Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)

I recently received a document entitled Bunreacht an hEoraip, the Irish translation of the proposed constitution for Europe. This document is still under negotiation yet seeing its title, instead of the more familiar title Bunreacht na hÉireann, brings home how important the European dimension is and how much it impinges on our lives, even if it is an unseen hand. Nonetheless, the work of the European Parliament leaves an indelible mark on Irish society.

Legislation coming from Europe impinges significantly on the way we live our lives. As a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs where I have been involved in the scrutiny of legislation, I have seen at first hand the huge volume of legislation coming from Europe. There are draft directives, draft decisions and Council decisions. The purpose of this Bill is to implement the recommendations of the constituency commission report of 2003, and to give effect to Council decisions of the EU of 25 June and 23 September 2002. The most significant implications of these Council decisions are to establish new categories of office holders who are not eligible for election, and to give effect to the decision that the office of membership of the European Parliament shall be incompatible with that of a member of a national parliament. It is the abolition of the dual mandate with certain derogations for Irish and British MEPs.

One of the most significant changes in European elections for Ireland is that the number of MEPs will be reduced in line with the Nice treaty. The Nice treaty sets out the number of post-accession MEPs at approximately 732, although this may increase to 736. Ireland's representation has dropped from 15 to 12 seats. Britain's number of seats has dropped from 87 to 72, while Spain's representation has been reduced from 64 to 50. These changes have inevitably led to constituency revisions within Ireland so all our citizens will have fair and equal representation in the European Parliament. Most people will consider that the constituency revision is reasonable, with Clare joining the old Connacht-Ulster constituency that now becomes North-West. I agree with Deputy Cuffe when he suggests that north and west might be a more appropriate name for the constituency.

While Clare joining Connacht-Ulster breaches provincial boundaries, it does not breach county boundaries. Provincial boundaries have been breached before vis-À-vis Leinster and Dublin. In this sense, the constituency commission followed its guidelines. However, the same cannot be said for the commission's report on redrawing Dáil constituencies. One of its guidelines was not to breach county boundaries, yet it has done so. It has split County Leitrim in two. With approximately 25,000 residents, Leitrim has the smallest population of any county. The effect of this decision on the morale of the people in County Leitrim is depressing. There is a possibility that the county may not be able to elect a Deputy resident in the county. This is a mortal blow to county pride and to the sense of importance of the county boundary. In the last census, Leitrim showed its first increase in population in more than 100 years.

On the Order of Business, the Taoiseach attempted to make little of this debate. It is as if we are somehow irrelevant and what is said in this Chamber is irrelevant. The Taoiseach said that while some say Clare should be in Leinster, the commission decided Clare should be in Connacht. Where does the Taoiseach think Leitrim should be: half with Sligo, half with Roscommon; a bit here and a bit there? The Taoiseach went on to say that the commission's decision is made and it is a fait accompli. Does the Taoiseach think it is over for Leitrim? Is it a fait accompli? What about the delegation from Leitrim County Council, no doubt containing many Fianna Fáil public representatives, that is seeking a meeting with the Minister or the Taoiseach? Are they aware of the Taoiseach's view that this is done and dusted? Are they aware that the Fianna Fáil submission to the commission recommended the splitting of County Leitrim? Perhaps this is empty rhetoric to satisfy constituents and pretend that some effort is being made while the Taoiseach is washing his hands of it. I have no doubt the Taoiseach will apply the same argument to the general election boundaries.

What the Taoiseach did not say was that while the commission is independent, its hands were tied by the requirement that the minimum number of seats in a constituency is three, and the maximum number is five. Until this is changed, and it must be changed, Leitrim will remain divided. This House has the power to effect this change and recommend the reversion to circumstances where there can be six and seven seat constituencies. The restriction to three, four and five seat constituencies is a relatively recent one. Indeed, this suits the larger parties and militates against smaller parties and independents. Paddy Harte, a former Fine Gael Deputy, made an excellent case in a recent article on this issue in The Irish Times and I fully agree with his views.

I do not share the views expressed by the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuiv. Speaking in Drumshanbo about the decision of the constituency commission, he said that this is what happens when too much power is put in the hands of unelected individuals. What happens when this power is put in the hands of elected individuals? Fianna Fáil's submission recommended that Leitrim be split in two and the constituency commission arrived at the same conclusion. However, Deputy Ó Cuiv tried to suggest that the views of the commission and Fianna Fáil are different. They are not; their views are identical and the people of Leitrim know this.

The introduction of electronic voting is an important issue in the forthcoming European and local elections. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputies Gilmore and Cuffe and the reservations they have about this system. While I understand that we need to adapt to modern technological advances, there must be a back-up system and provision must be made for verification so all citizens can have confidence in the electoral system. The Government has a duty to ensure this is the case. While I agree that electronic voting is the correct measure to take, all back-up measures must be put in place before the system comes into operation. I agree with Deputy Gilmore that the Government is about to spend a large sum of money on a PR campaign to sell electronic voting before the statutory instruments are in place.

If in the run-up to the local elections and the European election, Ministers and members of Government come to the fore in this PR campaign just as they did before the general election, it will be nothing short of an abuse of taxpayers' money.

See this speech in context