Vol. 330 No. 2
I move:
That Dáil Éireann hereby appoints Mr. John Horgan of 19, Upper Gardiner Street, Dublin 1 (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 Dublin in place of Dr. John O'Connell who was elected as a candidate of The Labour Party and who has resigned as a representative in the Assembly with effect from 10 September 1981.
This motion relates to the appointment of Mr. John Horgan as a representative in the Assembly of the European Communities for the Constituency of Dublin in place of the Ceann Comhairle.
I wish to point out the difficulties caused by the Labour Party both in this Parliament and in the European Parliament by reason of their policy attitudes in regard to filling casual vacancies which have arisen since the general election. The appointment of Deputies Treacy and Pattison blatantly contravened the whole principle of the dual mandate which we in Fianna Fáil have maintained by decision before the election and since. We have rejected the whole concept of the dual mandate and in that respect the Labour Party have been running counter to the trend in the European Parliament where less than 25 per cent of the membership is now accredited to two parliaments. In the case of Mr. Horgan at least they are not using the dual mandate but at the same time they are running counter to the spirit and the letter of the Treaty of Rome and the regulations establishing the European Parliament by appointing a person who could not in any circumstance be regarded as appropriate for nomination to a casual vacancy.
The Political Committee of the European Parliament who have been examining this matter have come down strongly against any nomination principle being adopted as a means of filling casual vacancies. The President of the Parliament, Simone Veil, is equally concerned about this. The policy trend within the Community is against dual mandate and also against filling casual vacancies on a nomination basis. On those two grounds the Labour Party have committed three offences in recent months—and the Coalition Government have supported them—against the laws and spirit of the European Parliament. There is a very strong view that the person who should fill the casual vacancy is the person next entitled to it at the election held to establish the European Parliament. I understand that view was expressed to the Taoiseach by the President of the Parliament. To maintain the elective principle it is essential to ensure that the person who stood for election to the European Parliament should be the person entitled to the seat in the event of a casual vacancy arising. In this case this would mean that the Labour Party should nominate Jane Dillon-Byrne, who was the next Labour candidate in the Dublin constituency following the election of Deputy O'Leary and Deputy O'Connell. This is the logic of the situation. Indeed, it is only because of the fact that the European Parliament, its Political Committee and the President of the Parliament are willing to accept a status quo situation as presented to it by a member government that the Labour Party have got away with their attitude in regard to Deputies Pattison and Treacy and now in regard to Mr. Horgan. It is causing very real embarrassment within the Community, the Parliament, and its committees. It is also a real embarrassment to the President of the Parliament.
I suggest that this has all arisen because of the approach of the Coalition Government towards the European Parliament. They have tended, particularly the Labour Party, to make it a question of "jobs for the boys". Two Deputies have already been selected to fill the O'Connell and O'Leary vacancies and they cannot pay attention to their duties in the European Parliament or here by reason of having to travel between the two and by reason of the tight majority situation that exists here. In addition to that—this aspect has arisen since the appointment of Deputies Pattison and Treacy — the Labour Party, and the Government, are running counter to the expressed views that have emerged in recent months in the Political Committee of the Parliament—a specialist one relating to elections—to the views of the President of the Parliament and of the whole institution.
We had a debate on the appointments of Deputies Pattison and Treacy before the Recess but since then the question of Mr. Cluskey's credentials arose. As I stated, it was just because of the grace, the goodwill and the basic decency of the European Parliament—it is not nice to be depending on those sort of criteria— that Mr. Cluskey was permitted to take his seat.
That is a lot of nonsense. The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.
It was very decent of them because the fact of the matter is that they did not want to embarrass the Government or the Labour Party. It is clear that what the members of the European Parliament wanted, in particular the members of the Socialist Group of the Parliament, the group responsible for this move and to which the Labour Party belongs, was to emphasise the elective nature of the Parliament. The Socialist Group see a strong point of principle involved, that once the Parliament is elective it should remain elective right through in respect of casual vacancies as well as in respect of the original appointments. There is a very real logic in their attitude and a very real point of principle involved. If the decision is made to go from a nominated Parliament to an elected Parliament, it obviously runs counter to that principle to have a system of filling casual vacancies that does not have any relation to an election. The logic of that very strong view held by the Socialist group and the other influential bodies I mentioned in the Parliament should have driven the Labour Party, if they had any sense of decency, and the Government, if they were not just horse-trading with certain individuals, to the conclusion that they should keep half right with the system within Europe and appoint the person who was next in line electorally in the last European election. In the last European election the third Labour candidate was Jane DillonByrne, the next person entitled to the seat after Deputies O'Leary and O'Connell.
Deputy Tully need not raise his eyes to high heaven because that is the way it works in all of the European countries with the exception of Great Britain, that the next candidate on the list is the person who gets the casual vacancy. In Britain, where there is the specific situation of the single seat, obviously they have to have a by-election procedure and that is written into legislation there. We do not have to have a by-election here because we have more candidates than one per party because of the multiple seat situation. I appreciate there is a section in the Act, written in after agreement by all parties, relating to this.
That is very kind of the Deputy.
I grant the Deputy that and there is no need to make any point about it. The fact is that as the law stands the casual vacancy must be filled in a certain manner, the nomination of the party to whom the outgoing person belonged.
Now the Deputy is using my speech.
I am aware of that situation and I made a speech along those lines before the Recess. But it has now emerged that that section in our legislation—let us talk about this rationally because that legislation passed through this House without a division—now runs counter to the universal opinion of Europeans who are concerned about how to fill casual vacancies within the Parliament. In fact, but for the goodwill of the authorities of the European Parliament and of the various committees, this matter would be pushed to the ultimate. I am sure the House is aware that there is a grave danger, if someone wanted to do it, that this matter could be upset, that the filling of these casual vacancies in the manner they have been filled could be upset by application or petition to the European Court by an elector of the constituency concerned.
There is no point running away from that real fact. I do not want to over-labour the point in any party political sense because it is a serious matter that concerns the reputation and the bona fides of Ireland within the Community, particularly with regard to our adherence to the parliament, the Treaty of Rome, the legislation and regulations establishing the Parliament and, generally, our standing within the Community. We cannot be seen to be blatantly flouting Community regulations and rules. It was only by reason of the goodwill of the Community that we got away with this in regard to Deputies Pattison and Treacy and Mr. Cluskey. It was a fait accompli, so they decided not to disturb the matter. However, we are now in a situation where the Labour Party and the Government are aware of the feeling in the Parliament and its committees. The Government are aware of the feeling in the Parproposing to do runs directly counter to the expressed views of the Parliament and, in my view, the casual vacancies as they have been filled could be upset by an application or petition to the European Court.
The reason we are opposing the appointment of Mr. Horgan is because the Government and the Labour Party have had notice of the matter. That makes it all the more serious. In the appointments of Deputies Pattison and Treacy and Mr. Cluskey the same degree of notice did not exist, but the European Parliament and its committees have investigated the matter and put the Government and the Labour Party on full notice in regard to the matter. They are aware of the strong views that have been expressed and also that the President of the Parliament intends making her views known to the Taoiseach. That sort of environment did not exist prior to the Recess and in that type of political environment it is ill-conceived for the Labour Party and the Government not to acknowledge the expressed view and react in the spirit of the law, of the Treaty and of the legal interpretation of the law and the Treaty. The European Parliament regards with great sanctity and concern the question of the Parliament being an elective Parliament. They regard any breach of that by way of a nomination for casual vacancies as being a serious matter. This motion runs counter to all that and in my view it is flouting our European partners, our friends in the Community and the institutions of Parliament.
As I said earlier, the logical way out was for Labour to put forward the next candidate who was not successful in the European election, the third Labour candidate after Deputies O'Connell and O'Leary. There was a perfect formula that would meet the express wish of the European Parliament and at the same time do justice with regard to membership so far as Labour were concerned. Instead Labour have obviously followed the principle of spreading the jobs for the boys over as many members of Labour as possible; they have practically all been accomodated now one way or the other. It is a great achievement on that criterion and, under the umbrella of jobs for the boys, it is the most successful operation I have seen for a long time. But it is a rather cynical exercise which certainly does not do credit to the Labour Party or to this Government. It is doing a very serious in justice and doing damage to this country in regard to its credibility and reputation within the community and here. For that reason we are opposing the nomination.
I, like my colleague Deputy Lenihan, wish to oppose the nomination of Mr. John Horgan of 19 Upper Gardiner Street, Dublin, to the European Parliament. In putting this proposal to the House the Labour Party are merely continuing to show their contempt for and lack of commitment to the whole European concept and what it means to Ireland. At the time of our accession to Europe it was Labour that opposed the referendum and attempted to persuade the Irish people to stay separate from the Community. We, in Fianna Fáil, led the campaign and succeeded in achieving a massive victory in the referendum. The people supported our view and the terms of the negotiated treaty. Now we have a situation, after the general election in June, where Labour are fixing up those who did not already get State cars and who lost in the election. They propose a series of names to the House, Messrs. Cluskey, Patterson and Treacy.
Following on these nominations the Socialist group of which Labour are members opposed and questioned this whole procedure. I admit that the law as it stands is such that what they are doing is legal. However, in the spirit of the directly elected Parliament, what they are proposing to do is contrary to the wishes as reportedly expressed in correspondence to be forwarded to the Taoiseach by Madame Veil, I look forward to reading the letter when it is lodged in the library of the House as was promised yesterday by the Taoiseach with the proviso that there was nothing else in it of a confidential nature. I accept that reservation. The Labour Party are going totally against the express wishes of the Parliament with regard to the system of nomination.
I had the privilege of acting as director of elections during the European campaign in the Dublin region and I recall the very effective campaign by Jane Dillon-Byrne of the Labour Party; she was the third Labour candidate. If the Labour Party were serious about their commitment to Europe or about the wishes of their own socialist group or about the national interest, surely the right and proper thing for them to do was to put before us here today the name of the candidate who stood in that election. It is not my way to make personal remarks, but it must be said that the name we have before us here belongs to a man that I have a lot of respect for but who did not stand in the European election. He stood for the Dáil and was defeated and he stood for the Seanad and was defeated. Now we are being asked to accept the nomination put forward by the Labour Party. We will probably even be accused of having the gall to debate the issue.
In view of the express wishes of the President of the European Parliament and of the need for continuity within this direct election process of following on on the defeated candidate, I would suggest that the proper thing to do is to name the defeated Labour candidate, Jane Dillon-Byrne. There would have been some logic in doing that rather than what we are about to do. I join Deputy Lenihan in opposing this resolution.
It does not surprise me that once again Fianna Fáil have come out in their true colours supporting the bigoted unionist Northern Ireland and the British Conservative Party in an attack upon our system of nominating people to the European Parliament. Ours is a system which ensures representative proportional democracy whereas the British system or the system that some European countries support means that an unrepresentative person is elected.
I am surprised to hear Deputy Burke suggesting that Mr. John Horgan is unsuitable because he has been twice defeated. Fianna Fáil are members of a group in the European Parliament that holds the Parliament in such contempt in that their French members, who are the dominant group in that group of the Parliament, will not allow any person directly elected by the people of France under the de Gaullist banner to hold office in the European Parliament for longer than a year; at the end of each year the person holding the office is replaced by the next defeated candidate so that by the time we reach the fifth year of the first directly elected European Parliament in 1984 the members of that group in the European Parliament from France will be those whose claim to be there will be the fact that they were fifth down the line when the people of their constituencies elected the candidates they wanted in 1979. I know that Deputy Burke and others regard that system as undemocratic and as a force. But they cannot come home from the European Parliament and disown those on whom they rely in the European Parliament to carry on their campaign there. The objective of the majority of the group to which Fianna Fáil belong in the European Parliament is to so belittle the Parliament as to allow people to hold a mandate for only 12 months so that in the fifth year of the Parliament the people who represent the people of France are those who came fifth in line in the elections of 1979.
The Dáil has heard today of misrepresentations of what has happened in the Parliament. The Commission that is charged with responsibility to verify credentials looked at the credentials of the persons nominated by this Parliament and unanimously expressed the view that the credentials were in order and that, as a result, the Labour nominees to this Parliament should be adopted. That was the decision of the committee and that was the decision of the Parliament and the only people who were not a party to the endorsement of that view were the British Conservative Party and the Unionist member from Northern Ireland, Mr. John Taylor. That apparently is the company Fianna Fáil want to choose. They are denigrating a system of selection for the European Parliament which they put before the Dáil and Seanad. The legislation they are now condemning and belittling in the course of this cheap campaign of political opportunism, which began yesterday at 3.30 p.m., is their own legislation. Whatever imperfections our legislation may have according to theory it results in a situation in which the proportions of the electorate are more or less maintained. Surely that is the correct thing to achieve.
Last week, in one of his usual erudite, forceful and relevant contributions to the European Parliament my colleague, Deputy Joe McCartin, made the point in reply to Mr. John Taylor that under the system of election which Mr. John Taylor regarded as superior if he for some reason or other forfeited his seat in the European Parliament tomorrow and a by-election ensued in Northern Ireland it is not Mr. John Taylor's political grouping who would get the seat. It is more likely that the seat would be taken by a more extreme Unionist group led by one of Mr. Taylor's arch political enemies. If the Northern Ireland seat now held by the Nationalist minority was for any reason forfeited tomorrow and a by-election took place the Nationalist minority would be unrepresented in the European Parliament for the next three years. Is that the kind of system which Fianna Fáil regard as superior to the one we are using here today? I do not think any true democrat could support such a system.
I believe many countries in Europe are quite wrong in using a system which ensures that one of the best qualifications to have for membership of the European Parliament is to prove you were defeated in the European Parliamentary elections. That is what happens in any country which operates the system of taking the next in line. For goodness sake do not let the people in this Parliament proceed to denigrate a system which we know in our heart of hearts is a fair one because it allows the electorate to be represented roughly proportionate to the manner in which they select representatives to Parliament. Our people voted that way knowing that is the system that would operate. That is the way they voted in 1979. It would be a denial of our responsibility to our electorate if we were now, in the middle of the first term of the European Parliament, to change the system. You do not change the rules in the middle of the game if you have any sense of fair play. It could well be that before the end of the European Parliament there could be a change of Government here and I suspect Fianna Fáil may be endeavouring to fill a vacancy in their ranks in the European Parliament.
I would like to put on record our appreciation of the fact that the Fianna Fáil representatives in the European Parliament did not take the line in relation to the last three nominations from this Dáil that the Fianna Fáil Party are advocating today. In a patriotic and responsible way they upheld the Irish legislation and accepted the decision of this Dáil. I asked the Fianna Fáil Party to cease playing politics with European institutions and to cease giving, as they appear to relish giving, quotations to people like Mr. John Taylor so that he can use their denunciations of our system of representative democracy to make further attacks which he and his ilk like to make on this country.
After due deliberation in this House and in the Seanad we adopted our system of replacing members of the European Parliament. It is a good and fair system and ensures that the electorate have somebody who broadly represents their views, give or take a small margin of votes. That is a good thing. We know under the way in which we practice democracy that if we had a by-election in the event of a vacancy occurring in the European Parliament the work of this House and of the other House would be seriously interfered with for several weeks because even a by-election for one seat out of 148 means, as far as we are capable of doing it, that we all take ourselves to the constituency where the by-election is taking place.
One of the reasons which governed our decision not to have a by-election if there should be a vacancy in the European Parliament was because we did not want to have a situation in which you could have the local and national political work coming to a standstill because of the need to fill a vacancy in the European Parliament. If there was a readiness on all sides to play down the over-involvement of political personalities in by-election campaigns, if we agreed to contest by-election campaigns in the way they used to be reasonably contested 20 or 30 years ago, we could possible entertain the prospect of having by-elections in the future to the European Parliament. When we have a situation in which one-quarter of the country would be involved in a by-election for the European Parliament, as far as the electorate are concerned, we could be certain that the whole political process here would come to a standstill because of the intensity with which we fight such campaigns. That is a matter for consideration tomorrow and I do not see our abandonment of bad habits overnight. I again appeal to Fianna Fáil representatives to behave as responsible and patriotically as their representatives did in the European Parliament and approve this nomination today which is an exercise of the decision already taken by the Dáil and the Seanad. We should not apologise to the rest of the world for a system of election which can compare more than favourably for the proportional representation which it gives to all sections of the people including minorities, with other systems.
It is not poor Deputy Lenihan's day. He attempted to explain away a few things today and he landed every time with his face down in the mud. He is a nice fellow really. Most of us in this House and outside the House throughout the country realise that he is one of the nicest fellows you could meet socially but he is a dead loss as a politician. On 9 July 1981 in Volume 329, column 352 of the Official Report he had this to say on the nomination of Mr. Cluskey:
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.
One of them is now seeking nomination from this House to the European Parliament. Poor Deputy Lenihan forgot what he said in July and he now says he is not suitable. Maybe what happened to him earlier today has rattled him a bit.
I would like to point out to Deputy Lenihan and to the Fianna Fáil Party that I am a great believer in democracy and in the law of this land as passed by the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas had two things to say in the Bill which became law here in 1977. The European Assembly Elections (No. 2) Bill, 1977 in Article 5 of the appendix says that the office of representative in the Assembly shall be compatible with membership of the Parliament of a member state. That is very definite. The only reason why Fianna Fáil are opposing the dual mandate, as they call it, is because for political reasons, fearing they would lose the last general election, they wanted to have a corner where they could refuse to agree to pairs as they would not have anybody in the European Parliament who was also in this House. There is one little girl who nearly got elected. If she had got elected I believe Fianna Fáil would have a little bit of trouble with their dual mandate.
The Minister knows that is not true.
I know of comments she made. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill made the following statement regarding section 15:
Article 12 of the Act annexed to the Council decision provides that subject to the other provisions of the Act each Member State shall lay down appropriate procedures for filling any seat that falls vacant during the life of the Assembly. Under the existing electoral system in this country two different methods are employed for filling casual vacancies. Such vacancies in the Dáil and among the elected members of the Seanad are filled by by-elections, while casual vacancies in the membership of local authorities are filled by co-option. This section provides that casual vacancies in the Irish representation of the Assembly will be filled by appointment by the Dáil of a person who is qualified under this Bill for election to the Assembly and where, following the preceding election, the seat falling vacant was held by a person who was a candidate of a registered political party, the appointment will be made by the Dáil on the nomination of that party. Such a nomination must be made within three months of the vacancy arising.
That is the law of the land. The contempt for the law of the land shown by the two Deputies from Fianna Fáil who have spoken is obvious here this afternoon. They put the Bill through the House and it was passed unanimously but it is not acceptable to them now.
Perhaps certain people in the European Parliament consider it is not an ideal way but, as Deputy Ryan pointed out, the way certain other states fill casual vacancies is not ideal from our point of view. They did not ask us if what they did was the right thing to do; they abided by the law of their land. Fianna Fáil went to. considerable pains to explain their position when they were putting the Bill through the House and it is quite extraordinary now to find they are opposing the appointment of a person whom even Deputy Lenihan described as one of the best brains in the House. Perhaps that is the reason. Perhaps Fianna Fáil do not want the Labour Party to have people of the calibre of John Horgan. Deputy Lenihan mentioned that John Horgan had been defeated in the election. I remember Deputy Lenihan suffering defeat. People in politics are subject to that. However, Deputy Lenihan went into the Seanad and subsequently he was nominated for Europe. For years the dual mandate operated and Deputies and Senators of the Fianna Fáil Party went to Europe. They saw nothing wrong with that then. I repeat the only reason they see anything wrong with the dual mandate now is because they were afraid they would be beaten at the last election and their view was that in the case of a tight vote it would be nice to be able to say they were not prepared to give pairs. It was a lousy decision, a rotten decision to take. It is contrary to the spirit of the Act and it could only be taken by the people who are running Fianna Fáil.
On reflection the Minister might like to reconsider his language.
Yes, I will substitute the word "rotten". On 26 October 1979, at column 126 of the Official Report, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. O'Kennedy, said:
One of the most difficult problems related to Assembly elections is the selection of a method for filling casual vacancies. In the electoral law of this country two methods of filling such vacancies in the membership of elected bodies are recognised. Vacancies in the Dáil and among the elected members of the Seanad are filled by by-election while vacancies in the membership of local authorities are filled by co-option.
In relation to by-elections there are two very serious objections in the context of Assembly elections. First, there is the considerable expense and inconvenience of holding a by-election in the large constituencies proposed in the Bill but, more important, there is the distorting effect which by-elections could have in our representation in the Assembly. There is of course a strong argument for by-elections in relation to the national Parliament in that they provide a useful method of testing public opinion between general elections and can, thus, have an important bearing on Government policy.
This argument has no relevance in the context of the Assembly which will not have the task of appointing an executive to be responsible to it and for this reason their representational aspect becomes more important. A by-election is therefore not a suitable device in this context but, on the other hand, direct co-option by the Assembly itself is also not appropriate.
The Bill arranged to have co-option made, as was stated earlier. Deputy Lalor continued on some what similar lines. At column 1390 of the Official Report of 27 October 1977 he stated:
I welcome the proposal in relation to casual vacancies. Provision is made that the nomination by the Dáil will come from the party of the person who has for some reason or other been responsible for the casual vacancy. The explanatory memorandum states that where following the preceding election the vacant seat was won by the representative of a registered political party, the appointment by the Dáil will be on the nomination of the party concerned.
Today two Fianna Fáil Members are challenging their own Act. They are saying it is wrong to do what the Oireachtas decided should be done, that we should have some other way. On two occasions today Fianna Fáil Members had the audacity to decide that they should be able to select our candidates for elections. It is extraordinary to find Fianna Fáil so interested in selecting our candidates. Not long ago they had considerable difficulty in selecting one of their own. I suggest they should work on that matter because it needs some work to ensure they do not get into trouble again.
I do not want to hold up the business of the House, as Fianna Fáil have been doing. We are doing what we are entitled to do under the law of the land when a casual vacancy arises. We are saying that John Horgan is the person we want in Europe. We consider it impertinent of Fianna Fáil to suggest that they have a right to decide what way we select our candidate or to decide that the law, because it does not suit them, should not be operated in the way it is laid down.
I move that John Horgan be appointed as our candidate in the European Parliament.
