Seanad debates

Wednesday, 29 June 2005

Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2005: Second Stage.

 

1:00 am

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

I compliment the Constituency Commission on its work. The origins of the commission have been the subject of an exchange of articles in The Irish Times. It was greatly to the credit of Jack Lynch that the electoral commission was established. The various so-called gerrymanders, whether they involved Jim Tully or Kevin Boland, did nothing to add to respect for politics. The system provides for fairness and that is why there is a rooted principle of not overturning the commission's recommendations, controversial though they may be.

I have great sympathy for County Leitrim, as it will be cut in half as a result of the commission's recommendations and I wonder whether the commission called it right. The commission says there is an 11% tolerance but, in these special circumstances, I would have been prepared to stand over that because it will be quite difficult for the people of Leitrim to elect or re-elect a representative when the county is partitioned. County loyalties are exceptionally strong.

The debate will not affect the legislation but it may be taken into account when the commission considers its recommendations following the next census. There are unsatisfactory aspects to the way in which Tipperary North and Tipperary South are represented. I refer to the constituencies rather than the county councils because their boundaries do not coincide. For example, significant tracts under the aegis of Tipperary South Riding County Council are in the Tipperary North constituency, which complicates representations by Oireachtas Members. Naturally, county councillors who are members of Tipperary South Riding County Council tend to gravitate towards Oireachtas representatives from Tipperary South when they should contact Members from Tipperary North. Sports clubs feel they fall between two stools.

Senator Browne referred to small areas of counties being include in constituencies in neighbouring counties. For some time, a small section of west Waterford has been included in Tipperary South. I canvassed the area and it involves climbing high into the mountains. It is entirely unclear why it is not part of the Waterford constituency. However, if one travels to west Tipperary, one will enter Tipperary rural district No. 1, which is an area within a three or four mile radius of Tipperary town but it is at least 20 miles from Thurles and 30 miles from Nenagh. Part of this district has been transferred from Tipperary South to Tipperary North but most of the residents do their business in the towns in Tipperary South and they are not happy with this scenario.

I acknowledge the population is increasing and towns are expanding. The next census, therefore, may provide for adjustments to the constituency boundaries but I appeal for more respect to be shown for county boundaries. Tipperary comprises two counties for electoral purposes and the county council as well as the constituency boundaries should be taken into consideration so that they can coincide as closely possible for local and national elections. The population in both areas was close to the national average this time round and that is probably why the boundaries were left unchanged. However, I hope the commission will take these problems into consideration next time round.

Senator Browne raised the question of interesting changes to the electoral system but I am afraid I do not agree with either of his suggestions. This is not a party matter; people in various parties hold differing views on it. Single seat constituencies might be comfortable for elected representatives but people like the competition within and between parties, for which I cannot blame them.

I have listened to every Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, and no doubt some Fine Gael taoisigh, who might like electoral reform to make the system tidier. In our present system, however, the people have their elected representatives by the short and curlies and even if there were all-party consensus to change that system, I doubt the people would agree.

The list system would be a total nightmare although there are cultures where it works. Senators Bannon and Browne should try to imagine their party leader numbering the members of their party from one to 20 or 30 or 60 and so on, and the hassle he would cause if he placed Senator Bannon ahead of Senator Browne or vice versa. If any party leader thought hard about it the last thing he or she would want to do is get involved in a list system. The Senators might say they would delegate this to the general secretary of the party in which case he or she would be the most hated person in the party.

We have a very good electoral system and it will stay. We could debate electoral reform for the next 50 years but the people would not allow us to change the system because with the electoral commission we have one of the fairest electoral systems possible. Reform would go backwards.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.