Before the adjournment I was making the point that there are two aspects of this Bill which I find——
European Assembly Elections Bill, 1984: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
On a point of order, could we have a quorum?
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
As I was saying before Deputy Blaney ensured that I would have a full House to appreciate the doubtless important thoughts I am about to impart on this very significant Bill, there are two aspects of this Bill about which I will raise certain questions. The first is the omission of the names of the replacement candidates from the ballot paper. I do not accept the argument which is made very strongly in the memorandum which accompanied the Bill that this could lead to difficulties, printing difficulties, layout difficulties and so forth and that the ballot would be unduly long and would place great strains on the credibility of the voters. There is an important principle involved in this. The replacement candidates mean something or they do not. Either the parties or the individual candidates are serious about the people they nominate as replacement candidates or they are not. I believe the names of the replacement candidates may be almost as significant as the names of the candidates themselves in making up people's minds about who they vote for in the election. If parties are serious about the quality of the candidates they nominate as replacements, if they ensure that the names of those who are so nominated are people who could step into a European Parliament seat and perform there with distinction, then I believe the electorate to some extent will be more inclined to vote for that party.
It is the right of the voter to know who exactly the replacement candidates are. The Minister said that there will be posters at polling booths telling people who the candidates are and I know there will be a certain amount of publicity, but that is not enough. I believe we have reached a stage of technology in the printing industry when it should be possible, without too much strain on the imagination or the resources of the designer of ballot papers, to include the names of the replacement candidates. It may well be that these names will appear in small print. So be it. If it is in small print at least it is there for voters to see, check and verify or it may be possible to have the names on the reverse side of the ballot paper. Surely there are sufficient people around with experience of design and type-setting to ensure that at least some specimen ballot papers could be produced so that we could ascertain whether that is possible. I do not like to accept straightaway the view simply that this is not possible.
The second point — one raised by Deputy Molloy in a rather surly way — indicated that there was something devious in the Minister's mind in the way in which a limit is placed on the number of replacement candidates. The Deputy spoke as though one party only could suffer from this arrangement. I, too, believe that the number of replacement candidates should be greater. I do not see the merit in limiting the number as the provisions of this Bill do.
On a point of order, Sir, since the rules are being applied here this evening, it might be as well to apply them again and in order to be consistent — as I know you are — could we have a House please.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
There are three consequences of this game being played at present, first of all, the House itself is being brought into disrepute by the antics of one Deputy, secondly he is ensuring that I have a much bigger audience than I would normally have and, thirdly he has drawn attention to the fact of how little he has been here over the past three months.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
Deputies
Welcome back.
They should make sure they stay here.
There is the question of the replacement candidates. I mentioned earlier that when the Opposition spokesman was talking about this he approached the entire question in a surly way in which he seemed to impute bad faith to the Minister, as if the only party which could suffer as a result of this section would be the Fianna Fáil Party. I was astonished at the way in which he built this into almost a question of principle. I believe the Minister is wrong with regard to this problem in the provisions of the sections. I believe the number of replacements should not be limited to two or three. I believe Deputy Molloy is correct, that there could be the type of eventuality he mentioned in which replacements from a different party might well, in some perhaps tragic or unforeseen circumstances, find themselves replacing somebody from another party. That situation may not be so far-fetched. For example, MEPs fly quite a lot. If there was a plane crash and if two MEPs of the same party, of the same constituency, were killed then we would have straightaway the replacements on the list with all the places being filled immediately, so that any further change during the life of that Parliament would mean candidates coming from a different party. I would urge the Minister to look again at section 6. There is no question of principle involved here. It is simply a matter of practice. It is simply a matter of increasing the number of candidates available under the Bill.
I want to look now at two aspects which the Bill does not cover, aspects at which the Minister might look, if not now at least the next time this subject is raised. What happened here today highlights the matter, and I say this in a constructive way. I refer to what happened to Deputy Blaney this afternoon. I would like to have heard Deputy Blaney speaking on this question of the Summit because his European experience obviously meant that what he was going to say would have been worth listening to. Unfortunately under the rules of the House the Leas-Cheann Comhairle quite properly did not allow him to speak.
What I am talking about now really is the whole question of some sort of structured link between the European Parliament and this House. We have had five years of direct experience of direct elections and six years of experience of an indirectly elected European Parliament. During that time we have not, no more than any other parliament in the Community, faced up to what should be the proper type of link between our national parliament and the European Parliament. Matters have been discussed in the European Parliament on a daily basis which are of direct relevance to the vast majority of Deputies here, and there is very little way in which Deputies here can benefit from the experience and vastly superior information of our European Deputies. This operates also at parliamentary party level.
It is not a question for the Oireachtas but it is a question of linkage of the ability of MEPs to participate in their own parliamentary parties. That ability is extremely limited, because for the most part parliamentary parties meet on a Wednesday and that is the day on which MEPs are away. This absence of a direct link constitutes a loss from the point of view of the MEPs themselves. They could very often feel stronger if they knew they had the backing of their colleagues at home in whatever case they are making in Strasbourg or Luxembourg or Brussels. The absence of a linkage means that the parliament feels more cut off from the national parliament than it needs to be. I am surprised there has not been more pressure over the last number of years for a closer and more formalised link.
Recently when a small group from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation visited the European Parliament at Strasbourg we made this point with officials and members of the parliament there, and, while everybody we spoke to admitted there was a need for a much closer formalised linkage between the national and the European Parliament, it is clear no country has as yet come up with some sort of system which would provide access to members of the European Parliament at national level and which would also provide for easier direct contact between Members of this House and the European Parliament.
In our case I believe there should not be any great difficulty constitutionally or otherwise. It should be possible to have a situation where Irish MEPs who are not already Members of the Dáil or Seanad should have access to the Seanad — in other words, have the right to participate in Seanad debates directly relevant to their European experience. Their European experience would be good for the Seanad. It would give it some more work to do, but, more importantly, it would ensure there would be the right of access for members of the European Parliament who feel they have something important to say to the Oireachtas, who feel they can make a contribution on a debate which has a European dimension. I believe this right of access would create no constitutional problem. The MEPs would not have the right to vote. They might well be barred from participating in certain debates. Nonetheless this is something that should be considered very seriously. It might well add to the quality of the debate and to an understanding of what is happening. The existing gap is exceedingly serious.
The other question I wish to raise — it is not mentioned in the Bill — is that of the dual mandate. It is rather ironic that Fianna Fáil who were in the past so sanctimonious in their attitude to the dual mandate should now have done almost a total about turn on the issue. I think most people would agree now that the dual mandate has become almost a physical impossibility. I think most would agree that the very existence of the dual mandate brings into question the type of service which those who carry it can give to either parliament. From the experience of the last five years we have seen that the sheer time available for debate in either parliament is limited. The quality of the performance may be as good as ever, though I am not so sure that it is, but MEPs with a dual mandate are human. They must be very selective, and I believe it is not good for the image of either parliament that the dual mandate continues unimpaired.
Having said that, I think the question is not a simple black and white one. It should be possible not to adopt a too rigid line on this. It is right that someone from this House, someone who has given long service and who has a wide range of experience, is probably well qualified to give good service to this country in the European Parliament, and it would be wrong to adopt a dual mandate which cut off that possibility. It would be wrong to bar as candidates people from this House who wished to run for the European Parliament. I believe that would be unfair and contrary to the national interest. There should be a certain amount of mobility between the two parliaments, but I think we will have to draw a line, and draw it fairly soon, and the best system that could be adopted is that those who run from this House for the European Parliament and are elected should be obliged to make up their mind before the next general election whether they want to opt for the European Parliament or to stay in the national parliament. We are talking about some sort of transition process or mechanism which makes it possible for a person to move from the national parliament to the European Parliament without causing a by-election back here, without cutting off his base at home, but the time will come, and come fairly soon, when that person will have to decide which parliament he wishes to serve and we shall have to face up to this question in the very near future.
I welcome the Bill. Like the Minister I hope it will be a temporary Bill. I hope some sort of uniform electoral process will have been decided upon by 1989. With a few small changes I believe the Bill is totally acceptable, and I welcome the opportunity the Bill has provided of some debate on some aspects of the European Parliament.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for the last time tonight I am in order in emphasising the rules of this House which are not being kept. I am asking before I start speaking — I will not ask after I have started since I do not expect people to listen — but I do expect Members to come in and, if rules are going to be applied to me, then they will be applied to all Members of the House even if occasionally I am not allowed to speak, and so I am calling for a House.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present
When I am outside I am accommodating.
The Deputy thinks we are all outside doing nothing.
I am accommodating by pairing with some of the Deputy's colleagues.
The Deputy may well be.
The Deputy would not know that. She is not long enough here.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy was always counted as one of them anyway.
Does the Deputy object to pairing to facilitate some of her colleagues? Just tell me.
Our colleagues have been here and have not been paired with the Deputy.
I have never broken a pair. I am sorry I seem to get under the skin of some of these people who are in the House for such a short time that they are still wet behind the ears. The reason for this is that if there are rules let them be applied. I am demonstrating that it would be shorter and perhaps more useful, although that is doubtful——
The Deputy to please resume on the Bill.
As regards the Bill and the question of substitutes and general arrangements for the European Parliament elections, is the Minister satisfied that the main provisions he has made about listing and the manner in which it is to be provided, recorded and displayed will meet the objections of the credentials committee of which he and I are aware? I have sat on this committee on a number of occasions particularly when we had difficulties in having substitutes accepted by that committee. Is the Minister satisfied on that score, because I am not?
I hope the Deputy can remain for my reply to the debate, when I will answer that question.
If the Minister wants me to expound on what I think I will do so.
I would be interested to hear it.
I do not believe that the proposal which contains the provision for the registration, recording and ultimately the display of whatever number of substitutes, be it great or small, meets the objections of the credentials committee. From my knowledge of the barney that went on on several occasions at that committee on which I sat, we do not meet the objections raised at those meetings of the committee.
I have little regard for the systems of election in many countries which would try to teach us what democracy is all about. In most cases their systems are daft. Their thresholds of 5 per cent are crazy and undemocratic, and I hope we never get around to importing that commodity which these countries have adopted and regard as sacred. What they have in common is that where they have lists in their system, whether national, regional, constituency or a combination of all, all the people's names appear on the ballot paper. People of standing are put at the top of the ballot paper although they have no notion of going into parliament if elected. They are put there to gather votes. They are listed numerically and invariably are elected. They have no interest in politics and very often do not believe in the politics of the party on whose list they appear. I do not know for what consideration they appear. The people who follow them can be said to have been before the electorate. Although what we are doing seems to be all right in that they are recorded and duly displayed — perhaps they may be displayed even at polling stations — I do not give two hoots how they are displayed, if they are not on the ballot paper they will not get over the problems we were confronted with in accepting the substitutes, from Ireland in particular, that we accepted in the parliament over the last four or five years.
I met the present chairman of the credentials committee. He had a copy of the Bill but I did not. I only had a newspaper report of it but it was sufficient to enable me to know what it was about. His reaction was that it does not and will not meet with what he regards as the requirements of the credentials committee. It would be unnecessary to say this if the Minister had sussed it out and was satisfied that it met the norm. I do not believe we are meeting the norm.
I do not see anything wrong with the system we had. It was eminently sensible and suitable and, apart from an oddball like myself, quite democratic that parties who wanted to replace people should be entitled to do so with the imprimatur of this parliament and there should be no more talk about it. It is our parliament's business, and if we are not capable of doing it in our own way relative to our system of election, I do not see how any European is capable of teaching us anything, because of the nonsensical and undemocratic nature of some of their systems which they would like to have imposed as the uniform one. God forbid we would ever have them.
I do not believe this will meet the requirements of the credentials committee who vet the substitutes from every country, because there is no way that the substitutes, as provided for in this Bill, will be accepted as having been before the electorate. In my estimation from my experience that is where they fall down. Taking it on the assumption that it does not fall down and that the Minister is satisfied and has assurances which will satisfy him, I hope he will keep in mind that it will not be the same parliament next time, and even then minds could be changed. That parliament might accept something which the present parliament would not accept, and for that matter what might be acceptable to the present parliament or what they might indicate as being acceptable to them may not be acceptable to the next one. There is no hard and fast written rule such as our Constitution on this matter. There is a general belief to which we do not subscribe, and the U.K. are totally different in their approach to elections, systems are totally different, lists are foreign to us and I am not sorry that they are.
To get on to the assumption that this Bill becomes an Act and is acceptable in its content in that aspect, I feel that a few points are worth making to the Minister and the House on this matter of how many and where candidates are entered as substitutes. In other words you are doing cross doubles. The candidates have cross-doubled, or cross-trebled for that matter, by way of being candidates and substitutes, and that is understandable and acceptable. It is proper that that facility should be there, that they can run as candidates and whoever is not successful out of the team should be substitute and probably first substitute if any justice is being done within the parties, but that is their business. We should not count the candidates who are crossed as substitutes. I suggest to the Minister that the substitute numbers should be added to those, and not in the manner proposed at the moment. In other words you do not count them if they are already candidates; there may be substitutes and you add on the appropriate number of substitutes as if they were not named as substitutes, or even where they are not named. If they are named they should not count as candidates and as substitutes. In other words they should have the extra on that basis.
We have suggestions here about various matters that might be improved. I thought that Deputy Molloy went slightly off course, and maybe he intended to do so. He talked about non-party candidates being given advantages. I was in a party as long maybe as half the Members of this House and I cannot see where the advantage is now that I am in an unregistered party. I have a party and I am quite entitled to be registered here as a party except for one little flaw, that is that I retain the name "Fianna Fáil" in that party and because of our laws, which probably are fairly sensible, the name would be too similar to that of the existing Fianna Fáil Party. That is the only reason why the party that I represent is not registered. In every other respect we are similar. We conform to the same sort of rules as did the party to which I belonged in the past and other parties in this House, but where the advantage is that Deputy Molloy talked about I do not know. Being a member of a non-registered party means that I must run with, after my name, nothing, "independent" or "non-party" whereas all runners from each party, whatever the number be, one, two, three or five, have the facility within the electoral laws of having the name of their party after their names. I have not that facility, but I trade under the name of my party. I advertise under it, billpost under it, elect councillors under it and I am elected to this House under it. We fulfil the requirements, but we are non-registered because the name would not be accepted and we are not prepared to accept or to acknowledge that the existing Fianna Fáil Party, big though they may be, are the real Fianna Fáil Party. That is why we are not registered. We might change our minds about that. In the meantime, where lies the advantage that Deputy Molloy talks about? I must ask him, because I find that we have the disadvantages but none of the advantages that the parties have. One advantage that he sees as very attractive he seems to apply to only non-party or non-registered party candidates. That is they can get all sorts of names by way of substitutes in order to boost their chances. Have the parties not the same advantage with multiple candidates up and the addition of substitutes in respect of each candidate in the multiplicity they have? They will be putting one up in every county in a constituency such as mine, Connacht-Ulster. They will be trying to pick a county man with some allegiance to the parties, no doubt. Does Deputy Molloy imply that that was general, or was it only in the case of non-registered party candidates that they would avail of this and therefore it would be unfair? I do not see how it would be unfair.
If the Blaney Fianna Fáil Party put forward two candidates for Connacht-Ulster you can name six substitutes. The real Fianna Fáil Party who are putting forward two candidates, can name only four substitutes two of whom will be the candidates anyway. We can have only four and you can have six.
I have been making the point for you that where you have two candidates, as in Connacht-Ulster, and they are to be crossed as substitutes, that should not count in the number of substitutes.
I am talking about what is in the Bill and what should be in the Bill.
All Deputies should make their points through the Chair.
I thank Deputy Molloy for clarifying my mind on what I have disremembered. Deputy Molloy is saying that a non-party becomes a party by putting up more than one candidate——
No.
——but that they retain the advantage individually of the number of substitutes that each of them may have. You cannot have it the two ways, but it gives me the thought that I can put up one or two candidates and add six substitutes to the three and that will be nine. That would cover the constituency.
We could not have so many substitutes.
Nobody else is debarred from doing that either.
The Fianna Fáil Party would be limited to four substitutes under this Bill. If you put forward two candidates you can have six substitutes under it.
The point is that the disadvantage then would be mine or ours if we had, say, three candidates and no indication on the paper that they were associated.
I am not referring to that. I never made any reference to that. I am merely talking about the number of substitutes.
Deputy Blaney on the Bill, and through the Chair.
Sir, I am talking about what has been talked about on the Bill while you were in the Chair, and about nothing else. I am trying to get some elucidation from the Minister or from the Deputy who spoke after him.
The Chair is trying to point out that it would be more in order if only one Deputy was contributing to the debate at the same time.
Does that rule me out?
No, the Chair is trying to get order for Deputy Blaney, but that means getting order from himself.
I think we should have a quorum in the House.
Notice taken that 20 Members not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
May I just try to resume where I left off? Regarding substitutes, a stage can be reached in which, despite the addition of substitutes over the quorum proposed by the Bill, that list runs out. It would then not be at all wrong to provide in the Bill — and therefore in the Act — for reverting to what we had been doing up to now, in such a very unlikely eventuality.
There is a lot to be said theoretically, although in practice it may not be very sensible and certainly is not very convenient, for by-elections. As often as not, these result in the party which already have the seat not retaining it. In a sense, perhaps, what we were doing was more democratic and reflected better the wish of the electorate compared with what we are now proposing. It would be a great bit of sport to have a by-election in the wide territory of all Leinster, Connacht-Ulster or Munster, and even the whole of Dublin city and county. I am not too sure that it would be a useful exercise and give the results of restoring to the electorate representation of the same outlook as those candidates elected previously under a multi-seat PR system, as is our practice. Perhaps we should consider having by-elections. One result would be that there would be much less attraction for Members who had gone to the European Parliament to opt out unless for very good reasons such as death. I think that is the only time when we had by-elections. It would certainly preclude someone good and useful being recalled to serve in his Government — no matter which Government that might be — because of the possibility that if he vacated his seat and it was to be filled by a by-election the fall of the cards was such that by coming back to serve in his Government the seat would be lost to his group or party. Therein lies one of the difficulties in going for a straight by-election, even on the large constituency basis.
Would the Minister in replying please clarify the checking and/or counting on a county basis being provided for? As I listened to him, perhaps not very intently, there seemed to be a contradiction. I rather gathered that a change was being proposed here. The last time, as far as I know, we did not have any county checks. The checking of the accuracy of the number of ballot papers as against the presiding officer's returns in each box or polling station was done on a county basis the last time, but in such a manner that they were then put into laundry hampers and arrived at the county centre in Galway in that condition. They were then shovelled up on to the various tables and were just like straw coming out of a combine harvester. That is about as near as one could get to knowing what was going on. Are we going to have a change there? If so, what is the point in having a central count, such as was mentioned by the Minister? I do not know how these proposals being put forward differ from the procedure of last time. Perhaps the Minister might clarify the position for me, as I am a little confused.
There was mention also of the provision, appropriately perhaps in a Bill such as this, although I doubt it, for having more communication between the Parliament Members and the Oireachtas, whether the Seanad or the Dáil.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 7 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 22 March 1984.