John Ellis (Fianna Fail)

Section 4 is probably the most relevant one because it also deals with electoral divisions. On Second Stage, I raised with the Minister the question of how the commission had gone about its business. Its terms of reference stated that it should examine county and geographical boundaries, and all other considerations. It had the right to work with between 166 and 168 Members of the Dáil. On the last occasion we debated this legislation, the Minister confirmed the commission took a decision, before doing anything else, to confirm that Dáil membership would remain at 166. If that is the case, the commission broke with its terms of reference as given to it by the Department and by the previous Minister, Deputy Dick Roche. Can the Minister confirm that he sought the advice of the Attorney General on whether proper procedures had been followed? Having taken separate legal advice, my understanding is that if the entire process did not include the consideration of up to 168 Members of the Dáil, the commission did not act within the terms of reference given to it by the previous Minister. Can the Minister confirm whether this is the position?

I also note from the Minister's statement on Second Stage that the first decision taken by the electoral commission was that there would only be 166 Members of the Dáil. I am querying that because we have no way of knowing if that was the case. Under the Freedom of Information Act, I sought papers on the discussions, but that request was refused on the basis the commission became extinct having prepared its report. In any fair-minded system, we should be entitled to use freedom of information legislation to obtain such data. For example, information on Members' or Ministers' expenses would be readily available under freedom of information legislation.

I am contesting this because the Minister already made it clear to the House and confirmed it. One of the main features of the electoral commission's 2007 report on Dáil constituencies is that there be no change in the existing level of Dáil membership - that is to say 166. If that decision was taken first, prior to the others being assessed, as stated by the Minister, the commission's report is inaccurate. If it was not so, we need to see the relevant papers to justify that this was the position and that every consideration was given. The Minister has confirmed this, but I am not blaming him because he is acting on the information he was given. If that is the case, this section - as the relevant section on constituency boundaries for Dáil elections - is irrelevant. It will have to be revisited by a new commission. Perhaps the Minister might be able to confirm that point. He may not be able to confirm it because if the documentation that was used for the process has been destroyed or is unavailable under an freedom of information request, I presume it is not available to the Minister.