Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister to the House. I welcome this motion and compliment my Green Party colleagues on tabling it. I found everything the Minister said encouraging and refreshing and fully endorse it, as does my party, as Senator Coffey has already said. I agree with the views expressed by Senators Boyle, de Búrca, Coffey, Kelly and Glynn.

The establishment of an independent electoral commission with responsibility for electoral administration and oversight is a basic sine qua non in any top-flight democracy, which we proclaim ourselves to be. The commission will include a standing constituency commission for the revision of boundaries and there is obvious and eminent sense attached to that proposal. The programme for Government refers to avoiding, where at all possible, the division of small counties or small parts of counties into separate constituencies. In that context, I was going to refer to Leitrim, but my erstwhile colleague, Senator Glynn, is smiling and I have no doubt that whatever I might say on the matter, he would more than adequately cover the subject.

It is envisaged that the commission would take charge of a new, national rolling electoral register, which is also essential because quite frankly, as several speakers have already indicated, the register was, and still is, in absolute rag order in many areas. I agree with the proposal made by Senators opposite that we should use PPS numbers. Senator Glynn had some interesting comments on why people might wish not to be included on the electoral register. He is probably correct. He might know more about it than I do but I have no doubt he speaks the truth in that regard.

The programme for Government refers to an examination of the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission regarding electoral expenditure and the issue of the financing of the political system. Senator de Búrca raised the issue of responsibility. We all await, with bated breath, the judgment in the famous case, de Búrca vs. Whittle, whenever it will be reached. The Minister referred to local authorities in this regard and they should be included, for all the obvious reasons, including ethics and transparency. A person should not be allowed to have any hand, act or part in investigating himself or herself on foot of complaints. That has absolute, inherent conflict built in. I endorse what was said in that regard. It appears the Minister intends to include local authorities in the electoral commission and the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission will come into play there.

I am reminded that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It is a natural trait. We all suffer the effects of original sin. People who might want to fund candidates might expect a reward. If they are handing over big bucks, they may expect a return on that investment. My experience in the business world is that this is natural. If one makes an outlay in terms of expenditure or investment, one expects a return.

Electronic voting machines should also be included in this. I agree with some of the previous speakers, it is time to sell the machines. The Commission on Electronic Voting was set up but I believe these machines are not suited to the Irish character and I do not think they will ever be acceptable without a verifiable paper trail. I do not know whether the machines are capable of being modified to allow for such a provision; perhaps somebody is still studying them but they are costing a fortune to store. Perhaps an emerging democratic African state could use the machines; there must be people somewhere in the world interested in them. I hope somebody is trying to sell them so we can cut our losses.

We mentioned local authorities and I understand the Minister said that responsibility for them will come within the ambit of this. The Minister has appointed electoral area boundary committees and I see no harm in this matter being part of the responsibility of the commission. There is nothing wrong with the committees or the eminent people he has appointed to them. I believe the committees share a common chairman in an eminent former Secretary General of the Department.

One term of reference refers to a need to respect constituency boundaries and another specifies that the number of seats in a constituency will be between four and seven. In some exceptional circumstances a three seat constituency could be allowed. Which constituency boundaries are to be respected? There is no electoral Bill to give legislative effect to the findings of the constituency commission. My colleague, Senator Ellis, is smiling behind Senator de Búrca's back and I suspect he is thinking of Leitrim in this regard. I agree with the Senator regarding Leitrim as I thought the manner in which it was divided was unfair. How was it not possible for Leitrim to either exist on its own as a constituency or to stay fully joined with Sligo? It has been split in two. I will leave this matter to Senator Ellis.

Perhaps in his response the Minister can clarify whether the intended boundaries will be respected rather than the ones in which the last general election was fought. We all tend to think of our own localities and in Kerry the large town and hinterland of Castleisland and the townland of Cordal are to join the constituency of Kerry South, which is greatly welcomed by the Members from the area. However, does this mean Castleisland and Cordal will come into the Killarney electoral area, which is currently a six seat area? It could be expanded to become a seven seat area — it would have to — but it would still be too large so some parts would have to be hived off, perhaps to the Killorglin electoral area. How would this impact on Dingle, a three seat area and, as a peninsula, a natural area? It stretches a little outside the peninsula to ensure it is big enough to warrant three seats. I would like to hear the Minister respond on the matter of three seat and seven seat constituencies.

The Minister was interesting and refreshing and he spoke of the possibility of seven seat constituencies; apparently this is provided for constitutionally but has been limited by the terms of reference in the past. I look forward to this and accept the Minister's contention that it would be more in the spirit of proportional representation. There is consensus in the House but perhaps not on this matter. That is what I meant earlier when it was pointed out that there is no amendment proposed for this motion. There is no amendment because we heartily concur with it; perhaps the opposition is behind the backs of the Green Party Members of the House.