Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Bill 2012: Second Stage 27th November 2012

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this short Bill. Often it is the shortest Bills that carry the biggest punch. This certainly carries a punch for politicians, although I suspect the public is less than interested in what we are saying on this or indeed in the constituency changes. I welcome the Bill as far as it goes but I do not believe it goes far enough. I welcome the fact it has been introduced in line with commitments in the programme for Government and election promises. It follows up on other Dáil reforms which have taken place such as the reduction in the pay and pensions of Members, the removal of increments, the reduction of expenses and the longer working hours as well as shorter holidays. These appropriate reforms were needed and no one would think otherwise as we cannot ask of others what we will not do ourselves. I refer to them because they seem to have been written out of history entirely. As a result, they are not reported by the media and, for that reason, are not acknowledged by the public which seems to think none of these reforms has taken place.

The reduction in the number of Deputies is not large but it is significant. A referendum would have been needed to go below a total of 153. In a broad reform that may have been desirable. However, when people claim we are over-represented here, they are comparing us with much larger countries such as Great Britain, the United States and Germany where, of necessity, the level of representation per head of population has to be less because of the sheer numbers involved. In a small country, a minimum number of Deputies is needed in order to be able to choose a government and reflect the diversity that exists in society, even if it is in a small country.

This new dispensation will apply from the next general election and must apply before 10 March 2016. Even if we are all alive in 2016, we know for the first time not all of us can be re-elected. We have never gone into an election before where this was the case. Again, I suppose this is only of interest to politicians, however.

Of more interest to me is the question of the number of constituencies recommended. A reduction has been proposed in this legislation but it is so miniscule I do not know why it is there. Maybe it is to facilitate the reduction in Deputies. If we want real political reform, we should be looking at a more radical approach. I realise the Minister is constrained by legislation and a referendum would be needed to go further in reducing the number of Members. However, as we are planning a referendum on the Seanad, why should we have this piecemeal reform? We need to examine fundamental changes in how we implement and administer our democracy. With all that has happened to us, no one believes the multi-seat constituency with all its wasteful competition, its pandering to local and special interests, its clientelism with its need to put short-term interests before long-term considerations has not served us well. Just because the problems have changed, does not mean the system will serve us any better. Real radical reform rather than deciding whether young people should have the vote at 17 should be decided at the constitutional convention.

We should be examining a single-seat model with or without a list system. An electoral system is needed that has a better chance of producing Deputies that can put the broad public national interest before local interest. No matter how loud local or individual groups shout, no matter how worthy their causes may be for local politics, they should not be dictating national politics. Society, as well as the economy and political landscape, have changed. It is increasingly recognised in all areas of life that the old ways are not working and it is time to change to them. It is also time to grasp the nettle of electoral change. While it may be outside the scope of the Bill, with a constitutional convention and a referendum planned on the Seanad, we should be seeking a wider debate on a complete overhaul of the electoral system.

After the next general election, apart from having fewer Deputies and constituencies, we will also have gender quotas for candidates. Smaller numbers will make it more difficult for parties in their individual constituencies to comply with this aspect of the legislation. I have said before that I do not like gender quotas as I believe they demean women. Women levered into the Dáil by virtue of a quota system and, perhaps, supplanting better candidates or individuals who get more votes in selection processes will never command the kind of respect they would get if they were elected on their merits, no matter how deserving they may be, and women tend to be more deserving in general.
Countries which have successfully introduced gender quotas also have list systems. Our approach is shoe-horning gender balance into small constituencies. In my constituency, Dublin South, Fine Gael has three seats out of five. If these were all men, one of the Deputies would have to stand down because otherwise we would have to run five candidates to achieve the quota which would fracture the vote. In Mayo, Fine Gael has four seats. As it is becoming a four-seater, I anticipate with interest how the party will achieve the 30% gender quota unless somebody is driven out of the constituency, which is probably what is planned. In the next election we are going to see many Independent candidates running, candidates from the large political parties who failed to be selected in the normal way through party conventions. The smaller parties will also be badly hit because they will find it extremely difficult to comply with the legislation as many of them will have to run two candidates, split their vote and lessen their chances of getting either elected. Difficulties will arise with gender quotas in multi-seat constituencies, many only with three seats. An unintended consequence of these gender quotas might be that it will produce a much fractured Dáil which is not their intention. While I recognise moving to a single-seat constituency or a list system cannot be effected by legislation, will the Minister examine it in the longer term in the context of the constitutional convention?

I want to make a final plea for the name of Dublin South. As well as butchering my constituency’s boundaries, the name is also to be changed. Rarely does a Dublin constituency’s name have any resonance with its citizens. Rarely does it give its citizens a sense of place or belonging. The name of Dublin South, however, actually does mean something to people. Outside of Dublin, citizens can easily identify with their county as a constituency but this does not happen in Dublin. People know what one is talking about when one refers to the constituency of Waterford. In the rare case when we actually get a sense of identity from the name of an urban constituency, it is a shame to let it go. The new name chosen, Dublin-Rathdown, is utterly meaningless. It does not even identify the location of the constituency. At least the other name-changed constituency, Dublin Bay South, identifies where it is even if it does sound like a television soap opera. Maybe in 20 years time Dublin-Rathdown will mean something to people but now no one in Dublin South wants to lose the name. I know that since the commission was established 20 years or so ago, we have always accepted its recommendations. While I accept the arrangement of the constituencies, I do not think there is any real necessity to slavishly follow the commission’s selection of a name.

I am unsure whether much thought went into it but certainly it is not resonating with the people of Dublin South. They simply do not like it and it is something they are reluctant to relinquish. I am reluctant to table an amendment to this effect but perhaps the Minister could indicate in his reply if he would consider an amendment in his name. I know the people of Dublin South, for as long as we have the name, would welcome it.