Seanad debates

Wednesday, 29 June 2005

Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2005: Second Stage.

 

11:00 am

Photo of James BannonJames Bannon (Fine Gael)

The River Shannon is the most significant physical feature by far in Ireland, yet the commission failed to show regard for the Shannon, despite its terms of reference. A mere two bridges connect counties Longford and Roscommon, at Lanesboro and Tarmonbarry. There are fewer land connections between counties Longford and Roscommon than between England and France — the channel tunnel has three.

The population of Longford-Westmeath would be large enough for five seats if the commission had not included part of County Westmeath in the Meath West constituency, a decision which is open to debate and has echoes in the circumstances of County Leitrim. However, the division of County Leitrim into separate Dáil constituencies is totally inexplicable, leaves the door open to constitutional challenge and raises fears that County Leitrim may never have its own Deputy living within its borders.

Bearing in mind the historical precedent of the judgment of Solomon, perhaps the cutting in half of Leitrim is wise in ways unclear to ordinary mortals but is right and fitting to the commission. If this is so, perhaps it could enlighten us and the people of this constituency who are concerned over this decision. The preservation intact of County Leitrim is uppermost in the minds of its population. Fine Gael strongly supports the protection of Leitrim as an electoral entity. With the county split in two for electoral purposes, there will be more than 18,000 voters in one electoral area and more than 10,000 in the other, drastically reducing the chance of County Leitrim having its own Dáil representative. If Leitrim is divided into the two constituencies of Sligo-North Leitrim and Roscommon-South Leitrim, it will be almost impossible for the county, which has the smallest population in the county, to return a Deputy.

Looking at the population of the country as a whole, the 2002 census reports show an increase in the total population from 1996 of over 291,000 to a total current population of 3,917,203 at that time. There will be a census next year but, as the process involved in this will be lengthy, a new Bill will not be introduced before the next general election. If next year's census shows an increase of 500,000, which, given the new freedom of movement within the EU and the proportional increase on foot of the new member states, is not unrealistic, is it constitutional to draw up constituency boundaries for the 2007 general election based on the 2002 census? Could the election itself be ruled unconstitutional and invalid?

The Bill before us today essentially concerns the drift from rural to urban areas and the growth of cities and towns. This has resulted in changes in constituencies and led to extra seats in constituencies on the east rather than the west coast. To sustain rural communities, we need to re-examine the spatial strategy and assess it failures. Population growth is not happening as predicted in the areas designated for growth, including the hubs. In particular, the western seaboard lags far behind optimum growth and infrastructural development.

The east coast, including counties Meath, Louth, Wicklow, Carlow and Kildare are experiencing growth but lack the necessary infrastructure to sustain it. As a Senator and a local authority member, I have often called for the upgrading of the N55, which would reroute a lot of traffic between Northern Ireland and the south from the east coast to the midlands. It would be sensible to properly develop and upgrade this route. Consideration of the spatial strategy in light of direct investment from the east coast and the commuter counties towards the west may have a long-term impact.

With particular reference to the electoral process, I am conscious of the outmoded and non-user friendly nature of the process associated with registering, changing address and applying for postal votes, all of which are deterrents to voting. The procedural difficulties encountered in updating the electoral register, particularly the failure to include eligible voters and those who recently relocated or turned 18 years are also areas of concern.

On behalf of Fine Gael I call on the Minister of State to introduce root and branch reforms of the electoral process to include weekend voting, including the possibility of opening booths at four or five o'clock on Friday and continuing through Saturday. This would accommodate a large number of people and allow no one the excuse of being unable to vote on polling day. Other reforms should include a review of procedures associated with the updating of the electoral register; an assurance of greater accuracy and accessibility for those registering; information campaigns on the roles of local government, the European Parliament, the Oireachtas and the President and highlighting the importance of transfers in the proportional representational system; an expansion of the grounds of application for a postal ballot and an extension of deadlines for applications; a definitive report on electronic voting, particularly on the costly storage of obsolete machines; and the automatic registration of all 18 year olds using the PPS number provided by the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

I would like to address the inadvertent omissions from the last Electoral (Amendment) Bill of certain items concerning election expenses not affected by the ruling in the Kelly case, which led to the deletion of a paragraph in section 33 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2004. The Minister of State assures us that the Oireachtas never intended to cover them as part of the 1997 act. They include free postage, services provided for all candidates, services provided free by an individual or by an employee of a political party and normal media coverage or transmission on radio or television of a broadcast on behalf of a candidate or political party.

It is therefore to be welcomed that the Bill seeks to address the anomaly, by inserting a subparagraph in part 2 of the Schedule of the 1997 Act, but I would like the Minister to go past assurances that the omissions were never intended, and explain how they happened. This is important as the public, Members of the Oireachtas and members of local authorities require more explanation than what the Minister of State has given to us.

I share the concern of my colleague, Deputy O'Dowd, about the position of Members of the Oireachtas when a general election is called. The aforementioned Kelly case was taken because of a perceived advantage legislative changes would give to candidates who were serving Members of the Oireachtas. This Bill is based on the fact that previous changes were incorrect. Will this Bill now see Members of the Oireachtas advantaged or disadvantaged? This question must be answered and I hope the Minister of State will deal with it during the course of today's debate.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.