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

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to debate this important legislation. We must reflect on the value of elections and democracy. It is also important to reflect on the broad debate of recent weeks on public servants and their integrity and quality of work.

While many people complain about politics and democracy, the system works. If people do not like their politicians, they can vote them out. At times, it is a tough and competitive business and it needs to change, but we should reflect on its importance in our parliamentary democracy. It should never be a question of money, a situation in other countries that concerns me.

The purpose of the Bill is "to revise Dáil and European Parliament constituencies, to provide for the number of members to be elected for such constituencies, to amend the law relating to the Constituency Commission and to provide alternative procedures for nomination of non-party candidates at European Parliament and local elections". Section 3 provides that the number of Members of Dáil Éireann after the next dissolution will remain at the current figure of 166, as recommended by the commission. I disagree with section 3, as we should not box ourselves into the low figure of 166. There is no reason not to expand to 168 Deputies, particularly given the increase in the population and the pressures placed on Ministers and Deputies, particularly backbenchers. Many Deputies are afraid to say that section 3 should be amended to allow for 168 Members.

Section 8 "provides for the European Parliament constituencies, and the number of members to be elected from Ireland, by substituting a new Third Schedule to the European Parliament Elections Act 1997". It provides, in a context of 12 representatives from Ireland in the European Parliament, for a reduction of a seat in the Dublin constituency and the transfer of the population of counties Longford and Westmeath from the east constituency to the north-west constituency.

Section 8 is provocative and we should focus the debate on Ireland's 12 representatives. I am not happy with that number or with the reduction of one seat in the Dublin area. This city is expanding and its population is increasing, but we are to lose a seat. All Deputies should try to defend our current numbers. If we are serious about democracy, we should consider making changes to section 8.

Section 10 amends the European Parliament Elections Act 1997 by substituting new sections 12, 13 and 13A for the existing sections. These sections cover the nomination of non-party candidates at European Parliament elections, bringing the procedures into line with those enacted for Dáil elections in the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2007. The new sections provide for two alternative mechanisms to regulate the nomination of European Parliament candidates who are not in possession of a certificate of political affiliation confirming that he or she is a candidate of a political party registered in the Register of Political Parties. These alternatives, one of which must be complied with before the expiration of the time for receiving nominations, include assents requiring the completion of statutory declarations by 60 assentors registered as European electors in the relevant European constituency, which may be witnessed by one of five categories — a Commissioner for Oaths, a peace commissioner, a notary public, a garda or a local authority official — and the candidate or someone on his or her behalf lodging a deposit of €1,800 with the returning officer.

People who wish to put themselves forward for public office must be conscious of these issues, particularly in terms of finances. It is important not to place barriers in front of those who genuinely wish to attain public office. This was evident during the recent debate on the Lisbon treaty, when issues of democracy that concern us all arose. As Deputies know, I voted "No", but I have always stood for a democratic and peaceful Europe. We should reflect on the concerns people had about the treaty. If those on the "Yes" side are serious about democracy, they must respect the result. One is either a democrat or one is not.

What people saw in the Lisbon treaty was an obligation on member states to increase their military capacity. Article 28.3 states: "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities". This matter arose during the debate on Europe, which is relevant to this legislation. Many people asked me why we did not include a section in the Lisbon treaty stating we would improve our health and disability capabilities. This is a legitimate concern. Many women raised this with me in public debates in Artane, Marino, Donnycarney and Coolock.

Dealing with the population size could also be a power grab by major states for control of the new Union. By basing EU law-making primarily on population size, the Lisbon treaty would double Germany's say on the EU Council of Ministers from 8% to 17%, France from 8% to 13% and Britain and Italy from 8% to 12%. On the basis of population, Ireland's voting weight would be more than halved to 1%. Article 17(5) referred to the idea of removing any Irish voice from the Commission, the body with a monopoly on proposing EU laws, for five years out of 15 years but this was dismissed at the time.

These issues are relevant to European constituencies and the debate on Europe. Let us have a sensible, practical, unemotional debate on Europe. Let us stop labelling people or taking them out personally. People want to know the facts. The reality is that 53.4% voted "No" and 46.6% voted "Yes". In my constituency, 49.5% voted "No" and 50.6% voted "Yes", a majority of 376 with a turnout of 61%. I had to accept that most people in my constituency voted "Yes" and I respect that verdict. All I ask is to respect the broader verdict of those who voted "No" on the national stage.

The treaty required all EU member states to ratify it. It cannot be implemented, no matter what the other 26 states do. Let us consider the reality that one can vote to change the rules of a club but it does not mean one is out of the club. We must challenge this. One option is a clear and legally binding statement on the treaty concerning tax, foreign policy and neutrality. A hard look at reforms when dealing with new commissioners is needed.

The EU could make a positive statement about the role of its citizens in Europe. Mr. Benoît Keane, the EU lawyer and chair of the Brussels branch of the Institute of International and European Affairs stated this. Voters have raised legitimate concerns and we must deal with these. I call on the Government to listen carefully, particularly those on the "Yes" side. I raise this because it is relevant and applies to the European section.

Section 14 of the legislation amends the schedule to the Electoral Act 1997 "to provide that necessary travelling and other expenses incurred by a candidate or an assentor in meeting the assentor requirements, and the amount of any deposit paid, shall not be regarded as an election expense for the election concerned". I welcome this, which is sensible. Section 15 amends the Local Elections Regulations 1995 by inserting articles 11 to 20 in substitution for the existing ones. The term "non-party" is negative and people should be allowed to put the term "independent" on the ballot paper if they wish. This is a democratic wish.

One can see the influence of independents in the US election, where both candidates are examining the swing voters and the independent vote. We should recognise this in Ireland rather than using the term "non-party". When going for election I leave that section blank rather than use the negative term "non-party". I also reject the term "non-national" because everyone has a nationality from somewhere and I urge Members to use the term "foreign nationals" when referring to people from other countries. It is not a question of being politically correct but of being respectful towards those of different countries, with different languages, religions and faiths. Let us enjoy difference rather than finding ways to divide ourselves.

I refer to section 15:

(i) by way of assents requiring the completion of statutory declarations by 15 assentors registered as electors in the relevant local electoral area which may be witnessed by one of 5 categories: a Commissioner for Oaths, a Peace Commissioner, a Notary Public, a Garda or a local authority official; or

(ii) by way of the candidate, or someone on his or her behalf, lodging a deposit of €100 (in the case of the election of members of a county or city council) or €50 (in the case of any other election).

We should seriously examine this. The sums of money are small and one needs this small sum.

Dublin North-Central is a three seat constituency and has 75,206 registered voters, meaning there are 25,092 registered voters per Deputy. Many years ago, the figure was in the region of 20,000 and may have increased by 5,000 extra per Deputy. People often dismiss this and tell me to get on with life and to stop whinging but the reality is that if there are 75,206 registered voters and 10% of this figure contacts a constituency office in a year, that amounts to 7,500 voters. I remind those outside politics, the smart alec, cynical brigade, that this is a reality for many legislators in Dáil Éireann when dealing with proposed constituencies, the number of seats, the population per Deputy and the variance from national representations. The Dublin North-Central constituency is reduced by 1.76% but we still have 25,000 voters per Deputy.

The overall aim of the Bill is to modernise and update electoral law, which is sensible. The objective of the Bill is to revise Dáil and European Parliament constituencies and provide for the number of members to be elected for such constituencies in accordance with the report of the Constituency Commission 2007, as stated in Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill. The Bill amends the law relating to the constituency revision process, having regard to the High Court judgment arising from the Murphy v. McGrath cases. This is an issue that the former Deputy for Kildare North, Catherine Murphy, raised. We brought it to the High Court and I was honoured to be part of the challenge to ensure we have democracy, fair play and respect for citizens in this country. I wish my former colleague, Catherine Murphy, well. I believe she is running in the local elections.

The legislation provides an alternative statutory mechanism to regulate the nomination of non-party candidates at European Parliament and local elections, in line with those elected in Dáil elections under the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2007. What concerns me is that the term "non-party" is used. This is negative and we should not be afraid to use the word "Independent". Sections 3 and 4 of Parts V and VI refer to the nomination of non-party candidates at the European and local elections. It is important to revisit this section.

Referring to the summary of the 2007 Constituency Commission recommendations, the commission pointed out the arguments for and against the total number of seats: "However, after detailed consideration, we decided not to recommend any change because we were satisfied that the present level of membership allowed for a reasonable arrangement of constituencies in accordance with the relevant constitutional provisions and our terms of reference".

The commission notes the population at the 2006 census of 4,239,848. On this basis total Dáil membership could be fixed at any number between 141 and 211. I never saw that figure before I was pushing for 168 Deputies in the Dáil. However, the statutory terms of reference limited the commission to the range of 164-168 seats. The number of Members has increased over time but has stood at 166 since 1980, a level determined on the basis of the 1979 population of 3 million. In respect of the 2006 population, the increase is 871,000 or 25.9% more than in 1979, making the national average population per Deputy 25,541 compared to 20,000 in 1979.