Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The proposers and seconder will speak for a combined total of 16 minutes and all other Senators have six minutes each. The Minister of State will be called to contribute from the Government side when he indicates and will speak for 15 minutes.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

“That Seanad Éireann: - conscious of the provisions of Article 46.2 of the Constitution which require that any Bill to amend the Constitution must be initiated in Dáil Éireann;

- conscious of the present constitutional requirement that Dáil Éireann should be comprised of at least one member for every 30,000 in the State’s population, as distinct from citizens;

- aware that the current population of the State is 5.458 million persons;

- conscious that the population of the State is projected to grow to more than 5.56 million in the next two years; and

- conscious of the likelihood that Dáil Éireann may have to be enlarged to between 181 members and 185 members in 2027; calls on the Government to initiate legislation to amend Article 16.2.2 to specify the number of members of Dáil Éireann.”

I propose to share time with Senator Craughwell, 12 minutes and four minutes, if that is agreeable.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We decided to propose the motion at this time and in this form because if the population grows to 5.56 million in the next two years, that implies we would have a Dáil comprising 185 Members, an increase from 174 at the current time. Nobody can project where it is going to go after that. There are all sorts of factors, such as demography, migration, asylum seeking, refugees and issues like that, which will determine precisely where our population stands in the next five, ten or 15 years.

The crucial point is that our population, not our number of citizens, dictates the number of Deputies. That is a crucial point to remember. The number of people in Ireland on census night decides, based on the constitutional formula currently in place, how many Deputies there must be. In the 1930s, when the Constitution was enacted, our population was not only stable but actually in decline over the years of independence from 1922 to 1962. Our population is now growing very fast, the fastest among European Union member states. In that scenario, it seems to me that we have to consider how the formula in the Constitution looks in terms of where the Dáil is going in respect of size.

People say there are international comparisons. If every 30,000 people in the United Kingdom required an MP, there would be roughly 2,300 members of the House of Commons. That is an unthinkable thing. Being practical and dealing with examples closer to home, Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Norway and Denmark are all northern European parliamentary democracies of medium to small size. Finland has a ratio of MPs per million of the population of 35, Sweden 33, Ireland 32, Norway 30.33 and Denmark 29.95. We are not out of the ordinary in that respect, except that Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark are unicameral parliaments and we have a Seanad with a fixed number of Members of 60.

The motion we have put forward recognises the fact that it is up to Dáil Éireann and not Seanad Éireann to initiate any constitutional change. The motion before us does not for one minute attempt to bind the House to the proposition that any particular number that the Independent Senators think is the ideal number should be the number chosen by the people if the question is put to them. Some might argue that the current figure of 174 is enough. Others might argue that anywhere up to 200 is enough. If the population grows much larger than that, we must remember that the Cabinet is restricted by the Constitution to 15 members and the number of people who would be non-ministerial officeholders in a Parliament of, say, 200 Members would be very substantial indeed.

I had the pleasure of discussing this matter with Deputy Cathal Crowe, a Fianna Fáil Deputy from Clare, today. He made some valid points about our system of local government, which I call a prefecture. He said we got rid of town councils and a whole load of elected people and our motion suggested there should be a limit on the number of Deputies. One would have to rebuild Dáil Eireann's Chamber if we were approaching 200 Members. A major extension might possibly be required. It would be many multiples of bicycle sheds, let me put it that way, to accommodate-----

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To a UNESCO-type site.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----the 30 or 40 extra Deputies if we keep going the way we are.

The real question is whether the draftsmen of the 1937 Constitution drew a distinction between a country that had a population that was significantly different from its number of citizens and one whose citizens composed its population. We now live in a different world, with EU rights of migration, asylum seeking and many people coming to Ireland on a transient basis to work for three, four or five years in industries such as the health service and the like but who then go elsewhere. The number of citizens no longer equates to the number of persons present on census nights. The consequence of all of that is that the formula in the 1937 Constitution means that as long as the population is going up, the number of Deputies goes up by 30,000 persons per Deputy minimum amount. That has the consequence of forcing the Government of the day to keep increasing the number of Deputies.As I said, we are not suggesting any particular number. We believe that Dáil Éireann, which is the initiator of constitutional change, should make up its own mind as to what it thinks the Irish people's ideal size of Dáil Éireann is.

It should not be the case that the number of non-citizen persons in Ireland determines the number of TDs in Ireland. To give an example, if 120,000 Ukrainian people came to Ireland as a result of the Russian invasion, that would mean an extra four TDs. What sense is there in that? They may not be here for long. They may never take citizenship or they may go home. While they are given the right to vote in local elections, they have no right to vote in referendums unless they become citizens. No harm would be done if, as is the case in Seanad Éireann with its cap of 60 Members, Dáil Éireann chose a figure of 180, 190 or 200 TDs, or whatever. It should be something that is sustainable, as a Parliament, bearing in mind the size of the Executive, the needs of the Irish people and the point Deputy Cathal Crowe made today, that perhaps we need more local representatives with more powers. That is a different question, however. We are not being prescriptive. We are calling on the Government to initiate legislation in Dáil Éireann to decide this issue.

This is not an entirely novel proposition. No less a person than the Tánaiste, Deputy Simon Harris, is on record as saying, in 2023, that this would have to be done. It is not, therefore, something that has been taken out of the hat like a rabbit to make a cheap political point. Rather, it is something that has to be addressed as a matter of political inevitability. We are not suggesting that we should have a single-issue referendum next month or in two or six months' time because I do not know how many people would turn out in such a referendum. If there is a referendum opportunity, or if it can be put on the agenda to coincide with the next general election, people should be able to decide to end the 30,000 per TD linkage in terms of population and fix the size of the Dáil in a manner that corresponds to countries like Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Norway and Denmark, similar sized countries in similar parts of the world whose legislatures work well. I will hand over to Senator Craughwell.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the motion. This is my first time addressing the Minister of State.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Lucky you, Senator.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is welcome to the House. He might ask why the system of determining the number of Dáil Deputies must be amended. Ireland’s democratic institutions have always evolved when the needs of the State demanded them to do so. Today, we face one of those moments. The constitutional formula that determines the number of Dáil Deputies, that is, one TD for every 20,000 to 30,000 people, was designed for an Ireland that no longer exists. Yet, it continues to shape the size of our national Parliament in ways that are increasingly misaligned with the realities of modern governance.

As policymakers, we know that systems and structures matter. When a system produces outcomes that are automatic rather than intentional, it is our responsibility to intervene. Currently, population growth alone dictates the expansion of the Dáil. There is no evidence, institutional need or strategic planning involved. Rather, it is simple arithmetic. If left unchanged, the formula will continue to increase the number of TDs every time the population rises, even if the additional seats do not improve representation, strengthen accountability or enhance legislative performance.

This is not a question of ideology; it is a question of institutional design. A continually expanding Dáil carries operational consequences. More Members means more committees, administrative overhead, co-ordination challenges and pressure on parliamentary time. It risks slowing decision-making at a moment when the State must be more, rather than less, agile. It also risks weakening accountability by making the system more diffuse and harder for citizens to navigate.

Other advanced democracies have already addressed this issue. They set the size of their legislature based on functionality, not a fixed population ratio. They recognised that representation is not simply about numbers, but effectiveness. Amending our system would allow Ireland to do the same. It would give the Oireachtas or an independent commission the authority to determine the appropriate size of the Dáil based on evidence, comparative research and the needs of a modern State. It would allow us to design a Chamber that is sustainable, efficient and capable of meeting the demand placed on it. Crucially, reform does not mean reducing representation. It means protecting representation by ensuring that the Dáil remains a body that can function effectively, scrutinise Government rigorously and legislate with clarity of purpose. If we want a Parliament fit for the next 50 years, not just the next census, we must be willing to modernise the rules that govern it.

The current formula has served us well historically, but it is no longer the right tool for Ireland today. By amending it, we can ensure the size of the Dáil is a deliberate choice, grounded in evidence and guided by needs of the public. This is not just good governance; it is responsible stewardship of our democratic institutions.

I ask the Minister of State to take this to the Government. I urge the Government to take courage in its hands and, under the provisions of Article 46.2 of the Constitution, bring forward the legislation, as my colleague Senator McDowell said, to amend Article 16.2.2°, setting out a new method for determining the number of Dáil Deputies that will serve the country for the next 50 years. I can understand how political parties might find this a little difficult to live with, but it is about making the Oireachtas a functioning organisation. As I pointed out, there are many good reasons for it. I look forward to the Minister of State's reply.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is welcome back to the Chamber. I welcome the motion. I might not agree with many of its tenets but I agree that it certainly merits a discussion. We have to acknowledge that we are still a relatively young country. We are just 100 years old, plus a couple of years. While it is hard to get everything right, when it comes to democracy and exponents of democracies, we are probably a benchmark for the rest of the world. We do democracy very well. We are a democratic country and have an open Parliament. Even today, Members can reflect on the number of school groups, people and visitors who were able to rock up to the gates of Leinster House, get a tour and meet their public representatives. We remain accessible. That is something we should always guard and look out for.

I can see where the motion is coming from in the context of the change in demographics in the country. We now have intrinsically Irish and what we call "new Irish". This has swelled our population. We are probably heading towards a population of 6 million on the entire island of Ireland. If we go back to 200 years ago, we had a similar population until the Great Famine wiped out large numbers of people and forced many into emigration, largely to America and the UK. While hindsight is often a great thing, although it can be a menace sometimes, if the Great Famine had not happened, what position would we be in now? Would we be heading for a population of 12 million? Where would we be?

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We would be sitting in the convention centre.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I doubt it. The TDs might have been, but we would not. I listened this morning to Deputy Cathal Crowe discuss this motion with the eminent proposer of the motion. He said that back in the history of time, our parliament was based in Killaloe, County Clare. The Senator would get less mileage travelling down there. That might not be as meritorious for him.

As I said, there is merit in this motion. The arbitrary rule of having a representative for every 20,000 or 30,000 people has worked well.Maybe it is not how it should be done and there might be a better way of doing it but it certainly works well. I do not think there is a TD or a Senator in the country who, when meeting somebody walking in the door, decides this person is an Irish national, an EU national, a Ukrainian or somebody coming from an IPAS centre. The fundamental principle of public representation is that anybody who walks through our door is entitled to the same representation, irrespective of whether they are Irish, an EU citizen, new Irish or are coming through the IPAS. It behoves us to give them the same representation, the same recognition and the same rights and representation as we would afford to our Irish brethren.

I would be disappointed if I thought there was anybody either in this House or in the Lower House who decided how they represented people on the basis of whether those people could actually vote for them. An old story was told of Bertie Ahern that if somebody went to him, he would check the register and if they were not on the register, he would tell them to go away and come back when they were on the register. We do not have the luxury of being able to tell people to do that any more because people can be quite flippant and decide to go to another politician for help. I have always operated on the principle that if somebody reaches out to a public representative and asks for help, regardless of whether they can vote or even if they are in the constituency, we are honour bound to do so as representatives of this wonderful House.

We have inherited the work and the efforts of the people of 1916 and the subsequent generations. I know we are launching a book tonight on the great Seán Lemass, the man who brought the Irish message right across Europe and was very much at the vanguard of the modern incarnation of the IDA and brought investment to Ireland. Those people were broad-minded and looked at Ireland not as a small island on the edge of Europe but as a large country, a proud and determined democracy and a country that is recognised as having sent many people right across the world. We have an onus and responsibility to look out for our peers, especially at a time of war or a time of distress.

I take great pride and I recognise the wonderful opportunity that we in this House have been afforded to be public representatives. While I might have political differences with many people in both Houses, I still greatly admire anybody who goes to the effort of being a public representative. This is unquestionably the single greatest job and the single greatest opportunity anybody can have in this country. We should never treat it in any other way. It is a great honour when somebody comes to me and asks me to assist them with an issue with their house or an issue with a student grant. Those people, regardless of whether they are an Irish citizen or an EU citizen, are putting their faith and their belief in us as a constitutional country and as a democracy to do right by them. It is a wonderful place that we have arrived at.

People continually compare us to America and yet we look at the extremes in America today. Ireland is just 100 years old and we are a bastion of all that is good about democracy and all that is good about a modern society. We can be very proud of that.

There is great merit in discussing this proposal but as it stands at the minute, I do not see a better way to determine the number. I concede the requirement for one TD for every 20,000 to 30,000 people is arbitrary. If I thought it could guarantee me getting back into the Dáil, I would agree with whatever proposal they might come up with.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does that mean the Senator is not happy here?

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He should be proud to be in the Upper House.

PJ Murphy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to share my time with Senator Cathal Byrne.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

PJ Murphy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I begin by acknowledging the concerns raised by the Senators regarding the population growth and the implications for the size of Dáil Éireann. These are legitimate issues and the timeline for addressing them is approaching quickly. To the best of my knowledge, the Government is not opposing the motion today. However, before any commitment can be made on any constitutional amendment, I believe we need greater clarity on what is being proposed in terms of numbers of TDs, etc.

The Constitution by design is a deliberately inflexible document. It is the foundation of our democratic system and provides stability for our citizens. Any proposal to amend it must therefore be approached with precision and care. As the proposer of this motion pointed out earlier, Article 16.2.2° currently requires that the Dáil cannot have fewer than one TD for every 30,000 people. This provision has shaped a parliamentary system that is unique by European standards. That uniqueness matters. It means that as elected representatives, as Senators and TDs, we are deeply embedded in the communities we serve.

We do not just represent our constituents; we live among them. We meet them every day at the school gates, at hurling matches on a Sunday morning or when we are going to the shop to buy a litre of milk or to put diesel into our cars. They know our names and, more important, they know that they can call us. We all get those calls regularly. I got a call this evening from somebody looking for help with a passport form. We get calls from people wondering who to ring about the pothole outside the gate of their farm or who just need a bit of help making sense of a system that can sometimes feel like a maze for those who are not familiar with it. This is part of the Irish democratic culture. It is personal, accessible and it builds trust. In many other EU countries, people would never dream of calling their local elected representative for help with day-to-day issues but here that connection is part of what keeps people engaged with the democratic process and something we should be careful not to weaken unintentionally.

This is why I would like to get some more clarity on numbers when it comes to the proposal before us. While the intention may be to avoid increasing the size of the Dáil excessively, the practical effect could be significant in terms of increasing the workload for TDs and their staff. Let us be realistic. If a TD suddenly has thousands more constituents due to rising population and without the appropriate rise in TD numbers, the number of calls, emails and clinic visits will rise accordingly. It is not only citizens who reach out to us as elected representatives. TDs' salaries may stay the same but staffing requirements certainly will not. What may look like saving financially on one side of a ledger may simply reappear on the other side of the same ledger.

There is also the question of representation. Increasing the population-TD ratio risks widening the urban-rural divide. Counties with large rural areas already face challenges in maintaining strong representation. If we raise the threshold too far, some lesser populated areas could end up struggling to retain a TD at all. That would be a profound change to the balance of representation in this country.

We also need to consider the impact on local government. Our councillors already carry a significant workload, much of it done on what is officially considered to be a part-time basis. If TDs are stretched thinner, more casework will inevitably fall to our councillors. This is happening at a time when the local democracy task force has just completed a major review of pressures on local authorities, including, structures, functions, governance and funding. The final report presented earlier this month to the Minister, Deputy Browne, and the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, sets out recommendations aimed at strengthening local government, including the role and support structures for councillors. If we increase the number of constituents per TD without careful planning, we risk pushing even more responsibilities onto councillors before having the necessary supports in place. That would require additional local authority resources and could fundamentally change the nature of our local representation.

While I understand the motivation behind the motion and while I understand the Government is not opposing it today, we need clarity. We need to understand precisely what is being proposed in terms of numbers, what the new constitutional wording would be, and what practical consequences this would have for TDs, councillors and, most important, the people we represent.Any constitutional amendment must be approached with care, with evidence and with a full understanding of its implications. The issues I have outlined relate to workload, rural balance and local government capacity. These are not minor details. They go to the heart of how our democracy functions. For those reasons, we must be open to explaining the matter further. I would like to hear greater clarity on numbers and so on, but I do not oppose the merit of the proposal.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise. I forgot to call time. Senator Conor Murphy is next.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I only intend to make a few remarks, so I am quite content to share the remainder of my time with Senator Cathal Byrne.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. Democratic mandate is important, and people should be represented equally in the exercise of democratic process. Article 16.2.4° of the Constitution states:

The Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once in every twelve years, with due regard to changes in distribution of the population, but any alterations in the constituencies shall not take effect during the life of Dáil Éireann sitting when such revision is made.

If that provision is applied to the premise of this motion, then it is my understanding that the numbers in the Dáil may not be expanded in 2027 because the mandate of the current Oireachtas runs to 2029.

There has undoubtedly been a growth in population and there have been demographic shifts. The Central Statistics Office has projected that the census in 2027 will show population growth. There are many reasons offered for the growth in population and the potential demographic alterations which will require consideration in terms of the future ratio between elected representatives and population. One of the biggest demographic changes on the horizon, indicated in the data from the 2022 census, which was collated on an all-island basis, is that the total population of the island of Ireland is approximately 7.1 million. This was the first time the population exceeded 7 million since 1851. We have a proposition and a policy objective of securing a unity referendum by 2030. Of course, in the event of any successful unity referendum, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, both the British and Irish Governments would be obliged to legislate to give effect to the result of that referendum. That would, of course, include the electorate of the Six Counties being facilitated in terms of participation in a national Parliament in the event of a successful referendum. In terms of the consideration the Government gives to this matter in the time ahead, it should give examine it in the context of the broader national question, which is very much on the horizon and which will have a significantly bigger impact in terms of demographic changes and the numbers that may be entitled to elect people to a national Parliament.

Senator Boyhan and I were fortunate enough to hear a presentation in the audiovisual room from three people from a Protestant-unionist community in the North about the prospects of constitutional change and their impatience with the Government not getting on with the planning for that. They referenced a broad view within their community in this regard. They have effectively debunked the Taoiseach's notion that a prerequisite for any consideration of constitutional change or, indeed, preparation for it is reconciliation. They made a very clear argument that these are both the same pathway and should be followed. In its consideration of this motion, which is has merit in terms of consideration and which clearly recognises the changes that lie on the horizon, I urge the Government to also give consideration to the national question and to the preparation that will be required in relation to unity, the consequences of a successful unity referendum and what these will mean for national democracy.

Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am grateful to Senator Conor Murphy. I agree with the point he makes about the need for any long-term future electoral planning to incorporate the ultimate consideration of what will hopefully be a successful reunification referendum.

I just want to make contribute on two points. I thank Senator McDowell for bringing forward the motion. My understanding is that it is not being opposed by the Government. It is very important that we remind ourselves of the role of the Dáil, which is to represent the people who have elected the TDs who sit in that House. The role of the Dáil is also to elect a Government and to hold it accountable. Any future change involving a never-ending increase in the number of seats in the Dáil as a result of population increases, which is projected into the future, will make matters more difficult for TDs. A point will eventually arrive when such a large body will become unwieldy.

It is very important that we seek to put a cap in place in the future. What that cap would be, I am not sure. I am very much reminded of the fact that while the public may want fewer TDs nationally, they want more TDs locally. Every town wants a TD and everybody wants to be represented and have access and so on. In the short term, the fundamental building block of a community is the county border and the county identity. It is the jersey you pull on in the GAA. It is the support and the identity that links a place. As the population grows and as boundary commissions continue to look at this in the context of the current model of three-, four- and five-seat constituencies, we are going to have more connectedness that will involve breaches of county borders as a result of counties being placed together in constituencies. For the first time since 1961, my county was split, with part of it being place in a constituency with Wicklow. In 1961, a small part of Wexford that was linked with Carlow. What I have outlined dilutes democracy because it breaches county borders. This is an issue for counties like Louth, for example. The Oireachtas has to look at this matter and really get to grips with it. The Electoral Commission is carrying out a review involving six-seater constituencies. I do not know whether such constituencies are the answer, but the matter certainly merits discussion.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Harmon is sharing time with Senator Noonan. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Malcolm Noonan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I also welcome his officials. I soldiered with them on the reform Act and the establishment of An Coimisiún Toghcháin. I recall well the discussion around six-seater constituencies when that legislation was being developed. The suggestion was certainly resisted vehemently by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. The establishment of such constituencies would lead to greater diversity in our political system. It is something that should be given active consideration. It would completely eliminate the county boundary breaches, in my view. That matter needs to be looked at.

There is a wider issue here with regard to reform in general and the lack of ambition on the part of this Government when it comes to electoral reform. We have tasked An Coimisiún Toghcháin to look at election posters, reducing the voting age to 16, directly elected mayors, local government reform, wider issues around the participation of minorities and quotas for political parties. I do not think there are any ambitions regarding the holding of referendums during the term of this Government. The Electoral Commission, An Coimisiún Toghcháin, should be bringing these issues forward by means of its reports.

It is disappointing that the Government chose not to put in place a dedicated Minister of State with responsibility for electoral reform. With respect, the Department is a very busy one. The Minister, Deputy Browne, has responsibility for housing, which is his main priority.

We are discussing the ratio of TDs. The Cross-Party Group will not be opposing the motion. I do not think we need more TDs, but we certainly do need more councillors. The ratio of councillors to citizens, because of the abolition of borough and town councils, needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. At the very least, we need to look at the reinstatement of our five borough councils. On "Prime Time" last night, we saw how the issue of a directly elected mayor needs to be embraced again. We look with embarrassment at other European countries in which mayoral elections are taking place. The mayors in Paris and Munich are driving progressive agendas. We can do the same here, but only if full powers granted to directly elected mayors in the large urban centres.

I welcome the debate. However, I am of the view that we need to have a wider debate on these issues which, unlike this debate, is not confined to the wording of a motion before the House.

Laura Harmon (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the debate on this issue. It is always good for us to discuss political reform. It is an important debate to have. I am not in favour of a hard cap on the number of TD places. We need to absolutely ensure we are not reducing representation in any way in the ratio of TD to population. As mentioned earlier, we are quite unique in that our public representatives are very accessible and we need to ensure we keep it that way in terms of how the public can access us.

If we were to look at this measure, it should not be looked at on its own. We need to look at the work of councillors, that is empowering county and city councils to do more at a local level. I also favour bringing back town councils. We need to make sure there is more power with local councillors. They do not have staff, for example, and are not properly remunerated.

It depends on which projections of population one looks at, but the CSO says that potentially by 2058, if we were to work off the same ratio, we would require 192 TDs. That is more than 30 years away. It depends on which population predictions are looked at and there a lot of variables but I do not see that as a massive increase.

There should be public consultation on boundary changes, as opposed to having them imposed. It is unfair on areas that are moved around frequently from constituency to constituency, with the change in representatives and the constituencies they are part of. We should move away from three-seater constituencies and we should allow six-seater constituencies.

Other political reform issues we should look at as part of a wider suite include a fixed term parliament so the electorate knows when the elections will be set - that is done in other countries - automatic voter registration, votes at 16, extending the franchise and Seanad reform, which is overdue and needed. We need to open up the franchise for the Seanad. We had the referendum on the Seanad, which passed by a small margin. I campaigned for the retention of the Seanad back in 2012 and 2013. I do not think the cost saving argument stands up. That was the argument used for the abolition of the Seanad. A price cannot be put on democracy. We need more democracy, not less, particularly with what is happening in a global context at the moment.

We have to think about a united Ireland, the prospect that re-unification of the island could be imminent - in the coming years - and what it would mean for representation. Would we have regional assemblies? What would the Cabinet look like? It would be premature to have a referendum on this issue at the moment.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome to the Public Gallery the Carlow-Kilkenny branch of the Social Democrats.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is welcome. I support this motion calling on the Government to initiate a constitutional amendment to specify the number of Members of Dáil Éireann. As colleagues will be aware, Article 16.2.2° of the Constitution requires there to be no fewer than one TD per 30,000 people and no more than one TD per 20,000. That provision served a very different Ireland, one that was smaller, more homogenous and had vastly fewer State responsibilities than today. As has been outlined, the State's population is now 5.458 million and it is projected to exceed 5.56 million within just two years. The Electoral Commission is already working at the edge of the constitutional ratio. By 2027, the Dáil may have 181 to 185 TDs and if different trends continue, my colleagues have rightly calculated that by 2050 the number could approach 250 TDs. This is simply unsustainable.

The central argument of this motion is not only cost, though cost matters. As the media note reminded us, we all saw the €300,000 bicycle shed and none of wish to contemplate the hundreds of millions it would cost to expand the Leinster House complex every decade. The deeper argument is democratic sustainability. The Electoral Commission fulfilled its mandate by ensuring there was a TD for approximately every 30,000 residents, but that is residents, not voters. If we shift our analysis to voters per TD, which is a far more accurate measure of democratic proportionality, we uncover a stark imbalance. In the last election, Dublin West and Dublin Central returned a TD for roughly every 15,000 voters, while Limerick county required 25,000 voters per TD and Donegal more than 26,000. That means a vote in some parts of Dublin is almost 40% stronger than a vote in Donegal. That is not a minor discrepancy; it is a fundamental distortion of the principle of one person, one vote.

It is true that differences in voter registration rates contribute to this, but even accounting for that the disparity remains too large to ignore. As matters stand, two voters in Dublin carry the same electoral weight as three in Donegal. No healthy democracy can look at that reality and shrug its shoulders. We face a choice. We either continue to expand the Dáil indefinitely or address the underlying imbalance. The fairest way forward is to tie representation more closely to the number of eligible voters, neither simply the number of residents nor eligible voters. Representation in a democracy ultimately falls from the franchise and the strength of a vote and the number of TDs to represent them should be based on those who actually possess it.

I say this while remaining open to other models colleagues may propose, such as, for example, automatic registration for voters or even mandatory voting. Yet, that alone is not enough. The deeper truth is that we have outgrown the constitutional architecture designed almost a century ago. Our population is larger, more diverse and has more complex needs than ever before. The State does exponentially more than it did when these ratios were written into the Constitution. All of us here know from our experience of constituency offices that TDs and Senators are being asked to perform functions that in any modern system would be competently handled at local government level. Ireland remains one of the most centralised democracies in Europe.

If the number of TDs is capped, that cannot be the end of the conversation. It must be the beginning of a broader rebalancing of power between national and local levels. We need stronger local authorities with real decision-making powers, that are properly funded and democratically accountable so that not every problem has to travel the chain up to a TD's office. Capping TD numbers would force us to confront that reality. It would compel us to modernise a system that is now creaking under the weight of its own expectations.

This motion does not force the Government to choose a specific number. It simply calls for a referendum empowering the Oireachtas to set that number, whether it is 174, 180 or whatever the House deems appropriate after debate, but it does insist that we cannot continue to expand representation indefinitely while the real business of governance at local level remains structurally unchanged. For reasons of fairness, sustainability and democratic integrity, the time has come to act. I commend the motion to the House and thank my colleagues for supporting it.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take four minutes and share time with Senator Mullen who will take two minutes if that is acceptable to the House.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and thank the Government for indicating its support for this amendment. There are no amendments to this motion, which is interesting. I heard a number of people around the corridors of Leinster House in recent days say that there was not a hope in hell and that it would not wash with Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Senators did not put down any amendments. Not many of them have even spoken about the Bill to date. We still have a little time.

I thank the Minister of State for coming. It is common sense. My colleague, Senator McDowell, talked about the Tánaiste being favourably disposed to considering the idea. Let us be fair to him. He is not here. He indicated he was open to it, but he also mentioned the issue of the Electoral Commission. It is significant that we now have an Electoral Commission. I would like to see it be more proactive in terms of engaging with issues like this. I would have like to see a public consultation on it. At best, as to what we attempted to do here tonight - and I think we have succeeded, certainly judging from the media inquiries I have received today, and no doubt we will see this right across our media tomorrow - I think we set out to spark a national conversation. We have certainly done that, both inside and outside the Houses, in the past 24 hours. There is a view that we have to have a cap at some point, but let us be clear what we are asking, because some commentary indicated something slightly different from what my understanding of this is. What are we asking? We respect that this is a matter for Dáil Éireann and, ultimately, the Government. It is not a matter for the Upper House, and we ought to be clear about managing people's expectations. We have a platform here, this Chamber, and we have a voice and can articulate a view. That, at best, is all we can do here in relation to this matter. We call on the Government to initiate legislation to amend Article 16.2.2° to specify the number of Members of Dáil Éireann. That is a matter for the Government, not one for the Seanad. It is important we say clearly we are conscious of the provisions of Article 46.2 of the Constitution, which require that a Bill to amend the Constitution must be initiated in Dáil Éireann. That is what we are saying. Then it is clear. We are conscious of the present constitutional requirement that Dáil Éireann should comprise at least one Member per every 30,000 of the State's population, as distinct from citizens. We are aware of the current population of the State, which is 5.458 million. We are also conscious of the likelihood that Dáil Éireann may have to be enlarged. We know the pressures on these Houses already. We know we are stuck for space. We know there are TDs and Senators in Agriculture House up the road having to navigate down the back lanes and streets to get in here for votes. The architecture, the physicality of the buildings and the services, will present a problem in the future, but that is nothing that cannot be overcome.

As I said, I am supportive of this legislation. I also commend and thank the Library and Research Service, which published a blog post about this proposal. It is worth reading. If anyone has not read it, they should do so. It sets out some of the background and the terms. We are realistic about what we are trying to achieve. We hoped to spark a national conversation; we have done that. I understand the Government is not opposing the motion. I acknowledge the fact that no other party here or anybody else has proposed any amendments to it. Clearly, they have considered that it is necessary or deemed necessary. I do not know what basis they operate on but they have not brought any alternative proposal to the House tonight. Therefore, I am more than confident the motion will go through. Where it goes from here is the big question. Hopefully, this will not sit on a shelf gathering a load of dust. It certainly will not from this side of the House because we will keep asking questions about it. We will also collaborate with our colleagues in Dáil Éireann to pursue the issue.

I now hand over to Senator Mullen.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas le mo chomhghleacaithe. I commend Senator McDowell on leading us forward with this very good proposal. I note what my good friend and colleague Senator Murphy said, that any proposal to amend the Constitution should be approached with precision and care. I could not agree with him more. Somebody should have told the previous Government about that because it presented two referendum proposals that were certainly not approached or served up with precision and care, unless they were caring precisely to bamboozle the public and to persuade them to support something they should not - and, as it turned out, did not - support. I take Senator Murphy's point that one has to be careful about the preparation of referendums.

Paradoxically, while I am very glad on one level that this motion is going through unopposed this evening, in a way I would have liked if the Government had tabled some kind of amendment to say that it would take this very important proposal forward, study it and come back within a certain timeframe with some kind of proposal. Maybe the Minister of State will deliver accordingly in his speech. This is too important to be left on the shelf. Senator McDowell and we all are really proposing that we cannot afford a méadú as cuimse in the representation in the context of an increasing population. We would have, if there were a population of 6 million, a minimum of 200 TDs under the current constitutional formula and a maximum of 300. I am not so sure that we should be talking, or that we have any reason to talk, about a unity referendum being imminent, as has been suggested, but one would imagine that if one were to follow the Westminster model, given that there are about 2 million people in the North and they have 18 MPs, we would have 54 under such a formula for a population of 6 million. It would feel like we were back in the convention centre. I suppose the fact that there is an Assembly in the North makes the difference. What we are proposing here is reasonable, namely, that there would be an appropriate cap on Dáil and Seanad representation, given the population we have and are likely to have in the near future. Talk of future arrangements in the North is just a distraction. Nothing will happen so quickly there that would give us any justification to do nothing now. This issue needs to be addressed.

I also sympathise with what Senator Murphy had to say about his concern for rural Ireland and the need to ensure continued fair representation for counties with lower populations. We probably have that advantage in the Seanad. Historically and currently, there is that strong representation. The Senator is right, however, and others here have said it, that we need a less centralised system with more responsibility and potential for councillors. The fact that they do not have that or that they might be under pressure is not a reason not to recalibrate our system in order that councillors have more powers and responsibilities and that Members of the Oireachtas, while they would continue to have a representative and intermediating role, would focus more on legislation.

I hope the Minister will not just say nice things about this proposal but give us some kind of commitment that the Government will reflect carefully on this and take some action because there is no good reason to oppose it.

Joe Conway (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Seomra seo arís. Iarrann an rún seo, ár rún Comhaltaí Príobháideacha, ar an Rialtas céimeanna a thógáil le haghaidh reifreann bunreachtúil chun ionadaíocht a léiriú ar dhaonra atá ag méadú. Faoi láthair, leagann an Bunreacht síos gur cheart go mbeadh Teachta Dála amháin do gach 30,000 den daonra. Ós rud é go bhfuiltear ag tuar go n-ardóidh an daonra seo go dtí 7 milliún nó mar sin, b'fhéidir sna 20 bliain atá romhainn, ní mór don Bhunreacht gníomhú air seo. Is dócha go ndéanfaidh sé éilimh shuntasacha ar bhonneagar agus ar airgeadas an Stáit. Dá bhrí sin, tugann ár rún aghaidh air seo ionas go mbeidh muid ullamh don mhéadú daonra atá ar an mbealach os ár gcomhair agus bealach ordúil agus daonlathach a leanúint.

When we are looking at these sorts of things, it is always useful to do a bit of comparative study. In preparation for this Private Members' business, I looked at several democracies around the world, and possibly the most relevant or most pointing of the democracies that suggests itself to be studied in relation to this is that of Germany. Why do I say that? It has already undergone a significant eisimirce or migration crisis or incursion in the past while. It has also undergone a unification of amazing proportions. We have both of those, one of them actual, possibly, and the other incipient in the talk we hear this evening of unification.

Senator Boyhan talked about our excellent Library service. I borrowed from the Library service two books recently. One of them was written by a historian of southern Irish Protestants, and that is a man called Ian d'Alton, who wrote a book incidentally titled Southern Irish Protestants. Another one, which I read in relation to the unification debate, was Sam McBride and Fintan O'Toole's book on Irish unification. My honest and strong belief is that if there is to be talk of reunification, we should not undertake a precipitous referendum to be going off half-cocked or half-baked. Reading thoughtfully into the argument, we seriously need to consider a move towards unification and the referendum that is necessary for that. We need to be talking about it in a very well informed way as populations on both sides of the Border.In that regard, what I am trying to say relates to what our Green Party Senator said. What is his surname again? Senator Noonan. I am sorry, I had a blank on his surname there. He referenced the foundation of An Coimisiún Toghcháin in 2023. One of the strictures on An Coimisiún Toghcháin is that it would advise, research and report on electoral processes. Senator Boyhan talked about lighting a spark of conversation in the public. I think we should ask the Government parties, if they are going to proceed with our motion here tonight, that they request An Coimisiún Toghcháin to set up an information initiative to let people know what they are buying into if we are going to change the provisions of Article 16.2.2°, so that we do not have a 30% referendum response on this.

We need to get people more engaged in the democratic process. We can see that the graph is inexorably sliding downwards in regard to participation. The antidote to that is to have our voting public, our citizens, more informed and innovated about the system we have. If this motion does anything in relation to what we are talking about here tonight, it is very good that it focuses in the media, politics and the population at large more attention on critical questions like this, which we really need to be answering for the financial rectitude of the State going forward and all our democratic processes.

I commend the driver of the motion from our Independent Group, Senator McDowell, who did us all a blessed favour in proposing this. I think it has been a very useful and enlivening discussion.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next, we will call the Minister of State, with the proposer then to reply.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach. First, before I get into the meat of my contribution, I want to outline that the Government will not be opposing the motion here today. I very much enjoyed this debate, to be honest. I find things are very civilised here in the Seanad. Senators give each other-----

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the Minister of State like to join us?

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not want to get too comfortable here.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is a calming influence.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senators give each other time for debate. There are very interesting and thought-out contributions. They even give each other time, which is very interesting - Opposition giving Government Senators time. Very enjoyable and thought-provoking points were made, I must say. I find myself flipping over and back on where we should stand on this and what the position is. That is the whole reason we are not opposing this; we need to await the research that is being done by An Coimisiún Toghcháin, which my predecessor, the former Minister of State, Senator Noonan, would have been very much a part of.

I take many of the points being made in regard to this concern around an explosion of TDs in Ireland, perhaps, and that with population trends, targets and forecasts, you could see significant increases in TDs. I do not think we are anywhere near that at the moment. I do not think there is any fear that, any time soon, we are going to be sitting on one another's laps inside Dáil Éireann. The evidence kind of points-----

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has happened before.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will say nothing about that. I am going by the different reviews since the 1980s, and 166 was the number of TDs in the 1980s. If you come to now, it has only jumped by a total of eight. That is in a good number of decades. It is not like we are making these monumental jumps in terms of numbers. It is not getting out of hand as yet but there is a conversation that needs to be had. I completely understand that. In fact, from the 2009 review to the 2013 review, it went down from 166 to 158 and went back up to 160. It is now at 174. That is a significant jump. I take the point but I do not think we are at the point yet where Leinster House is at capacity.

I get the comparison to the UK and the representation there but similarly - I heard the interview and the debate today - you could look at examples like Malta and Luxembourg for alternative representation numbers. However, the key argument coming across from what I am hearing is the need for extra local democracy. If you take the Danish model, for example, they have incredibly strong and robust local democracy, something that we had here with the town councils. I know it is a commitment and was certainly a strong argument in respect of the formation of Government that we would look at bringing back stronger local democracy, not to take away from the incredible work that local authorities do.

In regard to curbing the number of TDs, I come at this from a parochial argument, I guess. I am not making the case for an extra TD in Cork South-West, by the way, in case anyone thinks I am. Certainly, when you think of the size of the constituency and you talk about county boundaries, west Cork is kind of considered a county within a county. It is like the 33rd county. From Minane Bridge in the east, it takes about three and a half hours to drive to the Dursey Sound. There is a good representation. There are what I would consider three very good TDs working hard but that is a big geographical area, which is a consideration to take into account as well.

In regard to the points made about constituency offices and the work they do, you have got varying opinions on what a TD should be or what they should do. Are they a strict legislator who only focuses on legislation and policy or is there that representational aspect as well? I think it is a beautiful thing in this country that TDs are both, and Senators as well. You can have an incredibly busy constituency office dealing with day-to-day issues while also having a TD who is up here trying to introduce legislation. That is, however, a lot of hard work, as each and every Senator knows.

The citizens versus population argument I do not necessarily buy because while, yes, we have an increase in population, not all are citizens, and in many instances those who are not citizens are the most vulnerable in our society. They need representation and a voice up here. I get that there is debate about that but I think it is a sad state of affairs when that voice is not represented.

I want to come back to the point that An Coimisiún Toghcháin is conducting research into this and that should inform our way forward. I very much enjoyed the debate and, now, I am going to go into the current situation. The Constitution sets out clearly and distinctly the overarching requirements that apply to the Membership of Dáil Éireann. In this context, the following constitutional provisions are of particular importance. I refer to Article 16.2.2° of the Constitution, which provides that:

The number of members shall from time to time be fixed by law, but the total number of members of Dáil Éireann shall not be fixed at less than one member for each thirty thousand of the population, or at more than one member for each twenty thousand of the population.

Article 16.2.3° provides that:

The ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.

Article 16.2.4° provides that:

The Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once in every twelve years, with due regard to changes in distribution of the population ...

In effect, these constitutional provisions require that Dáil constituencies be revised whenever population change, as ascertained in a census, leads to population-to-Member ratios in individual constituencies that are significantly out of line with the national average or the limits set in the Constitution of one Member to every 20,000 to 30,000 of population. To specify a set number of Members of Dáil Éireann along the lines of what is proposed in the motion, or to revise the Member-to-population ratio, would require a referendum to amend Article 16.2.2° of the Constitution.

Complementary to the provisions of Article 16.2, sections 56 to 59 of the Electoral Reform Act 2022 provides for Dáil and European Parliament constituency reviews to be carried out following each census of population and assigns responsibility to An Coimisiún Toghcháin. In effect, census-driven reviews commence following the publication of preliminary census results by the Central Statistics Office. The specific terms of reference for Dáil constituency reviews are set out in section 57(2) of the Act, which provides that an coimisiún will have regard to the following: the total number of Members of Dáil Éireann, subject to Article 16.2.2° of the Constitution, shall be not less than 171 and not more than 181; each constituency shall return three, four or five Members; the breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as practicable; each constituency shall be composed of contiguous areas; there shall be regard to geographic considerations, including significant physical features and the extent of and the density of population in each constituency, which I wish was taken into account in west Cork; and subject to section 57, the commission shall endeavour to maintain continuity in relation to the arrangement of constituencies.

Senators may recall that in its first constituency review report 2023, which was published on 30 August 2023, an coimisiún signalled, inter alia, that it intended to carry out research into the issue of representation and the manner in which the number of Members was determined. In undertaking this research, an coimisiún indicated that it would have regard to the following factors: the level of population increase over the last number of years - I note the total population as reported under census 2022 stood at 5.1 million; the increase in the number of Members in the 2023 constituency review from 160 to 174; representation remaining at the higher end of the constitutional range - following the 2023 constituency review each Dáil Member would, on average, represent 29,593 people; the potential future population growth and the potential future increase in the number of Members - Ireland’s population grew by the equivalent of an average of nearly 65,000 per annum between census 2016 and census 2022; and concerns expressed in many submissions, received during the 2023 constituency review, regarding the number of Members and the potential for more.

As at April 2025, the Central Statistics Office estimated Ireland’s population to be some 5,458,600 people. Following its inaugural constituency review, An Coimisiún Toghcháin signalled, in its research programme 2024-2026, which was published on 10 July 2024, that it intended to conduct three pieces of research to inform future constituency reviews. These are: representation and the manner in which the overall number of members is determined in the context of a rising population; constituency magnitude, including exploration of the advantages and disadvantages of permitting constituencies of larger than five seats; and a review of the constituency review methodology with a view to identifying potential future enhancements, including to the consultation process and whether there is scope for the increased use of technology. The proposed research from An Coimisiún Toghcháin is to be welcomed and will support evidence-based policy making in this matter that is so important to our democratic institutions and processes. It is vital that the outcome of any work carried out by An Coimisiún Toghcháin in this area is carefully considered.

I note that the Central Statistics Office has announced that Ireland's next census will be held on Sunday, 9 May 2027. As has been the case since the enactment of Part II of the Electoral Act 1997, which first introduced independent constituency commissions on a statutory basis, the results of census 2027 will trigger the next review of Dáil and European Parliament constituency boundaries. As I mentioned earlier, sections 56 to 59 of the Electoral Reform Act 2022 repealed and replaced Part II of the Electoral Act 1997 and assigned the review of Dáil and European Parliament constituencies to An Coimisiún Toghcháin. The legislation provides that an coimisiún can commence its work once the preliminary figures from the census are known and it must complete the review within three months of the final census results being published.

As Senators are all aware, under Article 46.2 of the Constitution any proposal to amend the Constitution must be introduced in Dáil Eireann as a constitutional amendment Bill and shall contain no proposal other than an amendment to the Constitution. When the Bill has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, under section 10 of the Referendum Act 1994 it must be submitted to the people for approval at a referendum within 30 to 90 days of the passing of the Bill. Subject to a majority of the votes cast at the referendum being in favour of the proposal, the Bill is signed by the President and the Constitution is amended accordingly.

Similar to the position with regard to an amendment to Article 16.2.2 of the Constitution, in the event that a referendum in the matter was passed by the people, it would also be necessary to consider whether legislative change would be needed to sections 56 to 59 of the Electoral Reform Act 2022 and the procedural approach required in respect of future Dáil constituency reviews.

A Chathaoirligh, that sets out the position. We have a census coming in 2027. We have the research being conducted by An Coimisiún Toghcháin. I fully appreciated and enjoyed the debate in the Seanad today. It was very informative and very educational. I promise this will not sit on a shelf. We will analyse this and consider it carefully. I look forward to the response of the proposer.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I call on Senator McDowell, I want to welcome the guests of Senator Tom Clonan, including Eileen Kelliher, who I believe was the Lily of Killarney in 1984, along with her family. I think they are remotely related to the Clonans. I also welcome Aidan Walsh, Kelley Smith and Honor Walsh. I welcome them all to Seanad Éireann.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for coming here this evening. It was an interesting debate. For instance, Senator Sharon Keogan mentioned the disparity in turnout and the numbers of votes needed to elect a TD. I was researching this and discovered the quota in Dublin Central was 6,561 and on the last census night 35% of the people of Dublin city - and this would be far more accentuated in city centre areas - were not born in Ireland. Maybe some of them were citizens but this reflects the difference between citizens and population, when 35% of the population on the last census night in Dublin were non-nationals at birth.

The second thing I want to say is that the formula of 20,000 to 30,000 was a very flexible formula, but let us remember that in 1938 there were 138 TDs and the population of Ireland was 2.96 million. That meant the population per TD was 21,000, so we were scraping along the bottom of the range then. We are now hammering out the ceiling all the time. Things have changed dramatically and it is not as if it is a wonderful formula. There has been a constant rise towards this imperative now that we have to keep increasing the numbers in the Dáil.

Another point I wish to make, seeing as I have Senator Mullen here with me, is about the Minister of State's Department and how it gave a hospital pass to NUI for the reformed universities six-seat constituency. The result of all of that has been the following. Far from increasing the number of graduates who are going to vote in the next election, if there was an election held tomorrow the electoral register would have declined from 160,000 to roughly 70,000. That is the achievement of giving it to NUI and the mess of rushing through the legislation because the Supreme Court cracked the whip. Let us remember that it has been a disastrous failure and somebody should do something about it. An Coimisiún Toghcháin should have taken responsibility for that and not asked NUI to preside over a collapse in the number of eligible graduates. I do not know how many graduates are entitled to vote for the six university seats but in theory I imagine it is about 800,000 because the number of people who have degrees now has increased massively compared with what it was when the State was founded.

I completely agree with the Minister of State that we need to do something about local government. If we looked at what is happening now and we applied Éamon de Valera's 21,000 per TD, the Dáil would already have 278 Members. If we take account of what Sinn Féin has said, the Dáil would have 240 TDs at the 30,000 limit. If we went down to the 20,000 limit, it would be at 300 TDs or something like that. This is not an artificial issue. I and my colleagues did not say we want to save money. We are not talking about saving money. We are talking about having a viable Dáil. One of the problems with British democracy is that there is a small cabinet which does not work any more as a cabinet, and 500 people in Westminster who are effectively backbenchers. One of the problems with English democracy has been that complete imbalance between the Executive and the Membership of Parliament. We are going towards that because we have limited the number of Ministers we can have but there is no limit on the amount of TDs. I welcome the Government's non-opposition to the motion, which was not offered as a gimmick. We did not say we would save X or Y million or that we should have fewer politicians because that is a good idea. What we are really concerned about is the health of Irish democracy, which will be affected if we do not mend our ways, so to speak. I ask the Department in particular to reflect on the point Senator Keogan made - I did not expect her to make it but I think it is a startling point - that if you look at the difference between rural Ireland and urban Ireland, it requires a hell of a lot more votes to get a seat in the Dáil in parts of rural Ireland than it does in urban Ireland. The quota in Dublin Central, as I said, is 6,561. That reflects the fact that in urban Ireland there is a transient population. People are moving from flat to flat and all the rest of it and the register is in poor condition to start with, but it also reflects the fact that the difference between the citizen population entitled to vote and the non-national immigrant and transient population is so high in some areas. There is food for thought for everybody. I really do welcome the Minister's positive approach towards addressing the issues that have arisen tonight. Obviously, our debate has been very short but there is a lot of consideration to be undertaken by An Coimisiún Toghcháin and the Government because this is not going to go away.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

PJ Murphy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tomorrow morning at 9.30 a.m.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.