asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the progress, if any, made on the proposal for direct elections to the European Parliament at the recent meeting of EEC Foreign Ministers at Luxembourg.
7.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EEC Foreign Ministers' Meeting.
6.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the matters discussed at the recent meeting of EEC Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg; and the agreement, if any, recorded on them.
With the permission, of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 7 together.
The recent meeting of EEC Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg was the latest in a series of such informal meetings the first of which was held during the German Presidency at Schloss Gymnich in April, 1974.
The matters discussed were the Tindemans Report on European Union and the arrangements for direct elections to the European Parliament. In their discussion on the arrangements for direct elections, the Ministers concentrated on the major outstanding issue of the number and distribution of seats in the directly elected Parliament. The Parliament's own proposal in relation to this matter and certain other proposals put forward by the member states were taken into account.
It was not possible to find a political solution to the problem which would have proved acceptable to all the member states. Nevertheless, I believe sufficient progress was made to give grounds for hope that agreement can be found in the near future when Ministers have had time for further reflection and an opportunity for consultation in their respective capitals so that direct elections can take place as intended in 1978.
There was a general discussion on the Tindemans Report followed by a discussion on the procedure which might be followed for its further consideration. Because of the character of the meeting, no formal decisions were taken. Discussion will continue in the more usual frameworks, that is, at the meetings of Ministers in the Foreign Affairs Council and in Political Co-operation.
The Minister indicated that he believes sufficient progress was made to give us grounds for hope. Could he give any indication what that progress was?
It was evident in the discussions that all Ministers were very anxious for a settlement and were anxious not to take up rigid positions. They were willing not to exclude a number of possible solutions pending further consideration. The general atmosphere of the meeting was confident. That offers no assurance of success, I have to make clear to the Deputy, but the situation was much more positive than any previous discussion on this matter at any level. While I would not necessarily anticipate that a decision will be reached at the next Council meeting on Monday or Tuesday, it is possible that a favourable decision on the distribution of seats, clearing the way for direct elections could be reached later in June.
Am I to take it that the Minister's optimism derives from the change of mood as distinct from any agreement or specific proposals, even on a preliminary basis?
Yes. It is quite clear that there was no agreement on any particular proposal. Each proposal considered in all its variations met with some continuing objection from one or other country and therefore there was no agreement. On the other hand, some countries did ease or drop objections they had to certain proposals. The difference was, therefore, narrowed and it was clear that each member state was anxious not to exclude the possibility of agreement on some compromise within the framework of the different possible solutions.
Will the Minister convey on our behalf to the next meeting our concern that if some positive progress is not made, all the woolly hope and expectation will not be sufficient to ensure that this Community will realise its own aims? If some positive agreement is not reached, it would be better and honest to say so rather than have the continuous position of hope and unrealised expectation.
I will certainly convey the general sense of the Deputy's views on that subject. There is a general realisation of this and the psychological consequences of public opinion of the failure to reach concrete agreement on this and other issues at the last European Council meeting have had a perceptible effect on the attitudes of all member countries. There is a general realisation that failure to achieve a conclusion on this in the near future will have a very adverse effect on the Community.
May I ask a question in two parts? First, what particular proposal is the Minister advocating as regards the allocation of seats, and second, is 1978 still a realisable target or what emerged from the meeting in that connection? When is it hoped that the first direct elections might take place?
Under the proposal I put forward some time ago, and which is under consideration, Ireland will have 18 seats in a parliament of 384 members. This is close to the present percentage share in the existing parliament. The other proposals range very widely and some of them would give Ireland very few seats. There is an obvious difficulty in reconciling the different positions but we hope a solution can be found which will offer this country more seats than the 13 contained in the Patijon Report which I regarded as inadequate. In so regarding it, I think I reflected the views of this House and I took account in this matter of the views of the Committee on Secondary Legislation.
On the question of the realisability of direct elections within a time scale, the general view of all member states is that if agreement can be reached in June, it will be possible within the space of just under two years to organise direct elections which will take place in May or June, 1978, the most probable date being towards the end of May.
In our own jurisdiction have we cleared our minds about our procedures if direct elections are a possibility by 1978? Can the Minister tell us about any internal procedures or arrangements we are making in that regard?
Some preparatory work has been done in the relevant section of the Department of Local Government. The matter has not come before the Government because, until we know the number of seats, it has not seemed worth while to get involved in the details of systems. The Deputy will be better aware than most that there are divergent views on this. One is that there should be a list system for the whole country. Another is that if the number of seats is large enough to make this feasible, we should maintain the existing kind of proportional representation system in constituencies of three to five seats. The question of which of these might be better is one which I strongly feel can best be considered when we have a decision on the number of seats.
Not necessarily. I think discussions should be under way by now.
They have been. The European Movement have produced a very useful and interesting document on the subject. It is invaluable to have general public discussion——
So did the Joint Committee.
I do not think it would be appropriate for the Government to make decisions or that it would be useful to have a decisive debate in Parliament on it until we have a little more information on the number of seats, and that is likely to happen in the very near future.
I am disappointed the Minister did not mention the Joint Committee.
I mentioned it earlier when I said we took account of their views in regard to the number of seats.