Batt O'Keeffe (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

It is important that I state categorically my belief that the commission acted with total impartiality. While I would be among the people who would not be happy with the outcome, I am completely satisfied with the independence and integrity of the commission. It is absolute.

I want to make reference to Senators Bannon, McDowell and Minihan and to avail of the opportunity to address the concerns voiced in terms of the current electoral register. Others also raised this issue. As I am sure Senators are aware, the compilation and publication of the register of electors is a matter for the appropriate local authority. That is in accordance with electoral law and includes the carrying out of house to house inquiries, the delivery of registration forms and the running of local awareness campaigns. It is the duty of local authorities to ensure, as far as possible, the accuracy of the register. In carrying out this work, local authorities depend to a significant degree on the co-operation and engagement of the general public.

We have experienced rapid population growth and development, increased personal mobility and other changes in modern society which will present difficulties in terms of the preparation and maintenance of an accurate and up-to-date electoral register. Yesterday, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, mentioned that difficulties arise in accessing apartment blocks. All of these lead to difficulties in terms of the accuracy of the register.

In overall terms, more than 3 million people on the register in 2002 were eligible to vote in Dáil elections. However, census data from 2002 suggest 2.71 million voters over the age 18 were eligible to vote in these elections, representing a difference of 300,000. The main reasons for overregistration include a slowness in removing the deceased from the register, changes of address, where the local authority is not advised, and people with second houses. I share the concerns expressed on the quality of the register. My Department is mandated to examine any improvements that can and must be made. My Department is, in the first instance, developing best practice guidelines for local authorities to assist them in preparing and maintaining the electoral register. A national awareness campaign will also be conducted later this year associated with the preparation of the next register of electors by the local authorities. We are also looking seriously at developments in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the context of electoral registration.

The use of PPS numbers was raised in the debate. While that seems fine, difficulties exist in terms of the Data Protection Act. These are particularly so on election day concerning the verification the PPS number, which would require an outlet in every polling station. We are looking at the long-term feasibility of this matter.

In recent times, we have introduced important new controls in the voting process. The Electoral (Amendment) Act 2002 contains more stringent requirements for entry to the supplement to the register. For the 2002 general election, polling staff were advised by Department guidelines to require at least 25% of voters to produce an identity document. That increased from 5%. The Electoral (Amendment) Act 2004 made unlawful possession or use of someone else's polling card a specific offence. Strong legislation must be mirrored by vigilance on the part of polling staff and impersonation agents to ensure that only those eligible are permitted to vote. I hope that message is received by local authorities, and particularly by local councillors, who are extremely loud in their criticism of the accuracy of the register. It begs the question of how many of those local councillors ask their county and city managers at estimates time what budgetary provisions they have in place to ensure the accuracy of the register and to monitor elections more rigidly than in the past.

The Department will continue to keep these issues, including the scope for further improvement, under review. It will be important to strike the right balance between the requirement to maintain the security and integrity of the electoral process and provide for a reasonable degree of flexibility in registration and voting arrangements. We want to encourage more people to register and vote.

Before turning to issues raised on the Bill, I will make a general point. It is most important that we maintain the tradition of implementing in full the recommendations of the Constituency Commission's report. Since the report of the first commission in 1977, its recommendations as presented in legislative form have never been changed by the Oireachtas. To reject some of the commission's recommendations may create a danger of reverting to the partisan approach of the past when constituency revisions were perceived as being framed to secure political advantage for the Government of the day. I certainly do not believe the Opposition would like us to return to that.

During the course of the debate, a number of Senators mentioned County Leitrim. I reiterate that we are all aware of the depth of feeling generated in Leitrim by the county being split between two constituencies. If one examines what the commission faced, one sees it had no option but to recommend change to the existing Sligo-Leitrim constituency. The commission brought forward its proposed solution and for the reasons I have already given, it is not proposed to depart from the package of recommendations that emerged from its deliberations. The commission's recommendations for Leitrim are in line with the constitutional requirements, in particular those concerning equality of representation, and with the commission's statutory terms of reference as set out by the Oireachtas in the Electoral Act 1997.

Senators Dooley, Minihan and Brady spoke about county loyalties. It is important to remember the Constituency Commission's terms of reference, as set out in section 6(2) of the Electoral Act 1997, require that breaches of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as practicable. However, the commission's recommendations have on occasions been criticised for not keeping to county boundaries. While attachment to county boundaries is understandable we must never lose sight of the fact that the commission's terms of reference 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 a danger that excessive importance will be given to county boundaries in the overall national approach to constituency revision. We must keep this in mind.

Senator McDowell raised the issue of protecting city and administrative county boundaries when drawing up constituency boundaries in Dublin. The administrative counties of Fingal, South Dublin and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown have been in existence for more than ten years. While they are forging ahead in serving their communities, they do not yet have the distinct identity of long-established counties. Over time, as the individual identities of the Dublin counties develop, we should possibly revisit the issue. However, it would be inadvisable at present to restrict the commission in the way in which it draws the constituency boundaries in the Dublin area.

With regard to avoiding the breach of city boundaries generally, the reality is that urban development around cities has spilled over into adjoining counties. Many people living outside the city boundaries have a strong affinity and loyalty to their city and would prefer to be included in city constituencies. For these reasons, we should not require the commission to avoid, where practicable, breaching city boundaries.

Senator McDowell also referred to the constituency of Dublin North-Central. Of the 42 existing constituencies, only three lost population between 1996 and 2002. These were Dublin North-East, Dublin North-West and Dublin North-Central. Taking those three adjoining constituencies together, the variance from national average representation for their ten seats is minus 9.41%, requiring significant changes to the existing constituency formation. Removing a seat from the area would give an acceptable variance of plus 0.65% for the remaining nine seats and as Dublin Nort-East and Dublin North-West are already three seaters, neither could shed a seat. It is clear, therefore, that any reduction of a seat in the area had to come from the four seater Dublin North-Central constituency. It is a fact that seats follow population. This is a requirement of our Constitution. Action had to be taken and that is what the commission recommended.

Senator Bradford raised the issue of titles of constituencies. The Schedule to the Bill sets out in detail both the name and composition of each of the proposed constituencies. The Schedule mirrors the first appendix to the Constituency Commission's report and as I stated previously, the commission's recommendations are being accepted as a package. I cannot foresee circumstances in which amendments seeking to alter either the composition or the name of a constituency would be acceptable. Even minor changes to the commission's recommendations would represent the first step back to the unsatisfactory situation that pertained in the past. The Government does not want to go down that road, nor does it intend to do so.

Senator Bannon, under section 6, spoke of the Electoral Act 1997 that exempted four of the five items dealt with here from being counted as election expenditure. These are free postage provided for candidates, a service provided free by an individual, normal media coverage, and the transmission on radio or television of a broadcast on behalf of a candidate or a political party. The Electoral (Amendment) Act 1998 also exempted a service provided by an employee of a political party, the fifth item at issue here. The Kelly judgment by the High Court in May 2002 and that of the Supreme Court the following November declared separate exemptions for expenses of public representatives paid for out of public funds to be unconstitutional in respect of Dáil and European elections. The judgments were silent on using public funds for presidential elections, and that had to be addressed. In the event, the amendment made by section 33 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2004 went too far. It deleted the five items under consideration here, in addition to those directly relating to the Kelly judgment. It was an inadvertent drafting error. The five items are now being restored in section 6 of this Bill. I hasten to add that Senators on the opposite side of the House would be the first to criticise us in Government if we did not act on this issue once it was brought to our attention by the Standards in Public Office Commission. The items at issue are of benefit to all the candidates in an election, not just to sitting Deputies or Senators.

I stress the Government's view that the Constituency Commission recommendations are a package that must be accepted or rejected in their entirety. The Government decided to follow the established practice of implementing in full the recommendations of the independent commission. I thank Senators again for their contributions. There will be further debate on these important issues when we return to the Bill on Committee Stage. I thank the Senators for their engagement on this important legislation.