European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill 2003: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Gallagher)

This Bill is short and proposes to implement the recommendations of the 2003 constituency commission report on changes to the European Parliament constituencies and to give effect to the European Union Council decision of 25 June and 23 September 2002 concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament. I appreciate the House agreeing to discuss the Bill today and hopefully next week as it is necessary for it to be enacted as early as possible for this country to adopt the EU decision. There is an EU legal requirement for its adoption two months before the effective date for enlargement of the Community on 1 May 2004. There is also a need to give legal certainty to the European Parliament constituencies before candidates and political parties commence serious campaigning for the June polls.

The Bill has six sections. Section 1 defines the European Parliament Elections Act 1997 to which I shall refer as the 1997 Act. Sections 2, 3 and 5 amend the 1997 Act to implement certain provisions of the European Council decision of 25 June and 23 September 2002. The 2002 Council decision updated a 1976 Act of the European Community concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage.

Most of the changes made in the Council decision are textual and are already provided for in Irish legislation. The four changes requiring transposition into Irish law are the specification of new categories of office holders who are not eligible for election to the European Parliament, namely, a member of the board of directors of the European Central Bank, the Ombudsman of the European Communities, a member of the court of first instance or an official of the European Central Bank, and the ending of a dual mandate for a person who is a member of either House of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament.

The Council decision provides for a derogation for a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas, who is elected to the European Parliament in June 2004, until the next general election to the Houses of the Oireachtas, when he or she will no longer be permitted to hold the two offices; a requirement that the results of the European elections may not be announced officially until the close of polling in the member state whose electors are the last to vote; and any reference in the 1997 Act and in other domestic legislation to a representative in the European Parliament should be construed as a reference to a member of the European Parliament.

I would like to briefly set out the background to the European Union Council decision of June and September 2002. The European Treaty provided for a uniform electoral procedure to the European Parliament from the first direct elections in 1979. While the Parliament actively sought the introduction of such a procedure, unanimity was never forthcoming at Council level, mainly because of one member state's desire to maintain its first-past-the-post electoral system. Two developments in 1998 gave renewed impetus to harmonising the electoral procedure for European elections. First, the Amsterdam treaty relaxed the strict uniformity requirement — Article 138(3) of the treaty reads as follows:

The European Parliament shall draw up a proposal for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member States.

Second, the UK legislation was amended to provide for a non-preferential PR-list system for European elections. Some form of a list system of proportional representation was used throughout the European Union in the 1999 European elections, except for Ireland and Northern Ireland.

The Amsterdam treaty also authorised the European Parliament to draw up a proposal for a common procedure or common principles for European elections to supersede the 1976 Council Act on Direct Elections. In anticipation of the coming into force of the Amsterdam treaty, the European Parliament in July 1998 passed a resolution incorporating a draft act to implement the revised Article 138(3). The draft act was discussed from 1998 to 2002 in the General Affairs Council of Ministers. There were some contentious points in the draft act such as a proposal that a list system of proportional representation must be used. There was no problem with specifying PR in the act as it is a "principle common to all member states". However, there was a difficulty with the article specifying that a list system of PR be used. The Irish PR-STV system is not a list system within the normal continental meaning of the expression so we secured a change to this article to accommodate our electoral system. It was agreed to refer in the article to "list system or PR-STV system". This text provides for retention of our current electoral system, while allowing for an alternative, if such is decided in the future.

It was also proposed that the office of MEP shall be incompatible with the office of member of a national parliament. This proposal represented a complete change in policy as a dual mandate had previously been specifically provided for. In this regard the explanatory statement which accompanied the European Parliament's report of 2 June 1998 stated:

However, the development of Parliament's powers and responsibilities makes it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for the Members to hold some other Office at the same time. In these circumstances, given the way in which the European Parliament's powers have evolved since 1976, it would now be appropriate to make the Office of MEP incompatible with that of Member of a national parliament.

Article 5 of the Council Act of 1976 permitted members of the European Parliament who are members of a national parliament to exercise a dual mandate.

While 13 of the 15 Irish MEPs elected in 1979 exercised a dual mandate, only four of the 15 MEPs elected in 1994 had dual membership. Following the 1997 general election, no Irish MEP had a dual mandate. While two dual mandated MEPs were elected in Ireland in 1999, no Irish MEP currently holds a dual mandate.

In recent years, there has been a tendency for members of the Irish Parliament elected to the European Parliament to opt for one or other mandate at the subsequent general election. There has also been a progressive reduction in the number of national representatives exercising the dual mandate. In practice, therefore, the exercise of the dual mandate in Ireland has become limited in time and in number.

The previous Government negotiated a limited derogation to the elimination of the dual mandate. The Government has now decided that the limited derogation will apply on a once-off basis at the June 2004 elections. The ban on the dual mandate will fully apply from the next general election.

Following the publication of the 2002 census of population figures in July 2002, a constituency commission was established under Part II of the Electoral Act 1997 to make a report on the constituencies for the election of members to the Dáil and to the European Parliament. To facilitate the holding of the European elections next June, the commission dealt with European elections first and submitted its report on the European constituencies last October. As Members are aware, the commission furnished its report on Dáil constituencies recently and the consequential legislation will be before the House for debate later this year.

Three commissions have dealt with European constituencies in reports published in 1977, 1993 and 1998 respectively. The 1977 commission recommended that Ireland's representation of 15 MEPs be distributed as follows: Connacht-Ulster — three seats; Dublin — four seats; Leinster — three seats and Munster — five seats. The 1993 commission recommended the transfer of a seat from Munster to the Leinster constituency, while the 1998 commission in its report did not recommend any change in the formation of the four constituencies or in the number of members to be elected in them.

There has, therefore, been no change in the constituencies or the number of members elected from them since the European Parliament elections in 1994. However, the Protocol on the Enlargement of the European Union and the Declaration on the Enlargement of the European Union in the Treaty of Nice provide that, in a European Union of 27 member states, Ireland will elect 12 MEPs. The protocol made provision for the possibility that there might be fewer than 27 member states in the European Union in 2004 and allowed for a pro rata distribution of unallocated seats. As neither Bulgaria nor Romania will accede to the European Union in time for the 2004 European Parliament elections, it was decided to allocate their seats to the current member states and those candidate states that will accede in May 2004.

The European Council in Copenhagen in December 2002 confirmed that Ireland will elect 13 MEPs in the 2004 European Parliament elections. The formal legal basis for this level of representation is the Accession Treaty signed on 16 April 2003. Ireland's representation in the European Parliament will be, therefore, reduced from its present level of 15 seats to 13 seats at the forthcoming elections.

Apart from the limitation to 13 seats thecommission's terms of reference for theEuropean constituencies were as follows: there shall be reasonable equality of representation as between constituencies; each constituency shall return three, four or five members; the breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as practicable; each constituency shall be composed of contiguous areas; there shall be regard to geographic considerations including significant physical features and the extent of and the density of population in each constituency; and subject to the above provisions, the commission shall endeavour to maintain continuity in relation to the arrangement of constituencies. The commission's role is advisory. The final determination of the constituencies for the European Parliament is a matter for the Oireachtas to prescribe in legislation. The Government accepted the commission's recommendations on the European Parliament constituencies.

Section 4 implements the recommendations of the constituency commission in relation to the European Parliament constituencies. The changes involve the reduction of two in Irish representation from the 2004 elections — a reduction of one seat in each of the Leinster and Munster constituencies. County Clare is transferred from the Munster constituency to the Connacht-Ulster constituency. No changes are made in the formation or number of Members to be elected in the Dublin constituency. The names of the three other constituencies are changed to East, North-West and South.

Elections in Ireland to the European Parliament are governed by the European Parliament Elections Acts 1992 to 2002, which provide for elections on the single transferable vote system in multi-Member constituencies. The provision concerning the revision of constituencies is set out in section 15(2) of the European Parliament Elections Act 1997, which states:

The Minister shall, having considered any report presented on statutory authority to each House of the Oireachtas recommending any alteration in the constituencies for which candidates shall be elected to the Parliament, and not later than the first day of December 2003 and at least once in every ten years thereafter, submit to the Oireachtas proposals for a review of the said constituencies.

Even if there is no major change in population before the 2009 elections, the European constituencies will require revision if Romania and Bulgaria join the European Union. In such circumstances, Irish representation will be reduced to 12 Members.

Section 6 of the Bill is a standard provision setting out the Short Title, collective citation and constitution of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Bannon

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. As he said, the purpose of the Bill is to implement the recommendations of the 2003 constituency commission report, which follows the reports of three previous commissions in 1993, 1997 and 1998. The previous reports did not recommend any change to the four constituencies or the numbers to be elected, so this report brings about the first changes since the European elections of 1994.

With my colleagues in Fine Gael, I support the Bill while at the same time regretting the reduction of seats, which hopefully will not be detrimental to future EU funding for this country. That is something I would fear as Europe moves further to the east through enlargement.

The Bill will give effect to the recommendations of the constituency commission regarding European Parliament constituencies that Ireland should have a reduction of two representatives from the 2004 elections, including a reduction of one seat each in the Leinster — that is my area — and Munster constituencies. I have spoken in the House before about the importance of our membership of the EU and the need to foster a sense of pride in that membership among young people in particular. The European Parliament and European affairs generally are not considered important by the public, but they should be. This is evidenced by the turnout for past European elections but, hopefully, there will be an improvement this time around.

The average person in the street might be stuck for an answer if asked what the EU means to him or her. Many people feel that decisions taken in Europe are far removed from them so better PR is required to explain to the electorate what is happening in Europe. Successive Governments have failed to create a greater interest among people about what happens in Europe, including the decisions taken there. A European affairs channel should be introduced on Irish television to encourage increased participation in Europe by providing more information about what happens at the hub of European development.

Our membership of the European Union has brought untold benefits but for many people the only tangible evidence of these are the large blue signs erected when roadworks are being undertaken to indicate that such projects are EU-funded. Our citizens are unaware of the many EU directives that have altered and improved their lives. For those directly affected, either in the farming or commercial sectors, these directives may at times appear unduly punitive, but the benefits are far reaching for all of us.

It is imperative that local authorities promote the role of Europe. In addition, schools and education authorities should make a special effort during the coming months to involve their students actively in being members of Europe. It is important for our future to recognise that our strength lies in being part of Europe. Fine Gael is totally committed to Europe and is aligned to the strongest grouping in the European Parliament. Fine Gael leaders, including the current leader, Deputy Kenny, are recognised within the European People's Party. I am delighted to see that Dublin Bus is doing its best to create an interest in our Presidency of the EU, with buses that are strikingly decorated to reflect this theme.

Apart from the recommendations of the commission report on European constituencies and Members, the Bill makes a number of other changes, one of the most controversial of which concerns proposals on the dual mandate. The Minister of State spoke about that matter earlier. What logic is involved, however, when this Bill, which is totally contrary to legislation ending the dual mandate at local level, will allow a Member of the Oireachtas who is elected to the European Parliament to continue to hold both seats until the next general election? This measure is hypocritical and represents the first signs of cracks developing in the Government's position. It reflects a lack of confidence within the Government, which is afraid of losing a by-election that would otherwise arise as a result of a Deputy being elected to the European Parliament. Given the Government's current performance, it undoubtedly would lose such a by-election.

I understand that the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the man in the gilded carriage, is also running in the elections for Dublin City Council and the European Parliament. That is a total contradiction when one considers who is the national director of elections for Fianna Fáil. In the interests of logic and consistency, it is imperative that the same dual mandate rules are applied to MEPs as are imposed on members of local authorities, and within the same timescale. We need some consistency in this area.

Controversy has arisen over the introduction of electronic voting, which was debated extensively here yesterday. The Opposition consensus is that the system should not be used across the board in the June elections. In fact, electronic voting should not be used until every last vestige of doubt relating to its transparency has been removed. As this would be the first time electronic voting has been used in this country for a European election, it is important that the process is seen to be totally transparent and beyond manipulation.

What view will the European Commission take of the fact that this election is being conducted in a manner that is not acceptable to all those involved in the democratic process? What will it make of the fact that the Minister with overall responsibility for the change is the main Government party's director of local and European elections? Are we living in a democracy, which should be consensus driven, or is this country now to be designated as an autocracy or dictatorship? These issues must be considered.

Aside from matters that can be regarded as wheels within wheels, concerning areas that overlap into other legislative decisions, the Bill is, in essence, non-contentious. Nonetheless, the Minister of State should reconsider the dual mandate issue, which is both wrong and unfair. We need to move forward fairly, rather than in the unfair manner proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Kitt

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, to the House. I also welcome the Bill. It is fitting that the Minister of State is introducing the Bill here as he has served in the European Parliament, having been directly elected twice to that body for the constituency of Connacht-Ulster. When the former Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, appeared before the House recently, I asked him how he thought the European constituencies might be revised. I had proposed 13 single-seat constituencies, and he thought that perhaps two-seat constituencies would be the best on offer. However, an amendment was tabled in the Dáil within the past few days proposing 13 seats based on the whole country, as happens elsewhere. The arrangement is fairly satisfactory regarding those constituencies. The Bill's purpose is really to give effect to the changes in the constituencies and the Council decisions of 25 June and 23 December 2002 concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament. As the Minister said in his address, in 1997 the Constituency Commission had various names for those constituencies such as Dublin, Leinster and Munster, the last of which included Clare at that time, and Connacht-Ulster, which did not include Clare. The new names are now Dublin, East, South, and North-West.

I am not sure I agree that adding the name "Clare" to Connacht-Ulster would be a major problem. I have heard and read that undue prominence may be given to a single county in the context of a much larger European constituency, but we should not worry about that and instead give Clare its day in the sun. We can take an example from the GAA, which is very good at naming clubs after saints. If they do not find the name of a saint, often they put the names of some of the townlands or villages in their parish together. Tipperary is particularly good at having long names. However, we will probably have to go with "North-West", as it has now been agreed. I understand that Leinster is the same, apart from Dublin, which is a separate constituency. However, it is very difficult to have those rigid demarcations. I notice that part of the East constituency will be south of the South constituency; there are some inconsistencies there. However, as the Minister said, we may have to re-examine this issue after 2004, and when the census takes place in 2006. He has said that if other countries join the European Union, we may see a reduction in the number of our European seats to 12. We may have not only to revise the constituencies but rename them, and I look forward to the outcome of that.

The Minister said quite rightly that there are issues in section 2 of this Bill regarding the disqualification of persons who are ineligible to be candidates. We know the existing regulations which apply to membership of the Dáil or people who are citizens of another member state — nationals of a member state other than Ireland or the UK who were deprived through an individual criminal law decision of the right to be a candidate. The Minister has inserted new disqualifications into this Bill regarding a member of the European Court of Justice, a member of the board of directors of the European Central Bank, the Ombudsman of the European Communities and an official of the European Central Bank.

I would like to raise again with the Minister the question of the dual mandate, about which Senator Bannon spoke. The Government has allowed a derogation on this issue, and it has now decided that it will be a once-off derogation for this year's elections only. From the next general election, any dual mandate involving both Parliaments will be ended. This is not currently a major issue. In practice, the exercise of the dual mandate in Ireland has become limited in time and number. The Minister said that in 1994 four Members of the Irish Parliament were elected to the European Parliament. In the 1999 European elections, only two dual-mandate MEPs were elected. This follows on from issues we have discussed in thisHouse regarding the dual mandate for Members of the Oireachtas and members of local authorities.

Senator Bannon also raised the issue of by-elections. Unlike many other Parliaments, all vacancies in the Dáil are filled by by-election. If we were to change that system, we would have to amend the Constitution. It is interesting that the last time a Government won a by-election was 1982, in my own constituency of Galway East. There can be difficulties. No Government has won such a by-election since. However, by-elections can have significant destabilising effects on the country, for example, where a minority Government is in power. That could certainly have adverse consequences for the political system. We all know the situation here in 1981 and 1982, when we had three general elections within 18 months.

One of the questions I considered when I read this Bill was the counting of votes. In my experience of being a candidate on two occasions — that of the Minister is even greater — there is a delay in getting results from the count centres. Five years ago we had all the local authority results available but had to wait several days for the result of the count for the European election in what was then Connacht-Ulster. Obviously, electronic voting should expedite the result but I notice from some of the information I received that the count will not start until the Sunday after the Friday election. I hope that we can start early on the Sunday if we must wait until then.

There is an issue of waiting until all countries have their voting completed throughout Europe. Perhaps the Minister might respond to this. I do not think we have complete information on what other countries are doing. Of course, they have different voting systems. It is important that we get results as quickly as possible, even if we get them unofficially, as it will allow us to let people know the position. I understand that, similar to what we discussed here yesterday regarding electronic voting and counting, each result will be shown count by count as the results become available. I ask that we try to get those results as quickly as possible, particularly for the candidates, in order that they need not wait so long to hear their fate.

I certainly welcome this Bill and it is important that all the provisions we discussed are put in place. As I did yesterday, I extend my best wishes to all the candidates taking part in the European Parliament elections.

Mr. Brady

I welcome the Minister back to the House to debate this relatively technical Bill. While it is not lengthy, it covers some important areas. As the Minister has said, there are several provisions to implement the Constituency Commission's recommendations on changes and to give effect to European Council decisions on the election of members of parliaments. However, there are also other provisions regarding new categories of officeholders who will not be eligible to be Members of the European Parliament. Senator Kitt has gone through them. It increases the list of people considered not eligible from seven to 11. It does not really have any effect at the moment, but it could do so in future and it is important that those areas be regulated.

Senators have spoken about the ending of the dual mandate, which I welcome. It is being implemented well in the sense that it will take effect from the next general election. As was pointed out, under the system we operate in this country, some Governments can have a small majority and, in some cases, there can be a minority Government. If an election takes place and a Member must give up his or her seat, it can have a destabilising effect on Government. This avoids that possibility in the future. The number of dual mandate holders has dropped dramatically. In 1979, 13 of the 15 Members were dual mandate holders and it is now down to two. There were none in the previous Government. This legislation will solidify that position. It has been decided that the derogation negotiated by the Government will not be utilised until after the next election. The reasons for that are clear and Senator Kitt referred to them.

On the timing of the results following an election, it is essential that when we become part of a 25 member Community on 1 May, a condition is put on results coming out that the last member state to vote should have the same coverage at the first member state to vote. Counting is to commence between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. on Sunday, 13 June, following the election on 11 June. Depending on the number of votes cast, the first count should be available by approximately 9 p.m. While it may not be comfortable for some of the candidates involved, given that some of the other member states will only finish voting at that stage, it is a good idea.

The renaming of the constituencies is a small matter. The constituencies are Dublin, East, South and North-West. They are much clearer and more defined. The fact that the position of Clare has been clarified is in everybody's interest. Depending on the census which will take place in 2006, the naming of constituencies and the boundaries may have to be revisited, depending on the results of that census and the population changes. Dublin has not really changed as a result of the constituency commission's report but it may have to change in the future. As we know, urban areas are spreading further outside the county boundaries. With people commuting and smaller towns becoming overpopulated in some cases, the changes will have to be looked at again in the future.

We had a good discussion on electronic voting yesterday. It is essential we are not seen to be led by other countries, particularly in regard to the European Parliament elections. We gave all the reasons electronic voting will be good for Ireland and for us in the wider European Community. In terms of the timing of elections, the count and the timing of the announcement of results, it will extremely beneficial to us in June. Having attended meetings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government on electronic voting, the majority of questions raised were answered. This morning the Leader said the question of the legalities is being discussed with the Attorney General and it will be clarified. The majority of the queries raised have been answered. As was pointed out in the debate yesterday, the system will be subject to review as it is rolled out. Since that undertaking has been given, we can be comfortable that the security measures taken and the technology used will be adequate as it has been tested and tried in other places. It can only benefit our electoral system.

I welcome the Bill and wish the Minister of State well with it. I am sure there will not be many amendments on the other Stages.

Mr. Ryan

I do not want to say too much. We had a thorough debate yesterday on the electronic voting aspect of this election. It is a pity the Government insists on saying that everybody who criticises what it is doing is an opponent of electronic voting. I am quite the opposite. I am also computer literate, and I am sure many Members are as computer literate as me. The one thing I know is that computers fail just as biros fail and cars break down. I am an engineer and one of the things about which I have learned to be sceptical is any assurance based on an absolute assurance. There was a time when we were told nuclear power stations could not go wrong, but we found out differently. The banks spent years telling us ATMs could not make mistakes. It took huge efforts by courageous individuals in this country and in the United Kingdom to illustrate that fact. The banks were happy to libel people and to say they were lying when they said the money they were supposed to have taken out was different from the money actually taken out.

We are in an extraordinarily difficult situation when there is a fundamental change in the system of the counting of votes being imposed by a Government which is unwilling to take the steps necessary to reassure the Opposition parties. It is quite extraordinary and the Government should think about it because it is creating dangerous precedents about the fundamental ways we do our business. It can still do something about it. Questions have been asked but it has not answered them. They are questions which make sense to anybody who knows more about computing than just switching a computer on and off. Issues which arise include power failures and the back ups for power failures and whether they work. There is a series of questions which I do not have to be a computer genius to recognise because we have all run into problems. I use computer software all the time which people would say is foolproof, but it goes wrong. I use computers which we are told are foolproof, but they go wrong. We need to know why all of the concerns about electronic voting will not be addressed. I am tired of people saying I am to trust them because they know what they are doing.

I have often spoken in this House about a favoured phrase of mine — the tyranny of experts. The late Lieutenant General M. J. Costello said to so-called experts that if they could not explain something to him — he was a reasonably intelligent man — they were not experts. Experts can explain what is going on. A succession of questions have been asked about the system which people cannot or will not answer. I must question the expertise of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and his Department in light of the circumstances in which I received, as I did last week, the revised register for part of the constituency in which I live. The register was accompanied by a letter from my county council informing me that I must fill in two forms if I want to make changes and clipped to this was a thin slip stating that the Department had not supplied the council with the necessary forms and these would be forwarded to me once they had been received. Why should I believe that a Department, which is unable to issue to county councils the statutorily required form enabling one to seek changes to the electoral register on time, has available to it sufficient internal or external expertise to allow the rest of us to have confidence in its ability to do a good job?

I am not a Luddite. On the contrary, I believe we are still profoundly primitive in terms of much of what we insist on doing by paper. We could extend electronic systems to many more areas and are not nearly as far advanced as we pretend to be. How could we be given the current level of broadband penetration? We are extraordinarily slow in using electronic means in areas where their use becomes feasible. For years, I have observed Senator Quinn trying to persuade Departments to accept electronic publication of documents.

Despite being so slow in this regard, I am expected to accept this sudden leap. Those of us who argue for a pause because we need to be reassured that the system is reliable and not capable of manipulation or error are told we are Luddites. The opposite is true in my case — I like technology, use it and approve of its extensive introduction. With regard to electronic voting this is not the issue. The issue is trust and the reason I do not have absolute trust in technology is that such certainty is not possible. Incinerators and computers break down and as a member of an opposition party, I am entitled to participate in a process which creates trust. This is the problem.

I am rarely approached by constituents in the National University of Ireland but I have been approached by technically qualified people who are extremely suspicious of the introduction of electronic voting. I am not suspicious and do not attribute malicious motives to its introduction. My belief is that the Minister is in a hurry to prove he is high-tech and has, therefore, decided to ignore the Luddites. This is a fundamentally wrong political decision. The people who approached me, who know far more about this issue than I do, have voiced suspicions about electronic voting and distrust its introduction. I echo their view that its introduction is wrong.

I have done some quick sums on the dual mandate. I am my party's candidate in Ireland South, a peculiar constituency which covers Munster with the exception of County Clare, which is a strange contradiction but one with which we will have to live.

Mr. Daly

There is nothing wrong with that. County Clare was in the Connacht constituency previously so I fail to see what the Senator finds strange about it.

Mr. Ryan

I will cease to be a Member of the House if I am elected to the European Parliament.

Mr. Daly

The Senator will be here for a long while yet.

Mr. Ryan

We miss County Clare, particularly its music and hurling, and we may even miss Senator Daly.

Mr. Daly

The Senator is speaking nonsense.

Mr. Ryan

I would cease to be a Member of the House if elected to the European Parliament because membership of this House is irreconcilable with the job of MEP.

Dr. Mansergh

We would not want to lose the Senator.

Mr. Bannon

He keeps Senator Mansergh under control.

Mr. Ryan

I am sure Senator Mansergh would not want to lose me as he would have nobody to provoke him. The Government parties will probably have two Deputies running in Leinster, two in Connacht-Ulster and one elsewhere. If they are successful, the Government will conveniently postpone five by-elections until after the next general election. The derogation in the legislation, included for the convenience of the Government parties, serves the European Parliament badly because it does not state that doing the job of a Member of the European Parliament requires that one cannot be in two places. Either a Member of both the Oireachtas and the European Parliament will not be in a position to provide a proper service for his or her constituents and carry out his or her job as a legislator in this House, or he or she will not do his or her job as a Member of the European Parliament.

It is time we moved on by removing from the legislation the derogation negotiated in respect of the dual mandate. It is ridiculous that one is not permitted to be a member of a local authority and a Member of the Oireachtas simultaneously, but one may continue to be a Member of the Oireachtas and of the European Parliament simultaneously. That decision smacks of Government hypocrisy and I again invite the Minister to amend the legislation to provide that as of the next election, elected Members of the European Parliament must immediately resign their membership of the Oireachtas and by-elections will be held.

The public at large, commentators and others underestimate the significance of the European Parliament, including the role of co-decision in the legislative process and the need for a different kind of assembly such as the European Parliament to have people who are attentive to the detail of legislation given that one of its major roles is to co-determine EU legislation. This cannot be done by part-time Members. The job of Members of the Oireachtas cannot be done by people who are in the House half of the time and in Brussels or Strasbourg for the rest of their time, particularly given the functioning of the committee system. It offends both Parliaments to allow the dual mandate to persist until the next general election. It is a pity to observe a fundamental element of democracy, namely, the requirement to make authority accountable, being diluted in the Oireachtas and the European Parliament simply to suit the convenience of the Government.

Mr. Brennan

I wish to share time with Senator Daly.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Brennan

I welcome the legislation and compliment the Minister of State on his address and his statement on electronic voting yesterday, an issue which has been raised in this debate. He answered many of the questions raised by Senators yesterday. In welcoming the legislation, I pay tribute to the MEPs who have served the country well during the current term of the European Parliament. It is important that as Members of the Oireachtas we do everything in our power to get people out to vote in the next European elections, which will have implications for the country.

I welcome the registration of voters and the decision to allow non-nationals to vote in local and European elections. Much has been said about the dual mandate. Will the Minister of State clarify whether people have a right to stand in all elections, whether local, national or European? Do the same eligibility criteria apply across member states? Are members of local authorities eligible to stand for election either as a Member of the European Parliament or as a substitute? If so, would a member of a local authority elected to the European Parliament be allowed to occupy both positions for five years? The prohibition on Members of the Oireachtas standing for election to local authorities raises doubts about whether one has an equal right to stand for election. Are some people more equal than others in that it is possible for members of local authorities to stand for election to the European Parliament but not possible for Members of the Oireachtas to stand for election to local authorities? I welcome the introduction of electronic voting for the forthcoming elections and wish it every success.

Mr. Daly

I thank Senator Brennan for sharing time. I welcome the Minister of State and pay tribute to his work as an MEP for a number of years and the contribution he made to the development of the EU at a critical time, in particular in the west of Ireland. I expect nothing less from him because he and I were apprentices in the Department of the Marine for a while. I am fully aware of the energy and dedication of the Minister of State and I wish him well in his work.

I cannot display the same level of welcome for the legislation even though I will support it. I hope this will be the last time there will ever be the configuration of constituencies that is in this legislation. There should be a uniform system throughout the EU for electing members, whether that be by way of single seat constituencies, a combination of single seats with a list system or some configuration which would avoid the kind of situation that pertains in the constituency to which I belong.

That constituency extends from Loop Head in west Clare to Malin Head. The last time I made that journey was during the by-election in Donegal and it took about six and a half or seven hours. I do not believe this is how constituencies should be arranged. There should be single or twin seat constituencies of a size that allows representatives to cover the area and be familiar with the people and the issues involved. The current system does not provide the best representation and in my view, is the reason there has been such a poor turnout in European elections over the last number of years, a turnout that is falling consistently since Ireland joined the European Community.

County Clare was originally in the Connacht constituency and was subsequently put in with Munster. As a result of the link between the mid-west and the impact of the Limerick-Shannon area, Clare was taken out of the BMW region and now that it is back in the Connacht constituency, it has a very good case. I have been making some representations to the Minister of State to examine the possibility of Clare coming back into the BMW region for grant aid and assistance as was the case when Ireland joined the European Community.

I did not make representations to the last commission about the constituency boundaries because it was pointed out to me when I made previous representations that a legislative change was required in order for the commission to examine the possibility of single seat and twin seat constituencies as well as three, four and five seater configurations. I urge the Minister of State to use his best offices to convince his colleagues of its desirability. There should be all-party agreement on this matter and I believe many members of the other parties agree with my views. Manageable constituencies should be created so that representatives could identify with local needs. At present if I wish to make representations I may have to travel as far as Donegal to meet an MEP. In my view, this is totally unnecessary because the system can be changed.

I support the Bill but I hope it will be the last time the House will see a piece of legislation such as this. I ask the Minister of State to use his influence with his colleagues to change the Electoral Act to enable the commission to examine twin seat or single seat constituencies or perhaps a list system. This would allow Ireland to conform with the practice in Europe. The least we can have is a uniform system of elections throughout Europe to the European Parliament. The system in Ireland is crazy. We should be in line with other members states. A common system of elections would give a good idea of people's attitudes to Europe.

I emphasise that there has been a falling turnout in European elections since we joined the European Community. There was the situation of going to the people a second time in a recent referendum. The size of the huge constituencies means that the people are not able to keep in regular contact with their MEPs and this would not be the case if there were single or twin seat constituencies. The political parties would find it far easier to manage elections and ensure a good choice of candidates. In the long term, the best interests of the European Parliament will be served by changing the system and putting in place one that is more accessible to the ordinary people who may then come out to vote as they have not done in previous elections.

Mr. Bradford

I concur with Senator Daly. There have been direct elections to the European Parliament since 1979. The only occasion on which those elections stood alone and were not held with local authority elections was in 1984 and there was a turnout of no more than 45% or 46% which was very disappointing. Since the commencement of direct elections, the political parties have always regarded the European elections as an afterthought to the local elections being held on the same day. They were never given the political attention they deserved. The main focus of the political parties is either the town council or the county council and then the afterthought——

Mr. Daly

A necessary nuisance.

Mr. Bradford

—— the necessary nuisance of the European elections. We should therefore not be surprised when the public expresses such little interest in the European elections when we do not give them the attention they deserve. The elections will be held in a few months time and this Bill will revise the constituencies and we must accept this for what it is worth.

I agree with both Senator Daly and Senator Ryan regarding the present constituencies. The scale of the constituencies makes it a joke to suggest that an MEP for any one of the new provincial areas is in effect a representative for all his or her constituents. If my former colleague in the Oireachtas, Councillor Taylor-Quinn, is fortunate enough to be selected in the new constituency, the scale of that constituency from where she lives in Kilrush up to the tip of north Donegal would make it impossible to adequately represent. The same applies to all candidates across the country.

The commission was instructed to come up with constituencies which would return three, four or five members. There was an opportunity on this occasion to examine the electoral system as a whole as it applies to the European elections. There was also an opportunity to use the European elections to examine the alternative systems of elections to the European Parliament. I would be surprised if in 20 or 25 years Deputies will be elected in multi-seat constituencies as I think we will have moved to single seat constituencies with the single transferable vote. It should have been decided on this occasion that the 13 MEPs representing the Republic of Ireland would be elected for single seat constituencies. Such one-seat constituencies, elected by proportional representation, are entirely fair and would bring the European project and European elections much closer to individual voters. How close is the elector of south-west Cork to the elector of north Tipperary? They are thrown into the same constituency and end up with the same representatives. I do not think the natural connection that should exist between the towns and territories is there. If we had smaller constituencies, returning individual members from individual constituencies, for example, the election would be much more real and much more local in the public mind.

I am disappointed because this Bill is making an unsatisfactory system even worse. Its provisions will increase the distance between the people and those who are supposed to represent them in the European Parliament. An opportunity has been lost. If we are all around five years from now, I hope we will discuss a new system of election to the European Parliament. I hope such a system will bring the electorate closer, geographically, to their representatives. This can be achieved by providing for single seat constituencies or a variation of the list system. The system that is being put in place is as bad as possible. The faults in the system will probably not be reflected in the turn out, however, as it is likely that between 48% and 52% of the electorate will vote in June. Most people who will go a polling station will do so to vote in the local elections. When voters have pressed the buttons on the machines that were given to us by the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, to choose who to elect to local authorities, they may hastily press some buttons for the European elections before they rush out of the polling station. It is disappointing that most people will give the European election campaign such little thought.

I would prefer if the European elections were held on a different day from the local elections. It is important that all politicians, particularly those from the main political parties, treat the European elections with the seriousness they deserve. Perhaps the European elections were a novelty in 1979, 1984 and 1989, but membership of the European Parliament is no longer a political novelty. It should not be seen as some sort of consolation prize or political rest home. Real decisions, which affect every member of the community and every citizen of this island, are taken at the European Parliament. The elections deserve to be seriously considered by the political parties. I suspect that the European election campaign will not feature very highly in political discourse between now and June, as has traditionally been the case. Most political attention in towns and townlands will be given to the local elections.

We have failed to change the electoral system for the European elections. We have not changed the European constituencies in a meaningful way. We are giving a second-rate level of attention to the European election campaign. I hope we can combine, in a non-party political fashion, to sell to the public the importance of voting in the European elections. It is not our political responsibility to sell the concept of voting in local elections. Everybody is connected with the local authority elections in some way, as friends, neighbours or parishioners are involved in local politics to some degree. We need a strong national advertising campaign, which is not party political, to explain to the people the importance of the European Parliament and the need to vote in the European elections. I appreciate that there will be a national advertising campaign in respect of electronic voting, but a separate budget should be set aside to sell, to the maximum degree, the importance of European politics and the European elections. We should encourage people to participate in the European elections campaign, rather than casting their vote as an afterthought.

I have given my confused and meandering thoughts on this issue. I hope we will examine the system of electing Irish Members of the European Parliament when we have the time to do so over the next few years. I ask the Minister to re-examine the constituencies and to give the commission different instructions in that regard. It should be free to bring about a radical alternative to the existing four constituencies, which are geographically challenging. The current constituencies are designed to ensure that citizens are removed from their European representatives, rather than involved in the European process.

Dr. Mansergh

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, and I congratulate him on his excellent speech, which lucidly explained the background to this Bill. It provided some very interesting details in that regard.

Senator Ryan mentioned electronic voting, about which we had a debate yesterday. I do not see a reference to it in this Bill, however. I have faith in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and those who will work to administer the new system in an efficient manner. The type of elections to be held in June are appropriate in this regard and I hope they will help us to establish public confidence in the system. As I said yesterday, I do not think there is any scope for manipulation of the system. There is a case for getting on with it. The elections in June represent a suitable occasion to introduce electronic voting on a national basis. After they have used the new system, people will be able to decide what they think of it.

Senators have spoken about trust. We have to take many leaps of faith throughout our lives — I trust that the floor will not collapse under my feet as I speak. We have to trust that systems which could collapse, in theory, will not do so. I do not think we should decide not to proceed with the new system on the basis of a theoretical possibility.

We have been phasing out the dual mandate over recent years. I fully accept that it is not a desirable phenomenon. This Bill will ensure that its final appearance will be in 2004. I think it has lasted so long because of our domestic electoral system, which ensures that Governments rarely have ample majorities. The by-elections which would result from a single mandate system would be of great importance, therefore. In future European Parliament elections, it will be interesting to see how eager Government parties will be to select candidates who are Members of the Dáil. The Seanad is less vital to the maintenance of a Government — a Government survived without a Seanad majority between 1994 and 1997.

I agree with Senator Ryan, who said that the importance of the European Parliament is underestimated. The various MEPs who have spoken in this House, such as the former Senator Avril Doyle, brought home to us the important role of the Parliament. It started as a virtually consultative assembly with negligible powers, but it is now capable of much more co-decision making. Those we elect to the European Parliament, therefore, are very important. The number of Irish seats has been reduced to 13 and it will probably be reduced further to 12 for the next election.

I do not want to be overly partisan about this, but there is a very strong case for the electorate being encouraged to choose from the mainstream parties, including all parties in this House, which are committed to the European project. I do not see much point in electing people who are doubtful or sceptical about the European project. They will be treated as marginal in the European Parliament, because the overwhelming majority of representatives are committed to Europe. It is a question of maximising our clout as a small country in the European Parliament. In the current Parliament we have certainly done that. The President of the European Parliament is an Irish MEP and our own delegation is led by a former Minister for Foreign Affairs. We have some good representatives. It is important however, in the context of the shrinking number of representatives, that we have the best possible people who are committed to European progress and the European institutions. I do not think representatives who are there to express doubt and scepticism about the whole project will have credibility or influence among their peers from all the other countries. We do not want to convey an attitude summed up by the phrase, "Stop the train, I want to get off."

I listened with interest to the contribution of Senator Daly, in which he made the case for single-seat constituencies and a list system. If one could have all-party consensus on single-seat constituencies, perhaps there would be something to be said for it. Single-seat constituencies naturally appeal to larger parties and not, generally speaking, to smaller parties. That is a problem. I wonder whether we should consider European seats as being Dáil constituencies writ large or accept that they are a different matter and that one must give a different type of service in these constituencies.

I have some reservations about the list system. This is partly because under this system the order of election is pre-determined, presumably by party headquarters, but it would also reduce the interest of the electorate in the contest. The one merit of the present system is that for whatever constituency one considers, one might pick one or two people whom one thinks are almost certain to be re-elected, but the whole panel cannot be predicted with safety in advance. In other words, elections are real contests. The problem with list systems is that they remove much of the excitement from the contest. If we are worried about people voting in European elections, I cannot see that adoption of a list system will encourage them to come out and vote. Rather, it will discourage them.

We must consider these questions not just from the point of view of the interests of parties, members and people standing for election but from the point of view of the electorate. In Ireland, unlike most other countries, a reasonable percentage of the population can name at least some of their MEPs. Across the water, if 1% could name their MEPs they would be doing well. The turnout for European elections there is also much smaller. I am not convinced by the argument that we ought to be scrapping our system.

Mr. Mooney

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher. It is appropriate that he is taking this legislation through the House as he is one of the most experienced Members of either House in terms of expertise in the European parliamentary system. It was a pleasant surprise for all of us when he decided to come back from the highways and byways of Europe to represent his home of Donegal in the other House.

I will cause a minor seismic shock by admitting that if I were on the other side of the House I would probably be voting against this legislation, primarily because of section 4. In the age-old tradition, one can argue cogently against a point but then ensure one goes through the lobbies to support the Government of the day — in other words, have one's cake and eat it. That is exactly what I intend to do.

I am particularly struck by the recommendation in the legislation which requires that the Government of the day has no obligation to accept the recommendations of the independent commission. However, due to tradition and precedent, successive Administrations have done this since 1977, when the first of these commissions was set up, and have followed through on commission reports right up to the present day. In that context, I fail to understand why the Government is accepting this landmark change in the references to the four European constituencies, or more accurately, to three of them. Since time immemorial we have been proud of the four provinces of Ireland — in fact, at one time it had five. The provinces of Ulster, Connacht, Leinster and Munster are deeply embedded in the psyche of the Irish people, never more so than in a sporting context. For decades, the Railway Cup competitions were the apex of a footballer's career in representing his province. Sadly, the competition has now fallen into decline.

Wearing my hat as a sports journalist, I know that despite the falling numbers, footballers are proud to pull on the provincial jersey. One need only consider the outstanding success of the rugby teams representing the provinces. Munster is now a byword for excellence in rugby in Europe. Leinster, Connacht and Ulster have also contributed in their own ways to the enhancement of the image of Ireland. People know that Munster, Connacht, Leinster and Ulster are regions of Ireland. Yet at a stroke, the Constituency Commission has recommended that these historic names be changed to anonymous blandness. In future, if these recommendations are accepted, these historic regions will be referred to in the European Parliament as Ireland North-West, Ireland South and Ireland East. What does this mean?

There is massive disaffection among the electorate here and in Europe with the European institutions, particularly the elections to the European Parliament. One need only consider the turnouts to see this. Ireland is particularly fortunate in that regard, but turnouts are declining. What possessed the commission to decide to change the names and further disconnect the Irish electorate from the European elections? What loyalty or adherence will people have in my part of the country to Ireland North-West? I have seen no explanation for this from the commission. It does not explain its decisions; it merely prints them. It seems that because they decided to shift County Clare out of Munster and into Connacht-Ulster, some bright spark on the commission decided that it could no longer be referred to as Connacht-Ulster.

The province of Ulster comprises nine counties. How often does one hear the Six Counties referred to as Ulster? Internationally, those who know little about the history of the island of Ireland assume the term "Ulster" means the current administrative unit controlled by the United Kingdom. We know that the term "Ulster" refers to the nine counties. What difference would it make to continue with Connacht-Ulster and tag on County Clare to rename the constituency Clare-Connacht-Ulster? I am only assuming that the commission decided then to go the whole hog and change all the names. Munster can still be Munster without Clare, while there is no change in the territory of Leinster. I am surprised Dublin was not changed while the commission was at it. There is no sense or logic to this. It is a wrong, damaging and retrograde step.

Dr. Mansergh

I agree entirely.

Mr. Mooney

I would vote against this provision of the Bill. However, I took a party pledge, and like in marriage, I must accept the good and the bad and troop through the lobbies.

Mr. Bannon

The Senator will have an opportunity to vote on the amendments.

Mr. Mooney

Senator Mansergh and others referred to the system. Ireland is alone, with the exception of the United Kingdom, in the adoption of a particular electoral system. We have stuck rigidly to the proportional representation single transferable vote system. The Government must review the system of election in Ireland. I will go some part of the road with Senator Mansergh in that I am not convinced that single seat constituencies would operate well in this country. He is right that the Opposition would be howling because it tends to favour majority parties. However, in any discussions that I have had in Fianna Fáil on this issue, party friends and colleagues shy away because they are wary of taking a gamble on running with a single seat system.

I am in favour of a list system, specifically for the European elections. With all the activity surrounding the choice of candidates in my party for whatever this new constituency will be, there is a partial justification for political parties and none having the right to identify suitable individuals to represent Ireland in the European Parliament, rather than relying on them to come through the party system. A list system, operated on the percentage vote each party gets, would free up the decision-making process within political groupings as to who they should choose. It is not an unusual process. Non-politicians are selected to represent Ireland in the Commission. Mr. David Byrne and Mr. Peter Sutherland were not politicians when they were appointed. They were politically attuned to and active within their respective parties, but they were not elected representatives when they took on those important jobs. They have done and, in the case of Mr. Byrne do, excellent work on behalf of their brief and country. There is a mechanism in the Bill that permits the Government to review the election system for the European elections. A door has been left ajar, notwithstanding the ring-fencing of the particular national electoral system. Any future review, therefore, should accommodate the list system.

I ask the Minister of State whether he believes the list system would work more effectively in producing good quality representatives for the European Parliament. This is in no way casting a reflection on those who have represented Ireland in Europe. However, a system based on a party percentage vote that allowed parties to decide a list of candidates suitable for Europe would bring greater flexibility to the selection process. The candidates would not necessarily have to be part of the electoral system but could be taken from commerce, sport or some other area. Rather than parties having to trawl for people to go through the process, putting them through the vagaries of a selection convention to allow delegates to decide, people approached on the list basis would be more inclined to accept the nomination. This is not being anti-democratic because it works effectively in Europe.

I know that there is no precedence of Governments turning down recommendations of independent commissions. However, I will be back in the Chamber in a few months arguing against the way the commission butchered County Leitrim in the boundary revision. My final plea to the Minister of State is that, even at this late stage, serious consideration be given to restoring the traditional provincial titles to the European Parliament constituencies.

Mr. B. Hayes

The Acting Chairman, Senator Higgins, has an interest in the upcoming European elections and the Clerk of the Seanad has a distinguished role to play on the independent commission. We owe the commission a debt of gratitude and none of the political parties has ever questioned its standing. The recent comments of an Independent Member of the Lower House, where he questioned the independence of the commission on its recommendations of the Dáil boundaries, were regrettable. It is important that politicians do not make decisions on constituency boundaries. The commission process has served this State well over the years.

I agree with Senator Mooney that reverting back to the old provincial names to European constituencies will not change constituency boundaries or the commission's recommendations. It makes no sense to have East, West, South and Dublin standing for itself. I am not sure if this issue was raised in the Lower House but I do not believe the commission would care if the provincial titles were maintained. It is not changing the constituencies or deleting the commission's recommendations. People have no association with these new geographical constituency names, good, bad or indifferent.

There is not a huge appetite among the political parties to allow senior political figures to put their names forward for the European elections. I stress the Acting Chairman is out of my orbit with these comments. One reason is the travel and appalling routine MEPs have to go through. They have to be away three out of every four weeks. When they get there, two of those weeks are spent in Brussels and one week in Strasbourg. Another reason is that because our representation has gone from 15 to 13 and the Parliament has extended to some 650 MEPs, people do not see themselves influencing the European Parliament legislative process as readily as they could in the Oireachtas. This is a great shame.

We must send our best people with the most experience to Europe. Of the current 15 MEPs, only one has Cabinet experience, the former Minister, Mr. Gerry Collins. That is a shame because there has to be a connection between Government, the Commission and the people who ultimately represent Ireland at the European Parliament. It is important that we send our best people to Europe but that there is also an appetite to do so. Having listened privately to Members on all sides of the House, I do not feel that appetite is there among the political parties. It is important since the European Parliament is enlarging and our influence is lessening.

The French use the list system very well and I am not opposed to it on principle. However, they swap their MEPs on a continual basis, based on influence. The European Parliament should be a place for former Ministers, former Taoisigh and senior figures in political parties because it strengthens the Parliament and gives Ireland a good case for putting its agenda in the European Parliament albeit within large quasi-political groupings such as the Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, Liberals and others. The appetite is not there amongst all the parties to send their best people, save in the case of the Acting Chairman, Senator Higgins. He is completely excluded from my utterly subjective view on this matter.

Mr. Mooney

Some of the Members on the Government benches would agree with the Senator's sentiments.

Mr. B. Hayes

Very good. I will table one amendment to this Bill and I ask the Minister of State to consider it seriously. To date every ballot paper has been an alphabetical list, for example, Senator Bannon is always at the top of the ballot paper, and so on.

Mr. Bannon

The Senator and I must agree to differ on that.

Mr. B. Hayes

For this election we should consider randomly selecting people to appear on the ballot paper and I will put forward an amendment to that effect on Committee Stage. This is the first European election in which we will display the names of the candidates with their pictures and party affiliations. Considerable evidence has been gathered over many elections to support the theory that candidates whose names appear at the top of the ballot paper have an advantage. Historically, in the other House 25% of the total membership comprises people whose names begin with A, B, C or D. I will have more empirical evidence for this on Committee Stage. I ask the Minister of State to consider this for the European election to see how it works because the forthcoming elections provide a good opportunity to test whether it would be to everyone's advantage to list the names randomly rather than alphabetically.

One reason for reluctance to go forward for the European Parliament is that the level of reporting of the Parliament and its members is not good, except in the regions through local media. The Minister of State, as a former distinguished member of the Parliament, could testify to this. There is not the same media concentration on the contributions of our members in the European Parliament and we need to address that. We must also address how we link up with the work of the new members of the Parliament who will be elected after 11 June. Doubtless we will return to that in the course of other deliberations.

Finally, I congratulate three of my party colleagues who are retiring from the Parliament, MEPs Cushnahan, Bannotti and McCartin. They have done sterling work in various guises for the Parliament and the country. We heard contributions from some of them recently and we can testify to that. It is good that people have been able to make a career in the European Parliament and be re-elected because of the campaigns they have run there on various issues. Each of those colleagues has done an exceptional job for our party and the country.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Gallagher)

I thank all the Senators who took part in the debate. I will not be drawn into responding to the issue of electronic voting to which only one Member referred because we had a very comprehensive debate yesterday by way of statements. There may be other opportunities to discuss it in the future.

This Bill deals specifically with the implementation of the constituency commission report of 2003 and the Council's decisions of June and September 2002. Several Senators mentioned the difficulty of communicating Europe. We depend on the media at local, regional and national level to do that and at times if there are matters of great interest or importance at home EU matters do not receive the same coverage. When I was in the European Parliament we depended on our organisations in our constituencies, the NGOs and chambers of commerce to relay the message and communicate Europe. The Government, through the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the offices of the European Parliament and Commission have endeavoured to communicate EU matters over many years. MEPs can invite citizens, mostly from their constituencies, to visit the European institutions, such as the Parliament, and meet Commission representatives and officials within the Council. Many hundreds of people who have visited the institutions over the past 20 years have returned with a different view of them. However, this does not have a ripple effect at home. I could not agree more with the Senators. We all have an obligation — the Government, the Commission, the Parliament and the Council — to make the European Union more meaningful to constituents throughout the 15 member states.

On 1 May we will have the historic opportunity to preside over the accession of ten new member states from eastern Europe. We will also have the opportunity of visiting many of those countries in the lead up to the accession. These are countries whose per capita income is well below that which we had in 1973 when we joined the European Community. They countries have the right to share in the future of the European Union when it generates greater wealth. We had that opportunity and it is a tribute to successive Governments that our per capita income has risen from 55% in those years to well over 110%. Hopefully by 2009 Bulgaria and Romania will be members of the Union. That will have a knock-on effect on our membership and the number of members representing us at the Parliament.

I welcome the support for this Bill offered by the Fine Gael spokesperson, Senator Bannon, and I agree with many of his sentiments concerning the need for more awareness of EU matters. He referred to the necessity to promote it in schools and perhaps that is where we should start to communicate Europe. There are means and funding to assist this but possibly not enough. He referred, as did many Senators, to the turnout in the polls for a European election. Maybe we are fortunate that it is on the same day as a local election this year. In 1994, when I first stood, there was no local election because there had been one in 1991, therefore it was more difficult. There was one in West Mayo which created a by-election and for the town councils, which contributed to an increase in the vote. The legislation now in place will ensure that in future we will hold local and European elections on one day and that helps to ensure a higher percentage poll.

Senators Bannon and Ryan raised the question of the dual mandate. It is a limited dual mandate for Members of the Oireachtas and MEPs. It is not reasonable to compare this with the dual mandate between the Dáil and the local authorities. This has been flagged for many years and not having the dual mandate does not have the same effect. Senator Mansergh referred to the Government and how by-elections can destabilise Government and have a serious knock-on effect for the country. The derogation is only for a limited period of two or three years at a maximum, depending on whether the next election is called in 2006 or 2007. If Members of the Oireachtas stand, it would result in a number of by-elections and parties would not welcome that. We had minority Governments in 1994 and 1997. I draw the attention of Members to the early 1980s when 13 Members of the Oireachtas were elected to the European Parliament, many of whom returned to Government in June 1981 and made a tremendous contribution. They were not necessarily from my party. There will not be a dual mandate from the next election. This is a transition period. While there may be opposition to it, none of the parties sees any difficulty with it.

As regards the timing of the European count, which was raised by Senators Kitt and Brady, due to European rules, the results cannot be announced until polls close in other member states. That does not suggest that a count cannot start. I understand the count will start next June at approximately 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. People may ask why it cannot start earlier. However, that would not make a difference because two or three hours is ample time to commence. If it was the traditional system of the ballot paper, it would start early on Sunday morning, as it did in the past. That will not be necessary now.

The modules for the European election will be returned to the returning officer in each of the Dáil constituencies and then transferred to CDs. Those will then be delivered to the European returning officers. I hope the first count will be available at 9.30 p.m. on the Sunday evening. All the counts could be available at 9.30 p.m., but we must be humane in that regard. We all remember and have learned lessons from the experience of former Deputy Nora Owen in Dublin North. We do not want that repeated for any candidate in the future. The process will be completed for each count and the results will be made known. There will be a lapse between each count, unlike the big bang we experienced in 2002. I hope the results will be known at 11 p.m. We all recall the various marathon counts in the European constituencies which lasted until the early hours of the morning. That will not be necessary in the future. All the documentation on the count, including the voter machine modules and the CDs, to which I referred, will then be sent to the chief returning officer for the European Parliament elections. That will allow him or her to commence the count around 6 p.m.

Senator Ryan referred to a change in the count rules. I am not aware that they have been changed. There are no changes in the count rules which apply at present. Perhaps the question of simplifying the count rules may be considered after 2004 but, as of now, there are not any changes. As regards critics of the system, the Minister and the Department listen carefully to everyone, despite what the Opposition may think. The Minister and I have not sought to denigrate any of the critics or opponents of the system. All the reports are available to the public. There are many views on the system. Some people agree with it, while others disagree. It is time to move on. We should take this opportunity to reassure the public that we are not being partisan. This is a way forward. Ireland should be proud of its success in e-commerce, e-government and electronic voting. The answers to any questions raised will be available soon. There were more than 100 questions, not 41, asked about this issue and we will try to provide that information at an early date.

Senator Bannon raised a question about a member of a local authority standing for the European Parliament. An outgoing member of a local authority may stand for the European Parliament. If a person is elected to both the European Parliament and the local authority, he or she must resign from one of them immediately on election. I presume he or she would resign from the local authority, but it would be a matter for that person. We have a sensible system in our local authorities. It was known to us in Donegal as the Blaney-Mahony pact of the 1940s. There is general agreement that the party which loses a seat has the right of co-option.

Mr. B. Hayes

It is law.

Mr. Gallagher

Yes and that is sensible.

Ms Tuffy

Independents do not have that right under the law.

Mr. Gallagher

I have not seen any of the major parties trying to remove an Independent or an Independent representing a group from the council by way of vote in many years.

The position is the same for a Member of the Oireachtas. However, under the Local Government Acts, a Member of an Oireachtas or an MEP cannot stand as a candidate at a local election. As Senator Brennan is aware, that matter is currently before the courts and a decision is expected within a number of weeks.

Mr. Brennan

That was the anomaly I pointed out. I referred to a person's right to stand without resigning from the local authority.

Mr. Gallagher

A person can stand for both, but he or she must choose one.

Mr. Brennan

The dual mandate in the Oireachtas is slightly different. A person can stand for a local authority election if he or she is a Member of the Oireachtas.

Ms Tuffy

A person must first resign.

Mr. Brennan

He or she must resign. There is an anomaly. Some are treated more equally than others.

Mr. Gallagher

We are trying to resolve that.

Mr. B. Hayes

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Mr. Gallagher

On the one hand, we do not favour the dual mandate at national and local authority level, yet we favour the derogation for practical purposes. Only two countries secured a derogation — Ireland and the UK — with specific reference to Northern Ireland. This would not have been necessary had the intentions of two sitting members of the European Parliament, Dr. Paisley and Mr. Hume, been known. They are not seeking re-election. Like Senator Bradford, I am sure I speak for all Members of the House when I pay tribute to the current members of the European Parliament who are not seeking re-election. I thank them for the major contribution they have made since 1979, in some cases, and 1984. Having worked with them over the years, I appreciate their commitment and dedication to their positions within the European Parliament.

The contentious issue of the arrangement of constituencies has been alluded to by Senators Bradford, Daly, Mooney and Mansergh. They made thoughtful contributions on the issue of framing European constituencies. The law under the Electoral Act 1973 requires the commission to provide for three, four and five seat constituencies. That Act would have to be changed to provide for one or two seat constituencies or for a list system. It may well be that Ireland's representation at the European Parliament will be reduced to 12. I expect this will happen as I hope that Bulgaria and Romania will be admitted to the European Union prior to 2009. While we may seem to have a difficulty today with the size and naming of the constituencies, the independent commission will have a more crucial role to play when reviewing the constituencies prior to 2009.

If the constituency of Connacht-Ulster could have been left as it was without the addition of County Clare, it might have become a two-seat constituency and part of Galway could have been included with Munster to make a four-seat constituency. However, the Electoral Act 1997 states that there should be reasonable equality of representation and that each constituency should return three, four or five representatives. In the intervening period the Department will have an opportunity to consider another system, which I hope will receive cross-party support.

Based on my experience in Europe and having listened to Senator Mansergh, I would not favour a list system, in which the headquarters decides on the individual representatives. This could lead to no connection between the Members and their constituencies. As already mentioned, the North-West constituency will stretch from Loop Head to Malin Head, under the list system the whole country would be covered. Those of us who have been elected at any level realise the importance of the relationship with our constituents. If we had two six-seat, six two-seat or 12 single seat constituencies, it might make sense. While I would not favour a list system for the entire country, it might be beneficial to the smaller parties. With 13 seats, the quota would be approximately 7%. While this could be beneficial, it is a debate for another day.

The naming of the constituencies seems to be quite contentious. Senator Kitt suggested calling the proposed North-West constituency, the Clare-Connacht-Ulster constituency to retain the provincial title. There would be a difficulty in putting the county of Clare on the same level as the provinces of Connacht and Ulster. Retaining the provincial name in the constituency title would pose a problem for the proposed new South constituency. Would it be possible to rename it Munster minus Clare?

Dr. Mansergh

The Dáil constituency of Tipperary South includes part of Waterford.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Mooney)

In Connacht-Ulster, Ulster does not refer to the entire province; it only refers to three counties of Ulster.

Mr. Gallagher

It is fairly well understood that the three counties of Ulster comprise the Ulster constituency. While I appreciate the Acting Chairman has a view on this, I ask Members to remember there is a legal requirement for the adoption of this legislation two months before the effective date for enlargement, which gives us until the end of February. I would not be honest if I were to say I would consider this matter for Committee or Report Stage. Time will not permit me to do so. However, I will certainly consider this for the revisions that will take place before 2009. I am sure the many Members who have strong views on this matter may also make submissions to the independent commission.

I agree with Senator Mooney and others that the naming of the constituencies causes some difficulty. I believe the commission has offered the best solution at this time. Clare has formed part of the Western Development Commission for many years.

Mr. B. Hayes

It is interesting that it is not part of the BMW region.

Mr. Gallagher

At the behest of Senator Daly, I made strong representations to have Clare included for Objective One status. I believe the views of the Senators are serious and genuinely held, and need to be considered in the future.

I agree with Senator Brian Hayes that the independent commission has served us well. At all times we have accepted the recommendations of the commission and have done so again this time. The commission would not have had a difficulty if we had decided to change the names to ones that are more acceptable. Senator Mooney has one view and the Clare Deputies and Senators might have another view. Would they be happy to be part of a Connacht-Ulster constituency without any recognition? At least North-West gives Clare some recognition, bearing in mind that Clare forms part of the Western Development Commission.

Random selection could suit all of us at times. In my first election in 1994 there were two candidates with the same surname as mine and I probably lost a couple of thousand votes as a result.

Acting Chairman

It did not do you any harm.

Mr. Bannon

The Minister was still returned.

Mr. Gallagher

The people of Connacht-Ulster were still very discerning and intelligent. We will consider that matter.

Mr. B. Hayes

Am I pushing an open door?

Mr. Gallagher

I would not want to give any commitment. I thank the Senators for their views and their general acceptance of this legislation, which is largely technical and implements the commission's report of 2003 and the Council's decision of June and September 2002. Europe has played an important role in the development of our country. In 1979, Ireland had a per capita income of 55% of the European average. We have now exceeded 110%, which is a tribute to successive Governments and to the civil servants who have negotiated with their respective Ministers during those years.

We now have free access for our goods, services and people to a market of 350 million people soon to increase to 500 million. Ireland as one of the smallest countries in Europe has played an important role in the development of the Union. On 1 May under our Presidency, we will welcome the acceding countries from the Baltic, Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean. I am sure Ireland will continue to play an important role in Europe and will some day play a part in achieving the objective of the founding fathers of Europe, which is a united Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.

Ms Tuffy

On a point of order, the Council decision, which I read, refers to a subsequent poll. I understand this is not a once-off derogation. The Minister referred to practicalities. However these will arise indefinitely. It would make sense for the derogation to be indefinite. However, the Government has implemented this as a once-off derogation.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 18 February 2004.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Kitt

Next Wednesday at 10.30 a.m.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 12 Feb 2004

European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill 2003: Second Stage.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Feb 2004