Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Where there is a will, there is a way but it is no way for the Legislature to run its business. I do not care where that criticism falls, whether it is on the Government side or on any of the groups.

I have a couple of observations on the proposed changes to the constituencies. I speak as someone who sought election in the Midlands North West constituency in 2014. It received 36,000 votes, enough to maintain my amour propre but a few votes short of a quota. There is a perception out there of a democratic deficit between the voters and our MEPs, despite the hard work, no doubt, of our MEPs. The vast size of the Midlands North West and South constituencies, particularly in contrast with the relatively confined geography of Dublin is a contributory factor to this perception. As a result of the boundary changes proposed by the Constituency Commission, Laois and Offaly are transferred into Ireland South. I refer, for example, to the towns of Clara and Edenderry, both in County Offaly. Voters in these communities live north of the Galway-Dublin railway line yet they are now to be told with a straight face that they are in the south of the country. This is news which will be greeted with a hoot of derision in those towns. Worse still, of the four sitting MEPs in Ireland South, one is based in Cork city, two others in west Cork and the fourth is in Kerry. This geographical spread is unlikely to change significantly in the upcoming elections. If I am correct, how can voters in Laois and Offaly feel that they have any buy-in to decision-making in Europe if they are represented by MEPs who are based so far away from them?

Previous Constituency Commissions and the larger political parties have made the point that moving areas from one constituency to another with which people have little geographic affinity leads to a disconnect and a reduction in voter turnout in those areas. I am thinking not so much of Kilkenny or Waterford but particular parts of Tipperary and Kildare which found themselves in Offaly and Laois, respectively, in recent general elections. Turnout fell in the areas that were moved because people felt that their votes did not count. This factor is surely pushing down turnout in European Parliament elections as well and I fear that it will do so again this year.

The size of the constituencies was perhaps defensible in a scenario where the number of MEPS had been reduced to 11 but surely not now that the number has been increased to 13 once again, which is the same number as in 2004. The fairest way of dealing with this would have been to return to the constituencies we had in 2004, namely, a four-seat Dublin constituency and three seat-constituencies roughly comprising the provinces of Leinster, Munster and Connaught-Ulster. Adding a constituency in this way would dramatically reduce the size of the constituencies overall and reduce the geographical disconnect I mentioned.

The terms of reference given to the Constituency Commission would have allowed this configuration. The commission specifically mentions in its report that the division of the country outside Dublin into three-seat constituencies was something that it could have recommended and stated, "All of the options that were considered by the committee achieved reasonable equality of representation and all arrangements were configured so that no breaches of county boundaries occurred." However, it went on to say, not once but twice, "The committee considered that the continuation of a three constituency arrangement would be most in keeping with its terms of reference." The commission felt that it was being corralled into maintaining the existing configuration of constituencies. Clearly this is a reference to the final line of the terms of reference which states, "Subject to the above provisions, the committee shall endeavour to maintain continuity in relation to the arrangement of constituencies." Reading between the lines, the commission must have felt itself hamstrung by this proviso, and that it could not propose a more radical and sensible reshaping of the constituencies as a result. It is also an open secret in these Houses that the incumbent MEPs from Fine Gael lobbied their party to maintain the status quo. This is probably because if three-seat constituencies had been created along provincial lines, as in returning to the 2004 boundaries, then two of the Fine Gael MEPs, one in Cork and one in Kerry, would almost certainly have had to face off against each other. The commission, it seems, was able to read the mood music both from its terms of reference and in submissions from the Fine Gael Party. It states in the report twice that it was not inclined to pursue this option, even though it acknowledged that it was possible in terms of population spread and the terms of reference. It may be a good outcome for Fine Gael, but it is a poor outcome for voters in many areas of these vast constituencies who will feel disenfranchised and disconnected from the EU election process as a result.

Why was the commission hamstrung by its terms of reference, confining it to three, four, and five-seat constituencies? Is it not the case that this could be permanently addressed by electing a full slate by some kind of list system with a mix of voting for parties and individuals? This is done in many member states. It ensures that parties with large mandates have good representation but it also ensures that small parties and independents are protected. It is a pity that the terms of reference did not allow consideration of that issue. I would be interested in the Minister of State's opinion on the matter. It would be much fairer, would not disadvantage anybody and would bring us together. One can understand in the context of the Dáil and so on, how local representation is so key, but given that it is impossible in constituencies of this size should we not just say that it is an opportunity to elect 13 MEPs as a country.