Constitutional Referendum on the Number of Members of Dáil Éireann: Motion Seanad Éireann — 2026-03-25 ============================================================ PJ Murphy (FG), Agricultural Panel 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. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-03-25/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:46+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-03-25