Nos. 4 and 5 may be taken together.
Filling of Vacancies in the European Parliament for the Constituencies of Leinster and Munster: Motions.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann hereby appoints Mr. Seamus Pattison of 6 Upper New Street, Kilkenny, Co. Kilkenny. (who has been nominated in accordance with Section 15 of the European Assembly Elections Act, 1977 by The Labour Party) to be a representative in the Assembly of the European Communities for the constituency of Leinster in the place of Mr. Liam Kavanagh who was elected as a candidate of The Labour Party and who has resigned as a representative in the Assembly with effect from 30 June, 1981.
These motions seek the appointment of Deputy Pattison and Deputy Treacy to the European Parliament in place of Deputies Liam Kavanagh and Eileen Desmond. Both motions are in order and will not be opposed by this side of the House but there are some pertinent remarks I wish to make. It is quite clear under section 15 of the European Assembly (Elections) Act, 1977, that when casual vacancies of this kind arise it is the prerogative of the party whose representatives had been elected to the European Assembly to fill them. These two motions are in proper form in accordance with law. Deputies Kavanagh and Desmond having been nominated by the Labour Party and elected to the European Assembly, that party now have the right to appoint Deputies Pattison and Treacy to those positions.
I should like to comment on the undesirability of pursuing what is known as the dual mandate. I am glad to see the Minister of State at the Department of the Public Service, Deputy Barry Desmond, present today because he and I spent many constructive hours on the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. We participated actively in the deliberations of that committee which on 4 June 1975 resulted in a report signed by the then chairman, Deputy Haughey. Paragraph 10 of that report states:
Under the present Treaties members of the European Parliament must be members of their national Parliaments. The draft Convention provides that "membership of the European Parliament shall be compatible with membership of a Parliament of a Member State." The experience of the members of the Joint Committee who are also members of the present European Parliament suggests that dual membership will, in fact, be difficult to sustain particularly when the powers of the European Parliament are extended.
The considered view was that it would be very difficult to sustain the duality of membership in regard to the national Parliament and the European Parliament. That report was published in 1975 and we now have an extended European Parliament. The arguments against dual membership have increased tenfold.
In practice most political parties within member countries are following the headline established in this country by the Fianna Fáil Party and are debarring their members from dual membership. The British Labour Party have rightly adopted this view and have a rule barring dual membership. Every British Labour Party representative in the European Parliament is a member of that Parliament only and not of the House of Commons. To a large extent the Conservative Party have followed the same line. Of the total British membership of 81 in the European Parliament only four are members of either the Commons or the Lords.
A similar pattern is evident elsewhere. Of the total of 410 members of the European Parliament only 125 are members of one or other House of the home Parliament. Almost 75 per cent of the members of the European Parliament are specialists in the work of that Parliament and concentrate on only one job. This goes back to the fundamental rule which has been adopted as a principle of trade unionism over the years. The British Labour Party rightly saw the import of that from the point of view of giving specialised attention to the job to be done in the European Assembly and decreed that any member of their party who opted for the European Assembly had to concentrate on work within the Assembly and cease to be a member of the House of Commons.
Apart from the obvious desirability of specialising in parliamentary work and being in a more effective position to discharge one's obligations either in the European Parliament of the national Parliament, there is an obvious social and moral principle involved in setting a headline for the people of the Community. The British Labour Party saw that it would be undesirable from the moral and social point of view that the people should see trade unionists and other members of their party holding down two jobs. In effect this is what the Irish Labour Party are asking this House to approve today in asking it to select two people who will each hold two jobs.
At present we have serious economic problems and in a climate where good example should be shown to people throughout the Community it behoves the Irish Labour Party to take an obvious stance in this respect as did their counterparts, the British Labour Party. Deputy Barry Desmond along with myself on this committee, whose report was published in June 1975, supported each other in this regard. To ensure that there was a link between the European and the national parliaments the committee recommended that dual membership would be difficult to sustain and that in order to ensure that the knowledge and experience of European affairs should continue to be available to the Houses of the Oireachtas that where a member of the European Parliament is not a Member of the Oireachtas he should be given a right of audience in the Dáil and Seanad and in appropriate committees of both Houses. The committee believed that this objective could be achieved by making appropriate provisions in the standing orders of both Houses. The committee concluded that the dual mandate should go and that in its place there should be provision for the right of audience in both Houses of the Oireachtas for members of the European Parliament to make available to them the views of the European Parliament.
The only party who have made an attempt to face up to this is the Fianna Fáil Party. Of the 15 European Parliament members there are five Fianna Fáil members none of whom is a Member of this House. That is not just a fortuitous circumstance. That was a decision reached by the parliamentary party. For that reason Mr. Noel Davern did not go forward for election to the Dáil, and had Miss Síle de Valera been elected to this House it would have been mandatory on her to give up her European Parliament seat. Mr. Gerry Cronin, a former Minister, also made a conscious decision not to go forward for the Dáil but to opt for the European Parliament, and Mr. Paddy Lalor, also a former Minister, made a similar decision. Three of our five members prior to the election opted to stay with the European Parliament and not to contest the general election. Miss Síle de Valera went forward for election in the knowledge that she would have to give up her European Parliament seat and our fifth Member, Mr. Cronin did not stand in the general election. Our position is above board. We came to grips with the reality of performing work effectively in the European Parliament and at home. The contrast is obvious. Of the four Fine Gael Members of the European Parliament only one chose not to stand in the general election, the former Minister Mr. Mark Clinton. Deputies O'Donnell, Richie Ryan and McCartin all hold a seat here and one in the European Parliament. The other day Deputy Richie Ryan had to make a hasty exit to the European Parliament because of the ludicrous situation of having to attend two Parliaments, thus helping to reduce the Government majority in the election of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
The Labour Party is supposed to embrace trade union principles. All four members of the Labour Party, or three members of the Labour Party and a member who was elected by the Labour Party as Ceann Comhairle, will by reason of this proposal, which merely replaces two Labour Party Deputies, be members of the two Parliaments.
What about Mr. Cluskey?
With the exception of Mr. Cluskey, in whose case it was due entirely to an unhappy event at the polls. There was no conscious decision by the Labour Party to ensure that following the election a Deputy would cease to be a member of both Parliaments. In the case of Mr. Cluskey the fact that he will have only one seat was a fortuitous circumstance. The other three Labour Party members now seek to maintain the impossible dual membership situation, a situation which is substantially aggravated by the increasing pressure of work on the European Parliament. There is much more committee activity in the European Parliament and they have engaged in a very strenuous battle to strengthen their position vis-à-vis the other Community institutions. The European Parliament have not yet achieved their rightful place as one of the key Community institutions. This Assembly is carrying a substantial burden of work in which Irish interests need to be advanced in a positive manner. In a situation where we have only 15 out of 410 seats it is incumbent on Irish members who are after all representing a small country with a minority representation in terms of numbers, to be there all the time, to be active in committees and to be in a position to persuade and to make their presence felt. It is doubly important for the membership of a small country within the European Parliament to be effective. I speak from experience of membership of the nominative Parliament that existed prior to the directly elected Parliament.
As far as the larger countries are concerned, their interests are met by their Governments. Their Governments are strong and powerful. Their parliamentary representation is strong as well and the British, French and German interests will be looked after. But it is of paramount importance for a small country, with a very limited, minority representation such as we have, 15 out of 110, that all members of the European Parliament concentrate on the work of the Parliament, on the committee work, make direct contact with the Commission and Community institutions and the various committees existing within the Community framework. They just cannot do that work and attend this Dáil. It is just not possible. Everybody here who has got one bit of honesty in their hearts and minds will agree with me in that; it is so clear, logical and rational. It is absolutely certain that there will be massive inattention to the basic detail of work required of these European parliamentarians, particularly by virtue of the present representation we have in this House. That doubly exacerbates the situation. As a result of the general election we have now a very tight marginal situation in this House itself, a situation in which the Government are barely able to continue in office, as was seen the other day when the Government were defeated.
In such a situation European Parliament members will be pulled back for votes and divisions, pulled back and forth between Strasbourg and Dublin, placing them in an impossible situation in which they will be making no contribution in this House or in the Assembly in Strasbourg but will spend most of their time commuting in aeroplanes and hanging around at airports endeavouring to fulfil deadlines in Dublin and Strasbourg. All we shall have will be wasted manpower, wasted wearing of energies and minds and physique. That is all we are doing here and everybody knows I am telling the truth. The Deputies present here — there is nothing personal in this what-ever; I am talking entirely on a point of principle — will find this out themselves: that if this Government are to be sustained they will be put under certain pressure, the pressure about which I have been speaking, and will be unable to participate in any meaningful parliamentary work in either the European Assembly or in Dáil Eireann. Rather will they spend most of their time, unfortunately, going from airport to hotel, back to airport, into aeroplanes, with a double stop from Strasbourg, back to Dublin and then back again. They will not be able to function physically, mentally or make any sort of meaningful contribution in either Parliament. Those are the plain facts of the situation.
It is very undersirable and sad that this sort of lead should be given to the Irish people at present, a lead which shows that the duties of the European Assembly and of Dáil Éireann are not being taken seriously by the movers of these motions. The business of the two respective institutions, Dáil Éireann and the European Assembly, are not being taken seriously. In addition, a very bad lead is being given to the country as a whole on the basic principle of two people being selected now to hold down two jobs, two jobs they will not be able to discharge effectively and in which they cannot function; two jobs, with two salaries and travelling expenses which will be incurred mainly in ferrying them from one deadline to another in Strasbourg and/or Dublin. They are the basic realities of the situation which cannot be disguised.
It can be said by Deputies opposite: what alternative was there? The Seanad is there; it is an obvious alternative. The Labour Party have, I suppose, two of their outstanding spokesmen in this House now seeking election to Seanad Éireann, former Deputies Horgan and Quinn, two of the best minds the last Dáil experienced sitting in these benches, and I can say that as a person sitting over there answering their very pointed questions day in day out. These two excellent Deputies, two excellent minds, are now seeking election to Seanad Éireann——
And the Taoiseach smiles.
I smiled at the Deputy's reference to answering questions because all they did was back out of them.
Smiling because they are out.
At any rate I do not intend to bring the debate down to any level. I meant very sincerely what I said in regard to Deputies Quinn and Horgan and anybody who sat in these benches, either there or here, would, I am certain, have to agree with me, as I am certain our commentator friends would have to agree with me. These two gentlemen are available. They would make excellent European parliamentarians, excellent members of the European Assembly, would be available very shortly to the Labour Party, presuming their election to the Seanad — as I hope they will both be — would have made a considerable, real contribution to the affairs of the European Assembly and would not have had the sort of workload or pressure that is involved in membership of this House now, would not have had the same workload or pressure as Members of Seanad Éireann, as we all know, where neither the pressure of business nor of voting is anything like the same as bears comparison with the sort of pressure of business and voting that will operate in terms of the affairs of this current Dáil.
Therefore, there was an "out" for a sensible Party that wanted to make a sensible contribution to the nation's affairs and to mobilise and deploy their talents in the best possible manner. That step was not taken. We are now in a position here where legalistically, and legalistically only, in accordance with section 15 of the European Assembly Elections Act, 1977, the Government can do what they are doing. But on every other ground, moral, political, social and practical, they are wrong. I think the Taoiseach knows in his heart of hearts that it is a wrong decision. I am certain that the Tánaiste knows in his heart of hearts that it is a wrong decision. Deputy B. Desmond knows it is a wrong decision because he agreed with me, during our joint participation in the affairs of this committee which made its report on direct elections back in 1974. However, so be it. What I have said was said on the basis of principle, that this is a wrong step judged by any of the principles I have advanced already. I want to say again it is in no way intended as a personal reflection on Deputies Treacy or Pattison, no reflection whatever on the personal worth of the Deputies concerned, no reflection on the legal right of this to be introduced; but is altogether wrong on the various bases of principle I have just adumbrated.
I listened with interest to the Deputy's remarks. I think he exaggerated certain points; but basically, of course, we will be moving, and are moving gradually towards the position where the dual mandate will phase itself out. That is happening already. It has happened more rapidly on the Opposition side of the House by the hazard or chance that at the time when the first European election came they were in Government and we were in Opposition and the choice of candidates influenced by that led to a somewhat different balance or rate of approach to this problem. It is something that will have to be faced up to fully in due course when the next Parliament is elected under a uniform system if that obligation is adhered to.
The Deputy's remarks though would have carried more conviction if in Government he and his colleagues had implemented the recommendations of the report to which he referred about the right of audience in this House of people who are not Members of this House but who are members of the European Parliament. That was the correct way to proceed, to introduce that provision, and thus facilitate the gradual phasing out of the dual mandate with the strain it imposes on those concerned. But that was not done and one wonders why it was not done. The recommendation is there, the Government had the power, there would certainly have been no objection from our side of the House, on the contrary. I do not think the Deputy's speech carries a lot of credibility when he failed to implement that provision which would have facilitated this process.
I would hope that we would introduce such a provision and that we would have the co-operation of the Opposition in that so that the members of the European Parliament who are not Members of this House would have right of audience here. The main beneficiaries from that as of now would be the Opposition but I see no difficulty about that. It is a matter we should discuss with each other and try to come to some arrangement. Unfortunately, as we are more than willing to do that, apparently to facilitate the Opposition party, in Government the present Opposition did nothing about it and we have not got that provision at present, which would have been a step in the direction in which we must gradually move.
We have taken the step as a party in that direction.
There is not much more to be said on the subject. We will all have to review the position in the light of the development towards a uniform system and whatever may come from that and the problems it will pose for us. We will all have to follow very closely the debates in the European Parliament on the procedure for the election of the next Parliament. One of the things which concerns me about that is that it may raise a question as to the form of election. We have a form of election which is unique in the European Community although it exists in a couple of other countries elsewhere in the world. We are very attached to it. Our people have shown their attachment in two referenda. It will not be very easy to persuade nine other countries to adopt our system because we think it is the best but there are other systems which we would regard as objectionable. All that will have to be looked at.
I hope our Deputies in the European Parliament will do their best to ensure that we do not have imposed on us the kind of list system which operates in so many of our member countries, which places all power in the hands of the parties as to who is chosen and deprives the people of the free choice of personnel, which is the great characteristic of the Irish political system with all the problems it creates for particular parties. We all know that there are serious problems. The process of moving towards a new electoral system is one we will have to watch very carefully. I am sure our representatives in the European Parliament, be they with or without dual mandate, will be unitedly concerned to secure that the electoral system adopted is one compatible with the principle of free choice of individuals, which is the chartacteristic mark of our democracy in this country.
The Deputy spoke of the strain imposed on people who carry the dual mandate. There is no doubt that there is such a strain and the Deputy is perfectly right in that. One does not need much imagination, much less experience of being one, to know what is involved. Those who take it on certainly take on a heavy burden but, given that we have not yet introduced any arrangement for right of audience in this House, to break completely the link between this House and the European Parliament, as the Deputy is proposing, would, I believe, be premature. It is important that that link be maintained.
I am not happy with the present situation where there is not the kind of liaison between this House and the Parliament which I believe there ought to be. I am willing to discuss with the Opposition how that is to be done but until it is done I do not think we can contemplate a situation where all the members of the European Parliament would be non-Members of this House, excluded from this House and its committees and divorced completely from the reality of the Departments of this country as they show themselves in the debates in this House and in the committees of this House. I am afraid the Deputy is being less than honest in this. His Government failed to take the step necessary to enable this particular gordian knot to be cut in a manner that would not be damaging to the country, through completely breaking off the relationship between our parliamentary system and the European Parliament. Having failed to do that, to suggest that it should be done by a process of eliminating any contact at all and by having only as members of the European Parliament people who are not Members of this House is, I believe, unjustified. The Deputy is in a very weak position to make that case as a member of a Government which failed to implement the report of that committee as part of a general failure to do anything very much in their period in office in other spheres as well.
The Deputy spoke of the pressures on members of the European Parliament being pulled back for votes in this House and so on. I hope that this situation will not arise and that the normal courtesies will be extended by the Opposition to enable this country to be represented adequately abroad and that there will be no attempt to abuse their position by venting the attendance of the members at the European Parliament—
(Interruptions.)
I am sure that will not happen and that goodwill will prevail in this matter and that where it is necessary for official pairings for Ministers who are members of the Council of Europe in committee or the European Parliament that the Opposition will continue to cooperate so that, pending the adjustment of the rules of this House and the subsequent movement away from dual mandate, we will be able to secure that our interests are adequately represented in Europe and the linkage with this House maintained. There is nothing more to be said on the matter but I look forward to entering into discussions as soon as possible with the Opposition on the question of facilitating the right of audience for non-members of this House who are members of the European Parliament so that that particular obstacle may be overcome. That would certainly make it easier for us to move away from a dual mandate. That is something which we have to face and which all parties have begun to face in varying degrees, the Deputy's party more rapidly than ours because of the particular moment at which this question originated and the type of choice of candidates which that brought about in the case of what were then the Government and what were then the Opposition.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann hereby appoints Mr. Seán Treacy of "Rossa", Heywood Road, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary (who has been nominated in accordance with Section 15 of The European Assembly Elections Act, 1977 by The Labour Party) to be a representative in the Assembly of the European Communities for the constituency of Munster in place of Mrs. Eileen Desmond who was elected as a candidate of The Labour Party and who has resigned as a representative in their Assembly with effect from 30 June, 1981.
Question put and agreed to.