Hospital and other areas is involved also. The people who will transfer to the new constituency of Kerry North-Limerick West are angry at being removed from their own county. At least the area that is coming in from the east remains in Limerick while whole areas are being transferred to the centre of the constituency, which is Tralee. Areas that we represented very strongly and are geographically near me, such as Ardagh, Athea, Glin, Abbeyfeale, Monogay, Mount Collins and Templeglantine, have been part of Limerick West since 1948 and were part of Limerick prior to the foundation of the State in 1922.

While we look forward to the challenge, we do not understand how this happened. Obviously there was a choice. It was expected that a few parishes of Kerry North would be moved to Limerick West to make up the balance and that the changes would be minimal. We have had the experience in Mayo where two constituencies were amalgamated and the number of seats was reduced from six to five. There was an expectation that something similar would happen in Kerry, where Kerry North and Kerry South would be amalgamated into a five-seater constituency and thus there would be minimal changes in Limerick West and Limerick East. It is difficult to understand why such a change was made. There is no logic to it and the new constituency of the city, which effectively made up the majority of the previous Limerick East constituency, will lose a seat. When Fine Gael and Labour have the majority there, the last seat always goes to Fine Gael, but that seat has now been removed from the equation. The electorate of 30,000 may not vote as a protest, but I urge every one of those people to cast their votes and ensure that democracy survives as strongly as it always has done in that area.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank my colleague for sharing time.

I do not know why we are having statements on the Constituency Commission's report after it has been produced. I hate to think what has been cooked underneath the counter. I am sure the Acting Chairman has a passing interest in these matters, especially if it should transpire that any constituency would be seriously and materially affected in anything that might be suggested from here on. I am sure the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, has the interests of all Members at heart and would not contemplate anything that would militate against the political adventures of the various political groups in the future.

I do not agree with the notion that we should politicise the system as it opens the door to allegations of cronyism, favouritism and all kinds of "isms". A few issues need to be borne in mind. There is merit in what a number of speakers have said. Local areas, local towns and local communities resent very much when their local community is broken up by way of an electoral boundary. For example, if one side of the road is in one constituency and the other side of the road is in another constituency it does not make for good relations or a good turnout at the polls, even on referendum days. That is an issue that needs to be borne in mind.

On this occasion Kildare North received some extra territory from Kildare South. Care should be taken to ensure boundaries remain for as long as possible. If electors are transferred from one constituency to another between every second or third election, they become disaffiliated, for want of a better description, and withdraw from the political arena due to a lack of interest. One interesting case arose in my constituency of Kildare North following the revisions made by the previous Constituency Commission. The village of Killina could not be approached from any other area of north Kildare without travelling into a different constituency and became, to all intents and purposes, an island. John Donne once said no man is an island but some of the things that have come to pass make me believe the contrary. The time available to me is short.

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

The Deputy has one minute remaining.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One can do considerable damage in one minute.

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

All-Ireland finals have been won in less time.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some have been won in injury time.

The current approach to boundary revisions is the fairest possible system. I am deeply suspicious when a debate of this nature is ordered in the House because if it is a case of uisce faoi thalamh, it is dangerous. One never knows when there will be a burst resulting in a flood. If something akin to uisce faoi thalamh is pending, I hope the whole place will not be flooded. I hope it is not intended to re-politicise the drawing of constituency boundaries. Notwithstanding the possibility that political influence may have been at work in some of the stranger decisions taken from time to time, the current approach is the fairest because it has stood the test of time and removed grounds for suggesting political chicanery has played a role. I remember the case of the poor late Minister, Jimmy Tully, in 1973 or thereabouts when the Fianna Fáil Party argued that changes in electoral boundaries guaranteed he would win ten elections. As we later discovered, this was not the case. I do not believe maintaining his seat was the purpose of the exercise. Rather, the Minister, Mr. Tully, sought to keep communities together. From a positive point of view, we should not worry because Governments change.

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

Change is an inevitability in every walk of life.

Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the report of the Constituency Commission, which will badly affect me if implemented. My colleague from the other constituency in County Meath, Deputy Thomas Byrne, will also be affected by the proposed changes.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With my vast experience in that area, I should be able to help the Deputy.

Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Constituency Commission report recommends further partitioning of the area I represent in the House. It recommends transferring a further 6,776 people, the electorate of the areas of Kells urban, Kells rural and Stahalmog, from the constituency of Meath West to Meath East. County town and parish boundaries have been disregarded and, under the proposals, Kells town and its natural hinterland are to be in separate constituencies. Kells is a rural town with close links to the surrounding villages and smaller towns of north Meath. The future economic well-being of the greater Kells area would be best served by keeping the entire area in one Dáil constituency.

Like Deputy Durkan, I recall 1973 when part of north Meath was transferred into the constituency of Cavan.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy has a great memory.

Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The population of the area in question elected to the House the late John P. Wilson, a former Minister and Tánaiste and a great man. Another part of north Meath was transferred into the constituency of Monaghan. After some time, however, both areas returned to the Meath constituency. My party colleague, former Deputy Michael Lynch, and former Fine Gael Party Deputy, Mr. John B. Farrelly, were elected and lost their seats in the area on different occasions.

Prior to the 2007 elections, County Meath was divided again when the constituencies of Meath West and Meath East were established. Unfortunately, I lost a large part of my constituency in Slane, Navan and, in the case of Kells, an area extending from Moynalty to Carlanstown, to my colleague, Deputy Thomas Byrne. This change affected parish boundaries and will be repeated if the proposal in the latest review to transfer three quarters of my parish of Kells to Meath East proceeds. Part of the parishes of Carlanstown and Carnaross were transferred to Meath East under the previous boundary changes. It is unfair to split parishes in two and I hope the proposed changes will not proceed prior to the next general election.

I thank the people of Kells and Stahalmog. I have represented the town of Kells and its rural hinterland for 34 years. The electorate of the area do not want to lose a Deputy or councillor who has served them for such a long time. The Kells area has been affected most by the decision to divide the county into two constituencies. Someone working for me one day may work for Deputy Thomas Byrne on another day. Deputies English and McEntee must contend with the same unfairness.

I note in respect of the Meath and Louth constituencies that the commission "recommends" extending the Louth constituency by moving the Meath East environs of Drogheda into the electoral constituency of Louth. The report also highlights the need for a transfer of population from Meath West to Meath East. I note the Constituency Commission does not make a recommendation in this regard but instead proposes the transfer of a population of 6,776 in the Ceanannas Mór area from Meath West to Meath East. If the rapid population growth in both Meath West and Meath East continues at the rates indicated in the latest census, further changes will be required in the next constituency review. In consideration of this and based on the differences in language, the commission's proposal as opposed to recommendation to move Kells from Meath West to Meath East does not require implementation.

The report's recommendations are inconsistent, confusing, unprecedented and do not take into account the preservation of natural communities. While I fully recognise that the Constituency Commission is an independent body, its independence does not confer on it the status of infallibility. Recommendations made from a mathematical perspective with no consideration for the democratic rights of local communities are wrong. Fragmentation of closely knit communities across north Meath threatens the co-ordination of future growth in the area.

The Electoral Act 1997 states that each constituency "shall be composed of contiguous areas" and "there shall be regard to geographic considerations including significant physical features and the extent of and the density of population in each constituency". Surely people in north Meath should not be disenfranchised because of the density of population in towns such as Ratoath, Dunboyne and Ashbourne. I do not understand the reason the Constituency Commission chose not to consider moving those areas to Dublin constituencies such as Dublin West and Dublin North with which they are more aligned, rather than depriving people in parts of north Meath of a Deputy who has served them for 34 years. It is very unfair. I cannot understand why they never looked at those areas.

Section 6(f) also states that subject to the provisions of the section, the commission shall endeavour to maintain continuity in relation to the arrangement of constituencies. The Electoral Act 1997 also recommends that the breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as practicable. The report on local electoral boundaries will be published next month and this will undoubtedly add more confusion for voters.

On behalf of the people I have represented in this House for 11 years, I earnestly request that the recommendations of the commission be rejected.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In a number of cases this report ignores the spirit and intent of section 6(2)(c) of the Electoral Act 1997, which states that "the breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as practicable". That has happened in my constituency of Kerry North and in Limerick West, and in Counties Tipperary, Offaly, Louth, Meath and Leitrim. This could have been avoided. The changes diminish the level of representation of the people living in the constituencies concerned.

In my constituency, I feel strongly the integrity of Kerry North ought to have been retained, as well as that of Limerick West. Indeed there are far stronger feelings about this in the parts of County Limerick that are affected, given that there is a good chance that nobody from that part of the constituency might be elected as part of the new arrangement. There are those who will argue this is not important and that people still get to vote for the party of their choice, but that is to underestimate the importance of local identity and the fact that the people best able to represent individuals and communities from distinct areas are people who are from those areas and living there. Local knowledge and local interaction are of great benefit to those who are elected as it gives them a better connection to their constituents.

The transfer of the Kerry North districts of Deelis, Kilgobban, Knockglass, Baurtregaum, Kilfelim and Castleisland to Kerry South distorts what has been the traditional integrity of the constituency and the patterns of local representation. I also argue on the grounds of local community and integrity that the Dingle Peninsula should be considered more naturally a part of Kerry North and incorporated as such. It would certainly make more sense than including parts of County Limerick. Parts of the west Kerry Peninsula were incorporated into Kerry North for the 2007 election. These include Camp, Aughacasla and Derrymore. In the past, the Dingle Peninsula was also part of Kerry North. It made for better representation because of the geographical position and because of closer proximity to the elected representatives.

Similar strong feelings exist in those parts of south Offaly transferred to Tipperary North, as they do in north Meath and especially in Leitrim, as that county has been divided between the two new constituencies of Sligo-North Leitrim and Roscommon-South Leitrim. People from outside of the county may feel that this is a trivial matter, but they underestimate the real depth of feeling on this issue and how local people genuinely feel it will further disadvantage them across a range of issues in which they feel the county is already hard done by. I was in Leitrim recently and it was brought home to me that the people there feel they will not get proper representation if the county is divided.

Sinn Féin's opposition to the report goes back to the legislation which established the commission. We made our feelings known at the time and tabled a number of amendments outlining the direction in which we wished to see constituency organisation develop. We argued at the time and we still argue that the commission ought to have recommended the creation of larger constituencies, including six and seven-seat constituencies, some of which could indeed encompass entire counties or combinations of entire counties. We outlined this proposal in our submission to the commission but such changes were not considered. The commission has in fact gone in the opposite direction by reducing the number of five seat constituencies from 12 to 11.

We believe the changes dilute the proportionality of our electoral system and distort the effectiveness of proportional representation. It also goes against the original spirit and intent of constituency and proportional representation. In 1922 there were only three three-seat constituencies while there were five constituencies of six, seven and even eight seats. It should be possible to move in the direction of six and seven-seat constituencies and this would produce a better reflection of the PR system and the preference of voters, especially in light of the much greater diversity of opinion and political representation in recent years. That is already reflected in this House.

Sinn Féin is concerned that the existence of three-seat constituencies in certain areas and five-seat constituencies in other areas creates inequality between voters in different parts of the State. It is discriminatory in that voters in three-seat constituencies have a lower chance of electing their chosen representative if he or she comes from a smaller party compared with people living in a five-seat constituency.

Members should contrast the ability of voters in Finglas and Foxrock to elect their chosen representatives in the Dáil. The people of Finglas, in the three-seat constituency of Dublin North-West, do not have the same opportunity of putting their chosen party or representatives into Leinster House as the people of Foxrock in the five-seat constituency of Dún Laoghaire. Is it merely a coincidence that there is a proliferation of three-seat constituencies north of the Liffey, whereas larger constituencies are more common south of the Liffey?

Will the people of Leitrim or of the part of Limerick included in the revised Kerry North constituency have any chance of electing a representative of their county to the Dáil in the future? Is the legislation restricting the size of constituencies to three seats, four seats and five seats a deliberate attempt by the establishment to keep the marginalised in their place? New developments are springing up all over Dublin and stretching into surrounding counties, so the problem also arises in these areas. Boundaries may have to be changed every couple of years. It would make much more sense to have larger multi-seat constituencies that could accommodate such population shifts, without having to change the electoral boundaries constantly. That is the reason for our idea of six-seat and seven-seat constituencies.

The commission was constrained by statute and constituency sizes were restricted to between three and five seats. That meant it could never address some of the issues to which I have referred. The proportionality that is possible under the PRSTV system in this State has been substantially diluted through the selective redrawing of constituency boundaries and the reduction in constituency size from five to three seats. Proportional representation with a single transferable vote, or PRSTV, using multi-seat constituencies is a unique system that is hardly practised outside Ireland. It is not designed with the intention of being applied to three-seat constituencies. The number of members returned per constituency is a crucial component of the Irish electoral system. The higher the number of Members returned per constituency, the greater the proportionality of the system.

I reiterate the disappointment of my party and many others with the report. I emphasise the criticism of its remit from the time it began its work. Those criticisms stand and will remain relevant because we believe the flaws contained in it and the lack of scope for more radical change will continue to be exposed.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an tAire Stáit, an Teachta Devins. As Deputy Brady has outlined, this report has had a serious effect on the county and the constituencies of Meath East and Meath West. The last review, which people still talk about, was particularly devastating for the people of north Meath when most of the parishes of Kilbeg, Kilmainhamwood, Moynalty, Nobber and Drumconrath were transferred into Meath East. Thanks to Deputy Brady's support, I was elected to the House by the votes of people from that area. I am grateful to Deputy Brady and the people of the beautiful area for that.

The Constituency Commission has an important and difficult job to do. Deputies should not complain too much because it is a privilege to be elected to the House from any constituency. Perhaps the terms of reference under which the commission operates should be slightly stricter and further terms should be added. This is particularly true of County Meath, as referred to by Deputy Brady. There are several parishes, from Kilbeg parish to Summerhill, that are split between the two constituencies. A number of submissions were made by independent people to the commission, suggesting that these parishes be united and included in Meath East. Having done that, the town of Kells, including the district electoral divisors of Kells, Maperath and Staholmog, would not have to be moved into Meath West. The unity of the parish boundary would then have been recognised by the commission, a factor that is not in its terms of reference but should be included. Parishes in rural Ireland are the centre of activity, through the church, football teams and schools. Deputy Brady and I represent Kilberry, Oristown, Kilbeg, Moynalty, Johnstown parishes and the Navan area, which are split between Meath East and Meath West, so we co-operate on issues in those areas. It would be far better for the people if they had one set of representatives rather than two. We find ourselves tripping over each other.

Tá mé ag smaoineamh freisin faoi cheantair Gaeltachta ar nós Baile Ghib. Tá cuid den cheantar sin i nDáilcheantar an Mhí Thiar, ach tá an chuid is mó de i nDáilcheantar an Mhí Thoir. Bheadh sé i bhfad níos fearr do muintir na háite sin dá mbeidís sa Dháilcheantar chéanna. The importance of the parish boundary should be recognised by the commission.

The importance of the county boundary should also be recognised. Some 17,000 people are moving from a constituency in County Meath to one in County Louth for electoral purposes. The people in the area are not happy because they identify with County Meath, not County Louth. There is a strong rivalry with Louth. More important, the area of Meath East that has been moved, where I live, is a particularly needy area because of the massive increase in development over the past ten years. The population has more than doubled in some parts and these people will be moved into Louth, where they will be a marginal feature of the Louth constituency. It will be difficult to elect a candidate from that area and those who put their trust in me delivering facilities and building community spirit, which is happening slowly but surely, will be seriously disadvantaged at a national level. In that case the commission should have adhered to the terms of reference in so far as it could and respected the county boundary line. It was a bad decision although I understand the difficulties the commission has in balancing numbers. However, it did not think of adding to the number of Deputies in the House, which it could have done without much controversy. That might have solved some problems.

The last Deputy resident in Meath East was the late Mr. Jimmy Tully. I do not anticipate reverting to that situation, where politicians are too smart. Determining constituency boundaries is a difficult job and one that politicians cannot dictate. It backfired in the case of Jimmy Tully but also elsewhere, even on our side. I advocate an independent commission but one that considers county boundaries, parish boundaries and the needs of new areas. Deputy Darragh O'Brien may refer to Swords, which is in a similar position to Meath East in that it is a growing area. It needs to be represented by the same set of representatives who can plead the case. The Louth Deputies will not focus on Meath East and its particular needs.

We should not complain too much because we are in a privileged position. I am grateful to the people of Meath East, most of which was new to me at the last general election, as were the people. I was new to them and with the help of the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, Deputy Brady and Deputy Wallace, I got to know the area and the people got to know me and put their trust in me. I agree with Deputy Brady that this issue must be re-examined independently.

Jimmy Devins (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Byrne for sharing time. The Constituency Commission is independent and, with the history of gerrymandering that went on in this country, it is vitally important that it remains so. At the same time, some anomalies have arisen.

I refer to the north west and particularly Sligo-North Leitrim. When I was first elected to the House, the constituency was Sligo-Leitrim, a four-seater that had consistently returned a Deputy from Leitrim. In the 2007 election County Leitrim was divided into Sligo-North Leitrim and Roscommon-South Leitrim. Arising from the 2007 election, no Deputy based in Leitrim was elected. Since then many Leitrim people have made representations to me about the lack of a Leitrim-based Deputy. The integrity of county boundaries should be a priority for the Constituency Commission and I ask that, in any future electoral revisions, due consideration be given to maintaining the integrity of county boundaries. It is an honour to serve the people of Sligo-North Leitrim but, having said that, as the smallest county in Ireland Leitrim should have the ability to elect a Deputy based in the county.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to share time with Deputy Charles Flanagan. The Taoiseach, who was then Minister for Finance, expressed his concerns about the constituency boundaries. I would be concerned at political interference in this issue and I hope this is not another aspect of the dictatorial ethos we see from the Government.

There is an issue of county boundaries, to which many speakers referred. Avoidance of breaching county boundaries is part of the terms of reference. The document published on county boundaries last year increased the number of county boundary breaches by three rather than reducing it, in Kerry-North Limerick, Louth-Meath and Offaly-North Tipperary. That which has got the most publicity was the division of County Leitrim and the creation of my constituency, Roscommon-South Leitrim, and Sligo-North Leitrim. Specific provision must be made in the terms of reference for small counties such as Leitrim. There must be division in larger counties such as Meath, Cork and Tipperary because it is logistically impossible to have constituencies that big. It is important for a small county like Leitrim that county boundaries are sacrosanct. The report before us should be returned to the commission requesting that it amend its terms of reference to provide that the boundaries of counties with a population of fewer than 50,000 or 60,000 remain intact. It is possible to create constituencies that remain within the thresholds set out in the Constitution.

I was the only Deputy from my constituency who made a submission to the Constituency Commission. I made a detailed submission outlining how County Leitrim could be retained in one constituency while ensuring proper representation throughout the province of Connaught. My point was that County Roscommon should remain intact as should County Leitrim and that a new three seat constituency of Roscommon-East Galway be established with two further four seater constituencies in Galway.

There has been a long association between Roscommon and Galway East with one constituency crossing the River Suck on a number of occasions in the past. There is a great deal of co-operation across the county boundary. For example, many people in north-east Galway have a strong affinity with public representatives in County Roscommon. I deal with these people on a weekly basis and have no difficulty doing so. There are also many economic ties between Roscommon and Galway East. The Constituency Commission could have addressed this issue by looking at it from this particular perspective.

I urge the Government to review this matter with a view to amending the terms of reference to provide that the county boundaries of counties with a population of under 60,000 be sacrosanct. It is feasible to do this. In the past, we had crazy constituencies as a result of political decisions. When former Deputy Jack McQuillan was a Member of this House, County Roscommon was divided into five separate constituencies. We do not want this to happen again in the future. It would be easy to address the concerns that have been raised by amending the proposals given to the commission in the first instance.

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

I profess I do not have any specialist expertise or knowledge in this area. I rise merely to speak as a representative of one of the constituencies it appears will be adversely affected by the proposed changes.

I wonder about the purpose of this debate. What credence or weight can be placed on our making statements here today? I hope the Minister when replying will enlighten us as to the object of today's exercise. I would like to know what the Government is doing in this regard and what is its intention regarding this report. Is it being accepted, accepted with qualification or rejected? It is important we have leadership in this regard. Those who can provide that element of leadership are sitting opposite.

My own constituency will lose thousands of voters to Tipperary North. This is the only time in the history of this State that the constituency of Laois-Offaly has been in any way affected by boundary changes. It is, in fact, the only constituency in the entire country that has never been affected by any reviews or changes since the foundation of the State. From that point of view, this change is a major one for the midlands.

The Constituency Commission has decided to butcher and fragment the constituency of Laois-Offaly for the first time ever. Part of the county of Offaly is to be joined with Tipperary North. I do not mean any disrespect to the people of north Tipperary but the fact remains that not only are different counties involved, so too are different provinces. There is nothing in terms of affinity, relationship, close or otherwise, between the people of Offaly and the people of Tipperary.

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

What about hurling?

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

Yes and that, a Cheann Comhairle, would be quite the opposite to affinity. Let us examine for a moment what will happen in respect of Garda divisions. It is proposed that Garda divisions be changed to accord with county boundaries, yet we are splitting County Offaly. In regard to court districts, County Offaly is in the midlands circuit which extends from Sligo to south Laois. It is now proposed that part of County Offaly be joined with Tipperary. The old health board district and HSE midlands incorporates the natural midlands counties of Westmeath, Longford, Offaly and Laois. It is totally unacceptable that part of the county of Offaly should now, for electoral purposes, be placed in a different province.

Much has been said about the democratic deficit or the gap between local politicals and euro politics. Yet, European parliamentarians for south Offaly will be from the Leinster area and its Dáil representatives will be from Tipperary North which is located in a different province. The local government conflict is quite obvious. Tullamore will be the local administrative centre and whereas Birr was the market town for south Offaly for many years the main focus of attention now politically will be Thurles which is many miles away. The only time people from Offaly go to Thurles is for hurling. It is extraordinary that the people of County Offaly should be centred politically in an area which is somewhat alien to them.

If one is looking to natural county boundaries and constituencies it is totally unnatural then that there are two three-seat constituencies in Tipperary. Why is this? Why are there two constituencies in County Tipperary? Changes on the basis of population structure of an area would cause far less anxiety, anger and disharmony than does the bolstering up of the entirely artificial constituency of Tipperary North thus ensuring it remains an entity by adding to it a portion of County Offaly.

The democratic will of the people has been removed. The people of south Offaly are against this move. What local needs basis is undertaken by the electoral boundaries? There has been no consultation by the commission with stakeholders. In considering a change in the terms of reference we should bear in mind local area needs. I am concerned about the Taoiseach's statement this morning on the Order of Business when he said that he was in some way unhappy with what happened to our respective constituents in Laois-Offaly and indicated that it is an issue that could be examined. I would like if that matter could be clarified by the Taoiseach.

The overriding point is that for electoral purposes we are moving people from Offaly to the province of Munster. For example, in regard to the areas for designated euro status, Laois-Offaly is located in the Border, midlands and western region. Part of this constituency is now being moved to another area. If the Laois-Offaly constituency is to be changed consideration might be given to changing the eastern side of the constituency where there has been a considerable shift in population. Areas such as Carlow-Kilkenny, Offaly-Kildare or Laois-Carlow in which there would be more of a natural affinity in terms of business and interaction could be considered rather than placing people in a different province, an area in which there has been no traditional association.

I merely express my utmost concern at what is happening. Also, I wonder about the point of this exercise today and hope that the Minister when replying will inform us as to what will be the next move.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What I have to say today bears no reflection on the eminent people who are members of the committee. I believe even the most eminent can make mistakes. This report contains glaring errors and inconsistencies. I listened with interest in the Chamber today and on the monitor in my office to the contributions made by Deputies Thomas Byrne, John Cregan and Charles Flanagan. Some of the recommendations in respect of many of the constituencies across the country do not make sense to me. It is a great honour to be a Member of the House and the constituents who elected us a short 12 months ago have been raising with their TDs and with Senators the grave concerns they have about this report and the feeling they could be disenfranchised and have their representation reduced.

Although I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the Constituency Commission report I must admit I would rather not because if I did not have to speak on it I would not have to address the issues which the report has raised. On my first reading of the report I was astonished to see some of the recommendations made for my constituency of Dublin North. The findings of the report mean that more than 21,000 voters will be transferred not to one constituency but to two, namely Dublin North-East and Dublin West. I see Deputy Varadkar walking in so I will make a clear case as to why Swords should not go to Dublin West.

These proposed changes are made without any regard to historical boundaries, contiguous areas or geography. It is my clear view the commission took the easy way out in dealing with Dublin North. It was obvious to everyone that the population of my constituency as per the 2006 census meant an extra seat should have been added and that the constituency should have become a five seat constituency. I state this without any personal or political gain in mind. All four TDs elected last year will be equally affected by these findings. No political party will benefit over another or be disadvantaged more than any other.

This report, if implemented, will weaken the representation of the people of Dublin North. I have had literally hundreds of complaints from concerned constituents of all party allegiances and none with regard to the effective partitioning of Dublin North, in particular the capital town of Fingal, namely, Swords, which I will put in an historical context. For centuries, Swords has been the capital town of Fingal. It has seen many changes over hundreds of years but none as drastic as this. It was one of the original settlements of St. Colmcille and received the slain body of the high king of Ireland, Brian Boru, who was the first O'Brien and it is important that I am speaking on his behalf. He and his son Murragh were laid out in the church in Swords after the battle of Clontarf.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Do not forget Clontarf.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I could never forget Clontarf with Deputy McGrath here.

The north county of Dublin has its own special identity. People do see themselves in the main as Dubs but also as Fingalians. Swords is the capital of Fingal from where Fingal County Council operates. The findings of the commission's report with the stroke of a pen transfers 13,000 voters from Swords to Dublin West. The entire River Valley and Forest Road area of Swords, which represents 40% of the voting population of 34,000, will be removed from its rightful constituency to one which has no connection to the town. No right-minded person could make sense of this recommendation.

The Electoral Act 1997 states "each constituency shall be composed of contiguous areas" and "there shall be regard to geographic considerations including significant physical features and the extent of and the density of population in each constituency". This report in no way takes into account contiguous areas. The 13,000 voters from Swords proposed to be transferred to Dublin West are a full 10 km from the nearest major town in Dublin West, namely, Mulhuddart.

The people of Swords are genuinely devastated by this report. I have not known any previous report to have had such an effect on the area or to get people so charged about an issue. People are genuinely concerned that they will lose the effective representation that all four TDs, including myself, offer to Dublin North and the town of Swords. This is no reflection on the TDs in Dublin West, including Deputies Joan Burton and Leo Varadkar. It merely states the reality.

The town of Swords has one local electoral boundary. It is one electoral area for local elections. Splitting the area in two disenfranchises and weakens the chances of local politicians and councillors of ever running in a general election. If a county councillor represents both sides of the Swords area to the best of his or her ability he or she will lose out on a large portion of what is his or her strongest voting block for the general election. Local councillors from other areas throughout the constituency will have a distinct advantage over Swords councillors as their entire electoral areas will remain intact, which is not the case in the Malahide ward. These are the thoughts of the Swords Electoral Boundary Action Group which has done a great deal of work and made a welcome submission to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government which was well put together. I hope it is taken into account. No other town in my constituency is split in this way.

The commission states the population is being moved to support the four seat constituency of Dublin West. However, it will also deny the people of Dublin North the five seat constituency they should have. In development plans, the population of Swords is projected to grow to 100,000 people. How will we deal with this being split over two Dáil constituencies? It is highly likely that Dublin West will have ample population in the next census to be a four seat constituency and that the area of Swords to which I refer will move back to Dublin North. To propose such drastic changes and implement them for a five year period makes absolutely no sense to me and my constituents.

In Portmarnock, Balgriffin and parts of Baskin in the southern end of my constituency, 9,000 voters will be moved to Dublin North-East to effectively prop up a three seat constituency. Portmarnock is a sister town of Malahide and is part of the Malahide electoral ward within Fingal. It will be thrown in with areas of the city council. We will have two sets of councillors from two local authorities in two Dáil constituencies trying to represent the areas of Portmarnock and Balgriffin. The feeling of disenfranchisement in Portmarnock is palpable. Only last week, I met residents who were dismayed at the prospect of being lumped into another constituency with which they have no connection. My colleague in the council, Councillor Eoghan O'Brien, will represent a ward where one third is in the constituency of Dublin North-East and where part of the constituency is in Dublin City Council.

It would have been more logical for the commission to have proposed that Dublin North-East and Dublin North-Central be merged to create a five seat constituency and Dublin North should have gained a seat and become a five seat constituency. At the time of the most recent election, Dublin North had a population which would have required a five seat constituency. It could be argued that we are already under-represented. If implemented, I see these changes as temporary and this area reverting to Dublin North in five years time.

The process is flawed and boundary changes are made without due attention to population projections. All parties should insist the commission's report is re-examined prior to its implementation. Many of my colleagues from throughout the country have already made cases as to why proposed changes make no sense in their areas. We are the legislators and we should not be afraid to state when a report's findings are plainly incorrect and of no benefit to the people who really matter, namely, the citizens. If this report is accepted, which I expect it will be, we must ensure future reports are not accepted by the Department until they are debated. It is hoped the members of the permanent electoral commission, which will take over this function for future elections, will bear the needs of the citizen at the forefront of their minds.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Leo Varadkar.

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

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the report of the Constituency Commission and compliment those who carried out the good work. I only regret we are not here to implement the legislation changing the constituency boundaries. In all my time in the House, I have never heard such self-serving speeches, particularly from the Government side and including Ministers. I put it down to the signal the Taoiseach sent out when he was Minister for Finance about seeking the agreement of all parties to changing the boundary commission. It is all well and good to bring forward legislation but I do not know how people will sit on an independent commission if all we do is say, "They are independent but...". We either accept the report or we do not. I fully accept it and I compliment those involved on their work. I challenge Members who contributed earlier to produce a constituency breakdown that is fairer.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will mention it.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I look forward to the Deputy's submission. There will always be division. I will pre-empt his contribution by including him with those who make self-serving speeches based on that action. I am sorry I will not be present when the constitutional expert, Deputy Finian McGrath, contributes. I hope he is more expert than he was last week when he misinterpreted the Constitution.

A commission should be established to examine our electoral system. I am glad the Minister for Transport is present because he tried to introduce reform in the past and he was shot down unfairly by self-serving sections of the media.

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

And his own party.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

And Independent Members.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I refer to Article 16.2.2° of the Constitution, which refers to representation by Deputies of not fewer than 20,000 people and not more than 30,000. Section 6 of the Electoral Act provides that the commission, when examining boundary changes, should ensure the number of Members of the Dáil shall not be fewer than 164 and not more than 168. According to the last census, the population is 4,000,239. If the current rate of population increase continues, the legislation will have to be amended to increase the number of Members within the next ten years or a constitutional referendum will need to be held. There is neither the political will nor public support to increase the number of Members. If anything, the public would like to reduce the number of Members radically but I will not go down that road. However, a constitutional referendum will be necessary to increase the upper limit of representation from 30,000 people. An electoral commission should be set up to examine that issue.

Such a commission should also examine Article 16.2.3°, which refers to the ratio of Members to population in that it should be equitable in so far as is practicable. A court judgment in this regard stated a balance should be struck within plus or minus 10%. That is all well and good but, based on demographics over the past few decades, the population has moved significantly towards the east coast and this geographic imbalance will result in the east coast having significant representation in the Dáil. I tried to articulate a view on this a few years ago and it was misinterpreted. I was depicted as being in favour of two rural Deputies for every urban Deputy. However, this issue must be examined in order that counties such as Kerry, Mayo and Donegal are not denuded of representation, resulting in a huge geographic imbalance.

Where parts of counties have been lost to other counties, their names should be included in the constituency title. For example, parts of Offaly were lost to County Tipperary. The commission should examine proposals for multi-seat and single seat constituencies, as enunciated by Deputy Dempsey previously, the spend between elections and the life span of Ministers. A number of Ministers have grown old. Deputy Dempsey will say it is better to grow old in office than in Opposition but I have concerns about a Minister serving for 15 or 20 years, given the workload involved. We have ample evidence in recent years of them becoming stale. Deputies Scanlon and Nolan should be given an opportunity to sit in Cabinet or my colleagues in opposition should be given an opportunity to do the job.

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

It does not take 15 years for that.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Timmins articulated several interesting and worthwhile ideas. There is a case for term limits, although I reserve the right to change my position on that as I get older. Fine Gael's legal advice is the report has been made. I dislike intensely significant aspects of it. The wrong decisions were made in several cases but it would be wrong of us, as politicians, to amend the report. If we were to do that, it would have knock-on effects elsewhere. We have experienced the consequences of gerrymandering in the past and I do not favour us wielding the axe on a report such as this, although I hope the issue can be reviewed. I also hope the House adopts the report. If an election was called using the existing boundaries, it would probably have constitutional effect. We should adopt the report, as published, but an instruction should immediately be given to the boundary commission to resume its deliberations and to examine issues such as the partitioning of towns and counties unnecessarily.

I refer, in particular, to Swords where 12,768 citizens were transferred from the Dublin North constituency to my constituency, Dublin West. They are separated by ten miles from the Blanchardstown-Castleknock area I represent, which is a distinct entity bounded by the River Liffey to the south, the Phoenix Park to the east and the Meath border to the west. There is a ten-mile green belt between Blanchardstown and Swords. Drawing a boundary down the main street of Swords was against everyone's interest and particularly those who live in the town. They will not receive the representation they deserve or that they would have received from the politicians who knew them and who live in the town. This division could have been addressed in another way.

Dublin West is still under represented by 3.43% while Dublin North is also slightly under represented by 3.74%. It would have been possible to transfer at least 11,000 people into Dublin North while maintaining both constituencies as four-seaters. That would have resulted in a variation of plus 8% in Dublin North and a corresponding variation of minus 8% in Dublin West, which is consistent with the variation permitted in Mayo East by the boundary commission in 1983, which provided for a variation of 7.89%.

Every public representative in Dublin North and Dublin West does not want Swords to be partitioned. There is probably an all-party consensus that both constituencies should be at the top and bottom end of over and under representation to facilitate the wishes of the people of Swords. However, I accept the reasons that cannot be done and the potential knock-on effects for other areas with a number of constituencies being opened up to changes that may not be supported on an all-party basis. However, if the report is adopted by the House and an election occurs in the meantime, the House should ask the boundary commission to immediately re-examine the boundaries and to produce an alternative set of proposals regardless of what may happen as a consequence of the 2011 census.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not agree with Deputy Timmins very often but he made some valid arguments. We should examine a number of broader issues such as the number of seats in the House and difference in representation between urban and rural areas. If there is a problem in rural Ireland, we should be conscious of it and that is why it is important, in planning the economic development of the country, to take that on board. Many parts of the east coast are congested and there are major issues. We must be more radical and we must think outside the box when it comes to these issues.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the report, which deals with Dáil and European Parliament constituencies. It is an important report, as it allows us all to debate, examine and propose constructive ideas on democracy, our national Parliament and the European Parliament. I am part of a three seat constituency and it is important that we look seriously at this issue. Dublin North-Central used to be a four seat constituency but was trimmed down to a three-seater. Due to population numbers, it is still a three-seater with a bit extra coming from Edenmore and Raheny, Dublin 5. I welcome the people of Edenmore back into Dublin North-Central and will do my best to support and assist them in all their local issues.

My personal position is that three seat constituencies are not necessarily good for our voters, our citizens and democracy. We need more four or five seat constituencies to include a broad range of views and to reflect modern Ireland. This is the way forward. We need to change and be open to change to help our voters. This is a very important aspect of this report and an area at which we need to look.

The House may remember that before the last general election, the former Independent Deputy, Catherine Murphy, and I took a High Court case dealing with this particular issue and made major progress in respect of Article 16.2.3° of our Constitution. It is important that we remind ourselves of this article, which requires that, as far as practicable, the ratio of Deputies to the population in each constituency should be the same throughout the country. We, as Members of the Oireachtas and legislators, must do our best to uphold Article 16.2.3°.

Our High Court case triggered a debate which came up with some sensible proposals. I also welcome the fact that even though we lost the case on a technicality, our costs were covered because the judge felt that we had something very important to say and some constituencies benefited as a result. It is very important that we look at this aspect. At no stage should we allow any Minister or anybody else to be in breach of Article 16.2.3° in light of the new figures and census.

We must also ensure that the ratio of Members to population in each constituency is fair and democratic. It is also important for us to protect and vindicate the right to equality of all our citizens. It is up to every Member of the Oireachtas, regardless of party, to defend the personal rights of all our citizens. This case demonstrates once again the importance of having people in the Oireachtas, Independent Deputies in particular, to act as watchdogs over the political system to protect the rights of our citizens and taxpayers.

There is much talk in this House about social and political inclusion, yet, in the past, there have been clear breaches of Article 16.2.3° of Bunreacht na hÉireann. It is important that, when we are talking about democracy and political and social inclusion, we ensure that people in the most disadvantaged areas have a genuine reflection of their voice in Dáil Éireann.

Recently, I got into trouble in respect of Article 9 of the Constitution. It is very important that we highlight this issue and the fact that Article 9 is relevant to this debate. This article states fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all our citizens. It is important to remind ourselves of Article 9, particularly in this debate, because we all have political duties and a loyalty to the State that we should do our best to implement. I know many of my colleagues across parties accept and support this position. It is very important that we are constantly vigilant in this regard.

In respect of the European elections, one has the broader debate on the Lisbon treaty and the questions raised about democracy and different aspects of different articles in the treaty. People have genuine concerns which we should not dismiss. We should look at the detail and have the debate. Even if we disagree, we should move on. Let us end the name calling and get on with it.

The Dublin area will lose a seat in the next European elections. I have concerns about that because we will end up with a three-seat constituency in the Dublin area. I ask the fundamental question as to whether this is enough to represent the people of Dublin in the European Parliament. I, and many people throughout the State, have concerns about this issue, which is relevant to this debate. We need to ensure that we look at the details of the report.

I also agree with some of Deputy Cregan's remarks. He came up with the idea of an interim report, which would allow us to have a broader debate about the constituency issue. Again, it is important for us to have that opportunity because ensuring that the relevant articles in the Constitution, the broader debate and the report, particularly Article 16.2.3°, are implemented is our bread and butter and that of the citizens of this State. Deputy O'Brien talked about the ratio of Deputies in respect of Swords. People in Limerick, Kerry and the west have major concerns also.

The elected representatives of this House have legitimate concerns which I share. Even though Dublin North-Central is a three-seater, it is fairly compact and one can get from one end to the other in ten to 15 minutes. This helps people to get to know one and their local Deputy. This business of chopping and changing every couple of years can be very awkward at times. In 2002, all of Grace Park Road was in Dublin North-Central. Now one side of the road is in Dublin North-Central while the other is in Dublin North-West. When very important planning and local issues, such as the Dublin Port tunnel, arise, people are confused at times and are crisscrossing different constituencies. It leads to confusion so we need some common sense when it comes to drawing boundaries, be they through villages, cities, roads or towns.

The same can be said of Griffith Avenue, which is probably one of the nicest avenues in Europe. It is divided down the middle. I lost some of it to Dublin North-West, while the rest of it is in Dublin North-Central. I raise these issues because they are important in the broader debate. We must ensure that the citizens get a fair crack of the whip in this debate.

I commend my former colleague, Catherine Murphy, on the work she did on the High Court case because she did the nation a great service. Even though she was not re-elected in Kildare, she performed a valuable service for the people nationally and in north Kildare. It is important that we say that, particularly in respect of service by people who are no longer Members of the Oireachtas. I urge people to listen to the ideas of different Members of the Oireachtas. Let us hope that we can all build a more inclusive and democratic country.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I find elements of today's debate rather difficult to understand, particularly the position of Members of Fianna Fáil and supporters of the party like Deputy Finian McGrath. It is difficult to understand why this particular debate is being rolled out. I understand that there is cross-party agreement in this House for very good reasons. Given that the independent commission has put forward its report, as the law and arrangements now stand, the Government of the day has given a clear indication that the report will be implemented and form the basis of the boundaries at the next election. For that reason, it behoves every Deputy in the House to act with caution in respect of how we deal with the independent commission's report.

The Labour Party has put forward proposals for the reform of how the structure works. We need look no further than the United Kingdom where commission revisions are ongoing on a rolling basis every number of years. When boundary changes are recommended, it is followed by, in effect, a local inquiry where individuals, groups, public representatives and political parties in the affected areas are, if they are so minded, empowered to make representations or comments on whether the proposal is acceptable and, if not, why not. The boundary commission is not in any way obliged to accept these, but it does allow a public discussion of the pros and cons of what is being proposed, which is so important, as it is with planning matters. I would like to see us move to that system.

As the Minister pointed out in his speech, of the 43 constituencies in the State, 37 are largely unaffected by the changes proposed in the boundary commission's report. The vast majority of constituencies remain as they were. Obviously, then, this debate is of no great interest to the Members representing those constituencies. However, in the areas where the changes have been, in some cases, enormous, there is a difficulty. We must be conscious in this House at all times of the potential for democratic deficits where the people of particular areas, regions or counties feel they are being left out, left behind or unfairly treated by the public administration system.

I do not know what the Government intends to do. It is sending out smoke signals that if there is sufficient opposition, particularly from the Opposition, to the independent commission's report, it will either not be implemented or it will only stand for a short period of time and the boundaries will be changed again by the time of the next general election. The Government must give some indication of what are its serious intentions. Does it intend to accept and honour the independent commission's report? If so, it should proceed to implement it in the usual way by laying legislation before this House. Is today simply a day out, to allow Members to ventilate their concerns, or is it meant as a serious exercise?

I am also concerned that the commission has had, for some time, a rather extraordinary concentration of three seat constituencies in the north and west of Dublin city. The Constitution clearly makes provision that to give effect to proportional representation to the highest degree possible, we should not have an over concentration of three seat constituencies. Three seat constituencies arise from the dictates of demographic and geographic considerations. However, as Deputies have said, there are profound arguments in favour of moving to five seat constituencies in Kerry and Tipperary. On the issue of the concentration of three seat constituencies in north and west Dublin, I do not know what the commission's thinking was on the matter. It means that, in terms of proportionality, this and previous reports of the commission have been quite seriously defective.

In addition, leeway is given in the Constitution for under and over representation. To take an example, Dublin West has been continually under represented in the commission's boundary recommendations. So much so that at the time of the last election, Dublin West was fully entitled to one extra Deputy. Dublin North, as Deputy Darragh O'Brien pointed out, was just marginally shy of the population required for one additional Deputy. It is very difficult to understand the thinking of the commission and its absolute failure to take into account population growth when making its calculations on under and over representation.

I am aware that population growth is not a point of reference which is provided for in the Constitution. However, one must say at times that Mr. Eamon de Valera was an extraordinarily far-seeing man in that he allowed a very large amount of leeway so that it is possible for the commission, in its deliberations, to be cognisant of the fact that, for instance, the areas west and north of Dublin city and the Drogheda area are all growing at an enormous pace. Indeed, in the rest of the country, certain areas are significant growth centres and therefore are likely, by the time of the next boundary revision, to have enjoyed a surge in population which ought to be reflected in the under and over representation provisions made by the commission.

Other Deputies representing Dublin North and Dublin West have spoken about the failure of the commission to recognise the new town of Swords and, on previous occasions, the new town of Blanchardstown. In 1991 I was first elected to Dublin County Council. People from north Dublin and Swords may not believe this but at that time, north Dublin then extended down to the very leafy suburbs of Deerpark in Castleknock and Mulhuddart. That was the reason for the famous occasion when the former Deputy and then Minister, Mr. Ray Burke, was at the opening of an estate and had some trees planted. Then, when the ungrateful electorate in the local area — perhaps because they did not know him — did not vote for him, he ensured that the trees were taken back. That happened in what is now the Dublin 15 area. We must bear in mind that boundaries have been changed before. At that time, it was not done by a commission but by the then Minister. Boundaries have shifted.

There is a case put forward by the Swords Electoral Boundary Action Group which is very deserving of attention. It explains in some detail why River Valley, Highfield and areas such as Knocksedan should naturally stay with the Swords area and the town of which they are part, which should be part of the Dublin North constituency. I will be honoured, obviously, to represent the people of that area. I have the good fortune to know it exceptionally well so it is not a personal difficulty for me to represent the area. However, I appreciate and agree with the concerns of the people in Swords that cutting off 12,000 votes in Swords and tagging them on to Dublin West is very difficult. It increases the democratic deficit and decreases the capacity of people to know their TDs and public representatives.

Another difficulty which I wish to refer to briefly concerns the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who is currently overseeing a commission on local election boundaries. He has said that the local election boundaries and ward revisions should relate to constituencies. Does that mean that the people in the aforementioned parts of Swords will be put in with Mulhuddart for local election voting? That will actually make the current bad situation even worse.

All of the rumours are that the Green Party and the Minister are involved in an attempt to tee up larger local election ward areas in order to advantage the parties in Government, and the Green Party in particular. However, attempts to massage boundaries to facilitate particular political parties, of all shapes, tend to blow up in one's face. I ask the Minister to clarify, with regard to the local authority ward revisions, if Swords will be added into Mulhuddart. If so, it will make a bad situation much worse for the people there. Although I will be happy to represent the area, I believe the commission is wrong in this instance.

The Government is trying to play both sides of the field in having this debate while not being absolutely clear about whether it will implement the commission's report. It has no option but to stand by the commission.

M J Nolan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share my time with Deputy Scanlon.

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

That is agreed.

M J Nolan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this opportunity to speak on this report. In general, we as democrats accept that if the House sets up an independent commission to deal with a particular thing, that body is independent, as no doubt will be accepted in this case. The Bill will support the report of the commission. However, I have misgivings about certain aspects of it. The commission has taken the easy option. While, on balance, the vast majority of the report stands up to scrutiny, it has singularly let down smaller counties.

I can speak in personal terms of how the electorate and population of Carlow believe the commission has not kept to its terms of the reference under which it was asked to take into account county boundaries. It has not done so in the case of Carlow. It was also asked to take into account geographic features. Again in the case of Carlow it has not done so. It is even more tragic that this report has recommended, effectively, the halving of the county of Leitrim in terms of constituency division. To a large extent, I was a voice in a wilderness for a long time making the case for County Carlow but now the commission has gone a step further. It is not alone the fact that Carlow is a county, it has one of the smallest population bases in the country. I am glad to hear that Members from all sides of the House acknowledge that this is a mistake the commission should acknowledge. I support the Taoiseach in the comments he made on the Order of Business some months ago when he said we should not abdicate our responsibilities and we have an option to change the commission's report. I do not believe that will happen, but if there was all-party support for that, I would be delighted to see it happen.

It is wrong that a population in one county is effectively represented by a TD from a different constituency. The wearing of the county jersey still means a great deal in rural Ireland. People have an affinity and a loyalty to their county. This report does not acknowledge that. I refer to the population of east Carlow who are represented by county councillors on Carlow County Council, which is also their planning authority. Their postal service and all their utilities are based in Carlow. The Garda, in its wisdom, changed the Garda district and it is now represented in Carlow. The telephone service and social and economic services of the people of east Carlow are all based in Carlow. However, when it comes to voting, they must vote for somebody in the Wicklow constituency. That is patently wrong.

One of the main criticisms I hear in the run up to every general election is from individuals in east Carlow. They say we are the legislators and have the power to do something about this, but we are letting them down. In a large proportion of cases these people refuse to vote. They are Carlow people and want to vote in Carlow, but are not allowed to do so. The people of east Carlow have been let down by this report. I hope that the next commission set up will take account of smaller counties.

Eamon Scanlon (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad to have this opportunity to make a few brief comments on this subject. I listened with interest to the contributions of many speakers. Some Deputies would question whether it was a good idea to have this debate, but I believe it was and many good ideas have been raised during it.

Many Members expressed concern about the decisions of the boundary commission. It is an independent group set up to examine all electoral boundaries. When this process was dealt with by politicians, people were not happy and complained about it. Therefore, if we give people a job, we must accept their findings.

I represent Sligo-North Leitrim. County Leitrim is the county that has been most affected particularly by recommendations of the last two boundary commission reports. The report prior to this one split Leitrim in two thirds and one third between the constituencies of Roscommon-South Leitrim and Sligo-North Leitrim. Leitrim failed to elect a TD in the county. Leitrim is a proud county with proud people. They were aggrieved by what happened on the previous occasion.

Under the boundary revision before us, it is recommended that instead of Leitrim being split, in constituency division terms, in two thirds and one third where there was a chance of a TD being elected in south Leitrim, that it be split in two. Taking the population of Leitrim as being 25,000, if one divides that number in two and taking an electorate of even 75%, there is no way a Leitrim person could be elected to represent the county. As a public representative for that area, I will endeavour to do my best, as a Sligo person, to represent the people of Sligo-North Leitrim and, I hope I will represent the people within the new boundary commission's recommendations. Nevertheless, the people of Leitrim feel aggrieved.

There is something wrong when a county such as Leitrim, one of the smallest counties, is divided in two in constituency division terms. It is a bad idea. It is unfair to the people who live in the county that a politician in the county cannot get elected to the Dáil. It is physically impossible, given that the county does not have the numbers in terms of votes. The commission is independent and very little can be done about its recommendations in respect of that county.

I listened, with interest, to Deputy Burton's contribution. She spoke about the English system, with which I am not familiar. It is a rolling system and voter registration is examined on an ongoing basis. When a revision is due, a discussion takes place prior to it. It might not be a bad idea to follow that process here and perhaps it is a system we should examine.

The recommendations of the last boundary commission, particularly for the north west in terms of Sligo-Leitrim is not the way we should go. People were disappointed about that. I fully understand that the commission is independent, it has a job to do and politicians cannot be seen to interfere. If they did, they would be accused of gerrymandering in terms of boundaries. I am glad to have had this opportunity to make those few points.

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share my time with Deputy Deenihan.

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

That is agreed.

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate. I understand the Constituency Commission is an independent body and anything that follows should not be construed as undermining its independence. I understand it is independent and that its independence must be protected.

However, I must represent the views of my constituents, in particular the people of Swords. The Constituency Commission has seen fit to remove Portmarnock from my constituency and I can understand there being a certain geographical logic to that decision. However, I am sorry to lose those constituents of mine from Carrighill, Torcaill, Ardilaun, The Dunes, Beechwood, Dal Riada, to mention but a few, whom I had the pleasure to represent for a short period. Portmarnock has been an integral part of Dublin North for so long that the people there will find it difficult to come to terms with the change. It has, also, been represented by a very energetic, young Fine Gael councillor, Alan Farrell, who is currently Lord Mayor and who has given great service in the area.

Swords has grown tremendously in recent years and is now the undisputed capital of Fingal and the Fingal County Council offices are located there. There are further great plans for the town, including the long-awaited and oft promised metro north. Swords has been planned as a single entity in terms of its buildings, transport, schooling and policing systems and the current plan to hive off a third of the area, approximately 13,000 residents, into Dublin West will have many negative affects.

First, this denies the town its full identity. Second, the 13,000 residents transferred to Dublin West will, effectively, have a much reduced franchise as they will only make up 12% of the electorate in that area and will be dislocated geographically from the remainder of the Dublin West constituency. Third, the change could impede the cohesiveness of Sword's development into the future. Fingal County Council has sought to create a new identity and has been very successful in doing so for Fingal. The breaking up of Swords runs contrary to this.

Swords is very much an entity, being very distinct from Malahide, Santry or the other towns of Dublin North. Splitting it in two makes no sense from a political perspective and weakens the influence of Swords as a voting entity. It is currently one electoral ward. I take this opportunity to appeal to the Constituency Commission not to interfere with the area's integrity for the forthcoming council elections. While a mathematical problem and solution might explain the Constituency Commission's proposal, it makes no sense from the point of view of Government, governance, administration nor for the representation of the people of west Swords in estates such as River Valley Estate, Boroimhe, Ridgewood, Knocksedan Demesne, Highfields, Hawthorn Park, The Nurseries, Oulart, Forest Hills, Boru Court or the Forest Road. The people from these estates will have to travel all the way to Blanchardstown, 10 km away, to see their public representatives. This may not be far in the country, but in north Dublin it takes a long time.

While respecting the independence of the commission, one must speak out when what it proposes does not make sense. The impact of such proposals on the people is negative in every sense. No argument can be made for this bizarre and purely arbitrary redrawing of the constituency that would demonstrate it confers any advantage on the people of Swords. In light of these arguments and the strong feeling on the ground, this division of Swords for electoral purposes must be redressed. I hope the Constituency Commission will address these concerns and reverse its decision at the earliest opportunity. It should do so before the next general election when the provisional census figures come in.

Notwithstanding its independence, the commission has created serious problems for the people of Swords and has done them a considerable disservice by failing to realise the implications for our citizens versus the need for greater fairness in numerical representation. I hope it will be able to square the circle before the next election. I also hope that before the next election I will find that the people of Swords remain as my constituents. One way or the other, I intend to keep representing them to the best of my ability.

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Constituency Commission is the third commission established under the 1997 Act. The reports of the first two statutory commissions, together with those of the five earlier non-statutory Dáil constituency commissions, and reports on European Parliament constituencies, were all accepted and implemented. It is our duty to prescribe the legislation to implement the recommendations of the Constituency Commission. Therefore, what we should debate today is the legislation. A discussion such as this, if it was to take place, should have taken place before the commission sat and before it started its deliberations.

It is obvious that the Taoiseach or someone else is not happy with the recommendations of the commission. Reports from the Dáil bar, from where most rumours of this House emanate, suggest there were doubts over this commission a long time ago. This news has now got out to the constituencies and there is major uncertainty in them with regard to who represents whom.

In my constituency, a large electoral area with more than 5,000 voters was removed from the constituency and added to the Ceann Comhairle's Kerry South constituency. He now represents those people and I understand he now holds clinics in the area. There is a question with regard to another area in Limerick West with 13,000 voters. Who represents them now? There is a dilemma for communities as to who represents them and a dilemma for politicians as to whether they will continue to represent them. The question is whether the recommendations in this report will be in place by the next election. Are we not entitled to know that?

It is important that the Minister gives us a clear statement this afternoon and states whether these recommendations will be in force. Will he clarify the situation and say whether this will be the case so that we can avoid uncertainty? It is unfair on Deputies and the communities they represent to be left in this dilemma. A statement from the Minister could clarify the situation once and for all.

With regard to the area of my constituency that I will lose, the people of Castleisland, Cordal and the new area of Camp were comfortable with me as their representative. I was proud to represent them and had built up a great connection with those communities. They were sad to be leaving the Kerry North constituency. However, west Limerick and north Kerry have a great affinity, share a culture and have a similar topography. I look forward to representing that part of my constituency in the future as the new constituency of North Kerry-West Limerick. I am pleased with the reception I have received from the various communities in the area. The commission could, possibly, have more appropriately provided two four seat constituencies in Limerick. In 1921, in the second Dáil, Kerry and Limerick West formed one eight seat constituency. The same was true for the June election of 1922. There is, therefore, a historical significance to the decision to unite these Kerry and Limerick constituencies.

I hope that as a result of today's discussions the Government will not ignore the report of the electoral commission nor deliberately delay its implementation. At the moment, the Government seems to be deliberately delaying its implementation, despite the High Court judgment in 2007 which stated the Government was obliged to implement the recommendations of the commission with minimum delay. Surely a decision made months ago should be implemented by now. We should be discussing the legislation to implement the decision of the commission by now rather than having a discussion on the decision.

This discussion should have taken place before the commission was set up and established to report on the boundaries. That would have been the logical approach. Now, we have created uncertainty in communities that are about to be changed. We need, at least, clarification on that so that Deputies do not use their valuable time representing a constituency that may not be in their area for the next election.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In keeping with Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, I do not know why we are having this debate. The Government already approved the Constituency Commission's recommendations on 30 January. People often claim the Dáil is only a talk-shop. The Government has already made a decision and this debate should have been held long before the commission was established.

I was elected by the people of Limerick East in the last general election. Without any forewarning, 17,000 of them find they will now be in the Limerick County constituency. Limerick, as a county, has been butchered to ensure two three seat constituencies are retained in County Kerry. People from Oola, Cappamore, Doon, Pallas Green, Murroe, Caherconlish, Herbertstown, Hospital, Roxboro and Ballyneety have been represented by Deputies from the Limerick East constituency since 1948. Having grown up in Limerick, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, will be aware of the great affinity between the county and the city, particularly in east Limerick. I find it ironic that the commission found the revision "would allow Limerick East to reflect more fully the urban areas and Limerick West the rural areas". Yet it also decided the Cork North-Central constituency would get 8,500 people from two rural constituencies, Cork East and Cork North-West. Where is the logic in that?

Why are we having statements on this commission report?

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

Because the Deputy wanted it.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why? Is it to appease Government backbenchers? It serves no purpose whatsoever.

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

So why is the Deputy speaking on it then?

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am speaking on it because I have to put the views of the people of Limerick East on the record.

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

The Deputy does not have to.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes I do.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

May I dissuade the Deputy from encouraging exchanges across the Chamber?

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thought the purpose of the Chamber was to encourage discourse.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, but for reasonable interventions.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister referred to new legislation to ensure a commission will be established for preliminary census figures. I expect this will happen some time during 2010. Thereafter, the final census figures will be the deciding figures. I ask the Minister to consider carefully breaches of boundaries. Not only did the commission breach the boundary but it annexed half of Limerick into Kerry. As a Limerick man and as a fellow Munchins man, the Minister will be fully aware of how the people of Limerick East view being represented. I will continue to represent them because they have elected me but the report makes no sense. I assume the Minister will bring that part of the constituency back in before the next election. I wonder if he expects the Government to last that long.

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

I have no say in it; the commission will decide.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Limerick East has been losing rural areas since 1948. Prior to that date, the full county of Limerick was one constituency. Since then, Limerick East has progressively lost county area and now a substantial portion is being taken. An area of Roxboro which is literally on the boundary with Limerick city has been brought into Limerick West, probably to make up the numbers. Limerick is suffering and County Limerick is losing a seat overall whereas according to the figures, Kerry North and Kerry South should have become one five seat constituency.

I wish to put on record the upset of the people on the county side, the east Limerick side. I would like to continue to represent them and I hope that the Minister, Deputy Gormley and the Government follow through so that when the preliminary census figures for 2010 are published, they will set up a commission to reconsider the situation and ensure that these people continue to be represented by the TDs they elected. The situation is currently very unsatisfactory. The Cabinet agreed this on 30 January yet the Government side is acting as if it is not agreed.

I hope that before the next election the boundaries will be changed and that I will continue to represent the people on the east Limerick side thereafter.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government has a decision to make on whether it will adopt the recommendations of a commission which it set up. Deputy O'Donnell is correct; it does not make sense to break county boundaries and bring Limerick into Kerry. I come from Connacht-Ulster. The people of this country died for the right to have a parliament. If the people of 1916 up to 1921 were alive today they would turn in their graves with regard to this referendum which will be held soon. However, I will not deal with that subject today. They fought to have the vote; they fought for people to have a right to their own parliament. County Leitrim is a small county. I do not understand how any member of the commission could see fit to break up County Leitrim so that it would not have representation in Dáil Éireann. This is a disgrace and it goes against this Republic, against this Parliament and against what we all stand for, which is for people to have rights and representation in this House.

Whenever the next commission is formed, it must reverse this decision. County Leitrim is entitled to have representation in this Parliament. I am in a constituency which was a two-seater and a three-seater, Mayo East and Mayo West. In part of Mayo West at one time I represented part of Galway and I used to go to Headford. It was a crazy situation. I was writing to the county manager in Galway on one issue and writing to the Mayo county manager on other issues. People lived on the border and people under pressure were coming to me with their problems. I found it very difficult to obtain replies. I find it very difficult to obtain replies from the Minister for Finance and his Department and from the Department of Education and Science. It is very difficult to obtain replies from local authorities.

I thank the Fianna Fáil people who now speak to me privately and say they were sorry they did not support me on the question of the dual mandate. I am sorry myself that I did not go the whole hog and bring it to the Supreme Court and let the people judge on it.

A constituent of mine is thinking of taking a separate case on the basis that the people believe they have been deprived, that the Government is taking away from them the right to choose whom they wish to vote for. The Government is saying I cannot stand in the local elections and the people must make that decision. There might be another case in the offing and the courts may have to make a decision.

It does not make sense to put part of Limerick into Kerry. It would be fine for Kerry to be a three-seater if it had the numbers but if not it should have been a five-seater like Mayo.

I live in Westport. If I go to Belmullet and Blacksod I am almost 60 miles away from my home. I have to travel from there to Shrule for a clinic on the third week of every month and I am another 30 to 40 miles away from my home. If I go to public meetings in Ballina, I am 40 miles away from home. I am saying this against myself but I would prefer to see Mayo have a three-seater and a two-seater rather than one five-seater because it is impossible to cover the size of that constituency. It is not good for our health; it is dangerous travelling on the roads and it does not make sense.

I refer to the new constituency for the European Parliament for Connacht-Ulster. I have a great interest in Europe——

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a big constituency.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to put that interest on the record. When I go to Europe I will try to stop some of the stupid regulations——

John Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Directives.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I come from a constituency where farmers cannot farm, fishermen cannot fish, turf cannot be cut and the fauna and the bees are more important than the people.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy will not just have Headford in Europe, he will have four provinces.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will be well capable of doing that because I will have the backup and the manpower and the womanpower to deal with that. I will have people like Deputy Perry in Sligo whom I am sure will give me great support if I choose to go down that road. I have a great interest in Europe and it is something that I am looking at and trying to broaden my horizons. I know Jim Higgins, MEP, will be delighted to hear that.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sure he will.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My main platform will be to stop these stupid directives from coming into this country.

People are being deprived because the constituency is so big and it is very difficult, even for an MEP to try to represent all these counties and all these constituencies.

The members of the commission are independent people and they do not have a political agenda. I would like to know if they went down to County Leitrim or to County Limerick. I would like to know whether they have ever stood in County Mayo to see one part of the county from the other. It is often the case that people in Dublin 4, 5, 6, and 7, make decisions about people's lives but they have never been in some of these counties. They do not understand what rural life is about.

The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, is sitting beside the Minister for Finance. I would never say that about him because he has an understanding of how rural life works and how rural people think. I hope he will educate the Minister for Finance and ensure Deputy Lenihan gives him the necessary funding. We should be able to keep the quality of life we have in rural Ireland, as well as keeping people in rural areas, without having the situation they have in Dublin, of which the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is aware.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister for Finance grew up in the heart of Ireland, in Athlone.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is like all of them, the minute he goes away he forgets about it. When he comes up here he thinks he is among the people, but he is not really. The minute one leaves the west, one leaves the people and the country. I hope the Minister will not forget his roots, like Deputy Gormley. He seems to have forgotten his roots since he left Limerick. When he was in Opposition he had many roots, but he has none at all now he is with Fianna Fáil.

If the Constituency Commission makes a recommendation we must accept it even if we do not like it. There is no point in establishing a commission if we are not going to accept its rulings. There will not be a vote following these statements but if there was, some of the Fianna Fáil Members would vote with the Government even though they spoke against some aspects of the report. They would not do the right thing for their own constituents. I hope that when the commission is reformed and considers the latest census and the constituencies, it will stop breaking down boundaries and putting parts of counties into others where people do not want them. The situation is similar to local GAA teams who love their areas and their counties and want to be part of that. When some Galway people were in Mayo they felt they were not being represented because they had no great love for Mayo politicians. They would prefer to have been voting for their own politicians in their own county.

On behalf of the people of Leitrim, I appeal to the three Ministers present to see if anything can be done for that county. Leitrim forms part of Deputy Perry's constituency but he is from Sligo and it is wrong that County Leitrim has no representation in this House. It is a small county but it is entitled to have representation here. That matter should be examined, particularly when the new boundary commission is re-established. It should be readdressed so that Leitrim can have the Dáil representation to which it is entitled. I want Fine Gael representatives and I also want Deputy Perry to be left there. He should have more help from the Fine Gael representative in Leitrim, Michael Comiskey. It is important that Leitrim has Dáil representation.

John Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ring is canvassing for Europe already.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am on the trail.

John Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On that very point concerning county boundaries, Leitrim is a unique case. Following the commission's report, the Minister should examine how county boundaries can be respected with a population of less than 30,000. We must accept the long tradition, history and heritage of that county which has undergone unprecedented development in recent years. The county has achieved so much as a result of the Government's initiative for the upper Shannon renewal scheme. However, State institutions, including local authority services, are fragmented between north and south Leitrim. This case is unique. Most people expected that when the independent commission's final document was given to the Government it would have clearly respected Leitrim's county boundary. I realise that by changing the status quo there would be a reaction in another county. However, the case made by the campaigning team in Leitrim was that, with a population of less than 30,000, a direction should have been given to the commission to respect the county boundary. The situation would be different with a population of 70,000 or 100,000 but in Leitrim's case a derogation would have ensured that there would be a Leitrim-based Teachta Dála. Recognising Leitrim's county boundary would be a vote of confidence in its people, traditions, history and heritage, as well as the level of investment there.

As a Deputy for Sligo-Leitrim, which was originally a four seat constituency, I know there was great unity of purpose in this regard. The Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, knows this well as he worked astutely on the case of the partnership companies, and I congratulate him for that. It was a difficult job to create partnership schemes that reflected county boundaries while achieving the work involved. One example of fully respecting county boundaries was when the Minister successfully brought west Sligo into the Leader programme's Sligo executive. Prior to that, it was operated by two different schemes. Likewise, that was the case in Leitrim with the implementation of partnership companies.

I am glad the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is here for this debate. When he was in Opposition he was always conscious of the entitlement of citizens of a given county to have their voices heard in the Dáil. Can the Minister say if there will be another constituency review prior to the next general election? The county council review is due in June, which will be welcome. The eminent and highly qualified people who compiled the commission's report had a clear mandate but no distinct directive was given that they were obliged to respect county boundaries. I hope the Minister will indicate that a review will take place before the next general election. This is desirable in light of the High Court ruling that the Minister is obliged to implement the recommendations of the Constituency Commission with minimal delay. Will the Minister clarify what he proposes to do following today's detailed statements? Is this just a talking shop or can there be any revision of the commission's report prior to its implementation? Can the commission be asked to re-examine the issue in light of concerns expressed by a large number of elected representatives from all political persuasions?

Leitrim is a major issue which has been widely debated. On the day he was elected, the Taoiseach mentioned the cases of Clare and Leitrim. As Deputy Ring correctly stated, while it is hard to accept all the issues in respect of everyone's entitlements in other parts of the country, Leitrim is a special case without any doubt. Politicians, State bodies and the general public find this issue to be anomalous, even if they have no association with Leitrim.

Dublin has 47 Deputies whereas County Leitrim has none. If one tours the county from Tullaghan to Carrick-on-Shannon one will find that it is a big county. Given the demographics of the region, it is very successfully represented by county councillors but it is disappointing that it does not have a resident Deputy. There would be no Leitrim representative in the Seanad either but for the fact that the Taoiseach appointed one. The case for a Leitrim-based TD is justifiable.

It is a privilege for me to work for everyone in the constituency but people have an affinity with their own county. They also have an affinity to a native son or daughter who seeks election to the Oireachtas from their own county. It is important to give them a sporting chance to do so, but that chance has been denied. It is not just a question of coming back with the recommendations in this regard, although I respect the commission's independence. The Minister had a clear mandate that in council elections three-seaters must become four-seaters. I believe the recommendation was that there were to be no three-seaters in the new councils, although that may not be correct.

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

In exceptional circumstances.

John Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Exceptional.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When will we have the report?

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

Soon enough.

John Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On that point, the people of Leitrim expect an indication from the Minister as to the possibilities. Is this a closed shop? Does the Minister propose to give a new mandate to the commission to revisit certain parts of the country or the whole country again, in light of the huge population shift? There has been a huge population shift in many parts of the region.

This is an important issue and one I have raised on numerous occasions in the past. I genuinely believe that Leitrim needs a clear message from the Minister. It is a unique county with an historical past and a fantastic association with Leinster House of outstanding parliamentarians. They would like to think they have a sporting chance of that happening again. They want an indication from the Minister that by the next general election, Leitrim will be reunified and will have a mandate to elect its own member from that great county. Leitrim is a very special case.

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

I thank Deputies on all sides of the House for their contributions to this important debate. Deputies raised a large number of issues across the electoral horizon but in the limited time available I will focus on issues specific to the report of the Constituency Commission. There will be other opportunities to deal with other issues.

I wish to make a general point. Some Deputies have suggested alternatives to the scheme of constituencies recommended by the commission in its report and some Deputies are clearly unhappy with particular recommendations. Many other Deputies, perhaps the majority, and certainly the Fine Gael spokesperson was adamant that we should stick to the recommendations of the commission. I emphasise that it is very important that we maintain the long-established practice of implementing the recommendations of constituency commissions in full.

To reject some of the commission's recommendations would be to revert to the partisan approach of the past when constituency revisions were perceived as having been framed to secure political advantage for the Government of the day. Even minor changes to the commission's recommendations would represent the first step back to the unsatisfactory situation that applied in the past. I, as Minister, do not want to go down that particular road.

Mr. Justice Clarke's judgment last year emphasises the 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. I gave examples of the current serious disparities in my earlier contribution. We need to act quickly. The debate showed the strong attachment to county boundaries——

John Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the issue.

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

——as raised by the Deputy opposite. While attachment to county boundaries is, of course, 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. The experience has been that at times the constitutional provisions require such action, difficult though that may be.

As I have already advised the House, work is under way on the drafting of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2008 which will provide for revision of the Dáil and European Parliament constituencies in accordance with the recommendations of the Constituency Commission. The Government approved the drafting of the necessary Bill at its meeting on 30 January 2008. The drafting work is well advanced. My Department is working with the Attorney General's office to ensure the Bill will be published as soon as possible. The passage of the Bill through both Houses will provide a further opportunity for Members to debate the recommendations of the commission.

I welcome very much the comments made during the course of the debate from those Deputies who acknowledge the integrity and independence of the commission. I express my thanks to the commission members for their hard work. I again thank Deputies for their contributions and look forward to further debate on the important issues involved when the Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2008 comes before the House.