The claim by Labour and some Independents that the Constitution requires each constituency to have no more than one TD per 30,000 voters is wrong. Article 16.2.2 states the Dáil as a unit must not have more than one TD per 30,000 voters. The new census shows that that is still the case, with the ratio only 1:25,512. The only requirement as to specific ratio in constituencies is in Article 16.2.3, which requires an even split per constituency. Even then, it contains the legal opt-out clause, "so far as it is practicable", writes Jim Duffy
It is this requirement, clarified in a High Court case, which has been breached. But the odds on the courts nullifying an election are slim. Irish courts are notoriously reluctant to intervene, and would only do so if it was practicable. The Government could reasonably argue that it would not be practicable, with only a year to the end of a term, to redraw all the constituencies. One qualification is that the Constitution allows the Dáil term to run to seven years. Courts theoretically could argue that the statute law five-year term could have been extended in these special circumstances to allow a full review. But it is unlikely.
Ironically, for a Government largely on the ropes at this stage, the whole issue could offer them a populist angle to seize on. Many in the public and the media claim that Ireland has too many TDs. The Government could always propose a referendum to change the constitutional ratio, or at least to stop the Dáil getting any bigger, which on population trends right now would seem inevitable.
At first glance, the "too many TDs" argument has some merit. Ireland has 166 TDs for four million people; Belgium 150 MPs for 10 million; the Netherlands has 150 MPs for 16 million; and the United Kingdom 646 for 59 million. The argument has, however, one fundamental flaw: parliament size is not based on population.
The key issues are actually: what size does a country's parliament have to be to do its job? Is the state unitary, federal or have devolution? What size is the government? Federal and devolved states, with many powers delegated to the regions, can have smaller national parliaments than unitary states like Ireland.
Cabinet size is crucial. Whether a country has five million or 50 million citizens, it will have a finance minister, a health minister, a justice minister, etc. In any reasonably populated state, it is no longer physically possible for ministers to combine numerous ministries. Where once Ireland had a minister for local government and public health, that role is now broken in three: social and family affairs; environment; and health. No one person could do all three jobs now. It requires a 15-hour day to do one.
Cabinets need to be large (though Ireland's at 15 maximum is not large by international standards) not merely because of the number of departments, but also to ensure decisions are taken by a broad-based, representative cabinet, one with a mix based on gender, geography, urban and rural areas, age and experience. The smaller the cabinet, the less broad it will be. Practically all countries use a junior ministerial rank also to allow new people to be tested, to balance out any regional and political imbalances at cabinet level, and other issues.
General experience shows that, at best, only one in every two parliamentarians is available for posts. A range of reasons keep others out: health, financial or business interests, or as Jim Mitchell and Charlie McCreevy found out with John Bruton and Charlie Haughey, personality clashes. Then there is the Irish electorate, which regularly, as Jim O'Higgins found out against Michael Ring, prefer local clientelist TDs to people of ministerial ability, limiting the range of people available to the taoiseach.
Ireland's government (senior and junior) runs to 32 jobs, relatively small by some international levels. But parliaments also have committee systems to run. So the talent bank needs to be at least 40. And on the 1:2 ratio that means a parliamentary party of at least 80. As the government parliamentary party at a minimum (when a minority government) will be around half the Dáil, than means a Dáil in the 160s, which we have. (In the 1960s, Seán Lemass said he struggled to fill the posts from the then 144-seat Dáil.)
The centrality of parliament size, not popular ratios, is shown by looking at the ratios other countries have. The larger the state, the bigger the gap between MP and people, because the required size is spread among a bigger population. Spain (40 million) has one member for every 114,000 people. The Netherlands (16 million) has a ratio of 1:106,000. Britain (59 million) has 1:91,000. Croatia, like the Republic with four million people, has a ratio similar to ours, 1:26,000.
In Ireland's case, we decided the size of the parliament we needed, then created a formula to explain it in the Constitution.
Proposing to limit Dáil size might be a great populist stunt for the Government. With Fianna Fáil stuck in the mid-30s, and an election beckoning, it might gain it some populist kudos. It would be unwise, but still tempting. Just how tempting we may know very soon.