Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 Mar 1984

Vol. 349 No. 3

European Assembly Elections Bill, 1984: Second Stage (Resumed)

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

This Bill deals with revised procedures for filling casual vacancies in the European Assembly. A number of speakers have already commented on the Bill. I agree that a by-election held to fill a vacancy in the European Parliament would probably be an unwieldy and an expensive system. Therefore, it is essential that we devise a system which is reasonably simple and at the same time has the essence of the democratic process about it. I am not entirely convinced that the proposed system is the right one but, as the Minister outlined in his speech introducing this Stage, pending acceptance by all the member states it is the best that we can come up with and we will have it with us for some time.

The true working of democracy is that the people by their own choice have selected people to represent them by voting for them. We all know that applies in the case of Dáil elections. Many commentators have been suggesting that we might devise a system to eliminate by-elections for vacancies in the Dáil. In the case of the European Assembly, in order that the people might perceive that justice is done and that they have participated in the selection of the people concerned, when further proposals are being drawn up by the various member countries consideration might be given to a system like that in America in relation to the primaries. I do not know if it would work in our political framework but the people might feel they had a direct contribution in the selection of the candidates if we had a system like that. I am putting forward that suggestion because there has been some criticism about the filling of vacancies in relation to Irish members of the European Parliament and also in relation to members from other countries. The public have the right to make their input into the selection of candidates.

It may be a little confusing to the public that the names of the sub-panel candidates will not appear on the ballot paper. On polling day voters will have very little knowledge, unless they are very perceptive in taking account of the names listed at the various polling stations, of who will be on those sub-panels. I know there will be postings which should give the public the notice required. We have all seen various notices outside polling stations on polling day and we do not always read all of them, so there may be some slight confusion there.

I am also a little worried that the procedure is almost like a co-option, although this is an improvement on the previous procedure. We know that co-option has worked reasonably well in relation to local authorities where small constituencies are involved but we should really steer clear of that type of system in relation to replacing our representatives in the European Assembly.

I hope the general public realise the importance of electing people to represent them at the European Assembly. The people who are selected on the A or B panel have a very difficult job to do for the country. The electorate should feel at all times that they have a major role to play in the selection and election of such people. The responsibility for making Ireland's case in the European Assembly in the future will fall on their shoulders. That task will become more difficult with the passage of time. Recent events have clearly illustrated that. I hope the general public in this particular election year will take full cognisance of the importance of their role in electing those people.

This side of the House has no objection in principle to the method proposed in the Bill for filling vacancies in the European Parliament. We strongly object, however, to limiting the number of the names on the replacement candidates list to the number of candidates plus two. That is the only reservation we have in relation to the Bill. If democracy is to be ensured it is vital that the Government amend the Bill to allow at least four more candidates on the replacement list over the number of candidates for a party in a particular constituency. There is no reason why there should be any limit to the number of candidates on this list. The Minister represents a party who have been described by some people as having played musical chairs with their European seats. It could be said that the system has been made a mockery of since the last European election with the different changes of Government since then. It is significant that this process was not introduced by a Labour Minister. It should also be noted that none of the present Labour members of the European Parliament were elected to the European Assembly.

We have some reservations about the way the Government are manipulating this proposal to their advantage. As Deputy Molloy pointed out last week, if the experience of the Labour Party is anything to go on, a situation could arise in which a vacancy created by the resignation of, say, a Fianna Fáil candidate could be filled by the Government of the day with a candidate from the Fine Gael or Labour Party replacement list. I should like clarification of this part of the Bill because it is true to say that in no other country of the EEC would such a system be tolerated. Indeed I wonder has the Minister brought this proposal to the attention of the Credentials Committee of the European Parliament because, unless that system is amended, it will be rejected by the European Parliament. Speaking as a candidate in the forthcoming elections in June I would appreciate clarification of the matter of whether substitutes are to be identified with a particular candidate. For example, one wonders whether a replacement candidate should represent the same area or part of a constituency, say, the north of Leinster or the south of Leinster. Many people would contend that if a candidate was elected for, say, north Leinster and resigned or died he should be replaced by somebody else representing that area. That is not very clear from the provisions as they stand and some clarification is certainly desirable.

The European Parliament must be treated seriously. It is my view that this proposal has not been given sufficient thought or, if it has, represents a cynical manipulation of democracy. It must be remembered that the European Parliament will be faced with many serious issues in ensuing years. Unemployment constitutes our biggest social evil and also represents probably the largest social evil of many of our European counterparts. For example, in the Leinster constituency it has reached a figure of almost 46,000, young and old. The failure of the Government to tackle this problem will be a fundamental issue in the forthcoming elections.

The European Parliament will be anxious to devise ways of getting the European economy moving, of developing new policies to deal with the technological and scientific era in which we live and of deploying our natural resources. In this connection, as I pointed out in the course of an Adjournment Debate some time ago, the situation in Bula Mines in my home town of Navan is that almost ten years ago the then Minister for Industry and Commerce — a candidate in the European elections — gave £9,500,000 of our taxpayers' money for a 24 or 25 per cent share of those mines. Now, with another Coalition Government in office——

I would prefer that the Deputy adhered to the provisions of the Bill before the House.

I was merely pointing out the importance of arresting the unemployment situation across the board in Europe and of the usage of our natural resources in so doing. In that connection it is desirable that the Government should do something about the issue of Bula Mines which has continued now for ten years and where investment must be of the order of approximately £25 million. However, I shall not dwell on the subject if the Chair does not wish me to do so.

The European Parliament will not want to be placed in the position that it will have to call its Credentials Committee to unravel any of the provisions of this Bill. Obviously it would be preferable that a correct presentation would go to the Credentials Committee.

I am not so sure I appreciate the Minister's argument that a long ballot paper would be too sophisticated for the Irish electorate. I do not need to remind the House that, in the first European elections in 1979, local elections were held simultaneously. Unfortunately we are denied that opportunity this year. The method employed then did not prove too sophisticated for our electorate. I contend that our electorate are perfectly capable of examining and understanding a detailed ballot paper. In those first European elections there was an urban ballot paper, a county council ballot paper and a European ballot paper, when there was a very extensive poll and when it did not seem to present any great problem to the electorate. There were certainly a certain amount of spoiled ballot papers. I would not agree with the Minister that a long, detailed ballot paper, or an extension of the provisions of the Bill in regard to the two-plus-two proposal would present any difficulty to the ordinary Irish elector.

Bearing in mind the performance of the Government since the last election there is no doubt that the electorate will welcome the opportunity to show them exactly what they think of that performance. There has been sufficient said in the House about the postponement of the local elections in recent weeks. It is true that the electorate feel somewhat cheated that they were denied an opportunity of judging the Government on their performance or of, perhaps, giving them a rap on the knuckles in those local elections. The Government may have misjudged the electorate. Hopefully the electorate will turn out in force, giving the Government the rap ont he knuckles they would have received had the local elections taken place. I hope the opinion held in some areas that it will be difficult to mobilise the electorate on the day of the European elections — because of the postponement of the local elections — will not be vindicated. In some countries it is difficult to mobilise people to vote in a normal election and it would be somewhat sad if, on 14 June next, there was a rather low poll. One hopes that will not happen because we have here a good track record in the turn-out of the electorate. In the last general election we had a turn-out of 73 per cent and that was after three general elections had been called in quick succession. While it is fair to assume that the turn-out will not match that of a general election it is hoped it will not drop substantially. They do well in the United States to get a 50 per cent turn-out. I hope the turn-out here will be above that figure and that the election will be seen as a serious exercise in democracy.

Where will the lists of replacement candidates be sited in the polling booths. Will they be on the wall or on the table? This is another nebulous area of the Bill which needs to be clarified. The explanatory memorandum states that in voting for a particular candidate the electorate will also indicate approval of the appropriate list of replacements. What happens if a voter does not wish to indicate his or her preference for a person on the list? Will that vote be spoiled? How does one ensure that an elector approves of a candidate on the replacement list? When voting for an official candidate will an elector write down the name of the candidate on the ballot paper and also the names of the candidates on the list? That needs to be clarified. Whether it is a political or personal preference will also have to be clarified.

There is confusion over the counting of votes and where the counting will be completed. From reading the explanatory memorandum I understand that the votes in each constituency will be sorted out. Will the ballot papers be turned up so that tallying can be proceeded with or will they be turned down before being transferred to a central counting station? That is what appears to be in the explanatory memorandum. People were under the impression that all the votes would be transferred to a central counting station. That would be very difficult to do and I assume that what I have said is correct.

Some people take the view that we would be better off having by-elections rather than the list system. I have an open mind on that. There is for and against it but whatever the faults of a by-election, it is the best democratic way of replacing a Deputy on his demise. It can be argued that we should have by-elections in the event of the resignation of a European member or on his demise. It would be difficult to hold by-elections because of the size of our constituencies.

I do not wish to put in a plug for myself but it is important that we send the right people to Europe. It is a forum where we need people of the highest calibre to get the best deal possible and the best slice of the cake. We know from our experience in dealing with our European colleagues in relation to the present dilemma of the super-levy, that they are hard nuts to crack. The people going to Europe need to be formidable operators to get the best they can for Ireland.

The Government should amend the Bill in such a way that the minimum number of names on the replacement list would be four. That is the opinion of this side of the House and we request that the Minister take it seriously. Having analysed the position and discussed it fully with members of the parliamentary party we are convinced that this is just.

I welcome the spirit behind the Bill. The system which was in operation up to now was not satisfactory. The first European elections were held in 1979 and certain problems have now come to light which were probably not realised then. Some of them are being dealt with in this Bill.

What happened in the past regarding replacements was not satisfactory in that people could be replaced literally on the decision of one or two people. While their names were theoretically put before the House anyone could be named as a replacement. In all cases where people were replaced, the replacements were people of ability and were fitting to serve.

We have had many elections and certain people found themselves in conflicting jobs or bestowed with office. We must look at the question of whether a person should serve two parliaments. In real terms a dual mandate is not on from a practical point of view, with due respect to the previous speaker who has his hat in the ring. In the long term it is difficult enough to serve one parliament not to mention serving two. It involves a certain amount of flying time and the practical indications are that people cannot be effective members of both parliaments or do the two jobs properly. We will have to decide whether people are members of one parliament or the other.

There are people in all parties who, if they are elected, hope they will have a dual mandate. Good luck to them in running and being elected. In the long term if people are to perform and to represent their constituents locally here or this country at European level, they cannot be fully effective in doing the two jobs. From time to time there should be some local tie-up between people representing the country or certain areas of it and representing also the Irish point of view. From the point of view of the effectiveness or otherwise of the European Parliament, the Irish block of 15 acting on many issues if they are representing Ireland should be at one. They may be within other groupings there, but they should be representing Ireland. While obviously they represent their own party's point of view, if Ireland is to benefit or be affected by a decision, the 15 there should act with regard to that.

Up to now people were proposed from time to time for vacancies which occurred. What is proposed in the Bill, due to certain criticisms from the credentials committee over what has been happening in this country, is to be welcomed. The electorate will have available to them a list of candidates who, depending on the party or view they support, will be on the substitute list. I suppose when the Government were considering this there were two ways of looking at it. There is the replacement by by-election which is used when a Dáil seat becomes vacant, or there is the co-option which at the moment is used in relation to local authority seats. Either, at one time or another, might be fully appropriate. What has been happening in recent times in relation to by-elections when the work of this House could cease for two or three weeks is not totally satisfactory and it would not be satisfactory if for, say, three weeks or a month everyone was heading into Connacht-Ulster, Leinster, Munster or the greater Dublin area fighting a by-election because of the retirement or the death of a MEP. A by-election system for the replacement of MEPs would not be totally satisfactory especially when only one seat is to be filled. Also when in a four-or five-seat constituency people elect a certain number of candidates from each party I suppose those candidates are expected to represent those people in Europe for the five-year term, and that electorate will also be indicating their preference for the substitute list for that period of time.

Up to this we have had a so-called co-option system without influence or direction from the electorate in relation to the people who were put forward. I repeat that any of the individuals were more than capable of performing well on behalf of this country in Europe, but comments and criticism have been levelled at this system even within Europe. If a list of the official candidates is displayed prior to the election or some reference to it is made on the ballot paper, the public will be able to express their preference and support both for candidates, no matter how many they elect, and the substitute list.

We must opt for either a by-election system in total or a co-option system in total and thus eliminate freakish events if several people had to resign for one reason or another or perhaps an MEP died or for some reason was unable to fulfil his duties in the five-year term. The list of substitutes could meet this situation. There is a case to be made for extending the number of people on the substitute list. In some areas several candidates may be on the election ticket and in theory that will mean that within a party there may be one or two defeated candidates plus the two substitutes. In some constituencies a party may put up, say, two candidates who might both be elected and then if in the ensuing five years either of those elected members cannot fulfil his duties, there are only two substitutes from whom to choose. Difficulties could arise then if other people had to be selected.

Either we must have a by-election system under which the public decide who shall fill a vacancy, or else the public decide at the general election from a number of suitable people available. I ask the Minister to reconsider the numbers in the light of what has happened and, considering the number of candidates and substitutes, to extend the number to possibly four or six. Each party goes through the process of selecting people, whether they be defeated candidates at a convention or other people who feel that they can contribute something to Europe and who are supported by the party's delegates who know probably better even than public representatives who are fit to be MEPs.

There is a case to be made for extending the number of substitutes. The by-election system leaves the possibility of the seat being switched from one party to another while under the co-option method the seat will stay with the party who secured it at the election. Therefore, I ask the Minister to reconsider the number. It is only a matter of changing two to four or six. Obviously we do not want a list of 20 or 30 names. Four or six names is an adequate number. A party who have two candidates elected and then four or six substitutes are covered for five years until the next election. The revised procedure will go some way towards meeting possible criticisms about the way seats have been filled in the past. The response from the public in the forthcoming election will reveal what interest there is in the European system.

There will certainly be criticism of the lack of relevancy in the meetings of the Council of Ministers. However, with the development of the European Parliament, there will be greater relevancy over the coming years. I hope that there will be a good poll in June and that all parties will put up candidates who are worthy of the position. Some candidates, if elected, will serve under a dual mandate. This is a short-term decision made for various reasons but, in the long term, serving under a dual mandate will not continue. A decision will have to be made in the Oireachtas and in the European Parliament preventing people from serving in both parliaments. If people are to do themselves justice in one parliament or the other, they can only serve in one.

There is, however, room for certain co-operation, where MEPs would have a voice in the Dáil from time to time to discuss various directives, reports or legislation passed at European level, so that our Members can voice their views on these. The physical demands of having to be, in theory, in two places at once while on a dual mandate — looking after one's constituents and trying to be in Strasbourg, Luxembourg or Brussels — are too much. The parliamentarians must opt for one parliament or the other and the European Parliament will have to come to some decision in this regard. However, the MEPs will have to be given an opportunity of showing this House that what they are doing in Europe is effective and is relative to the wishes of the Irish electorate.

I welcome the Bill before the House. It will go some way towards improving the situation. I ask the Minister to reexamine the numbers which can be included on the substitute list. The experience of by-elections, with TDs tripping off to one corner or other of the country, resulting in the disruption of the work of the House, has not been satisfactory. When people elect a candidate in any election they expect that candidate to be there for five years to work on their behalf. They have voted for that candidate and the party he or she represents. They will consider, if for one reason or other the candidate must give up the seat, that that party should have the right to the replacement seat. I favour co-option and would expect the public to be given an ample opportunity to look at all the individuals, defeated or selected by the various parties. The fact that the people have made the decision at the previous election should be taken into account. The substitute list could possibly be extended a little to cater for a few extra candidates, because five years can be a long time in politics. That would ensure that the selected party would have a representative in Europe.

The present discussion about European election procedure should provide us with an opportunity for discussing other reforms in the area of voting. It is a pity that so far the opportunity has not been grasped to extend, for instance, the facility of postal voting. The European Parliament have suggested that Irish citizens living abroad, or British or French or other citizens living in Ireland, should have the right to opt to vote for candidates in their home country. No attempt has been made by this Government to deal with that proposal from the European Parliament.

Postal voting should also be extended to Irish citizens who have to work in our embassies abroad. In particular, the sick and disabled here should have a postal vote. Other areas of reform could also be dealt with. For instance, why could the European elections not be held on a Sunday, as is often the case in other European countries? Voting in all elections, European, by-elections or general elections, should be rendered as easy and convenient as possible. None of us can be too happy with rarely more than a 70 per cent turn-out for general elections. In the recent Dublin Central by-election the poll was as low as 50 per cent.

Perhaps the most glaring defect in the present Bill is the failure to tackle the question of the dual mandate. Various speakers have dealt with the list system proposed and I intend to speak on that shortly. The dual mandate at this time and in this country is an affront to very many outside this House who have no jobs at all and must live on very small incomes. So far, out of the 15 seats being contested, 11 sitting TDs have been selected to stand and Deputy Frank Cluskey has made it quite clear that he intends to hold on to his Dáil seat if elected to Europe. When discussing the question of the mandate, it is important to take account of the views of MEPs who have been elected previously. I understand that Deputy Seán Treacy has said that it is impossible to be an MEP and a TD and do either job properly. It is also interesting to note what Mr. Richie Ryan, who is an MEP said in The Irish Press of 5 March, 1984. Mr. Ryan pointed out that Fine Gael candidates are standing solely for the European Parliament and that they are not Members of the Oireachtas. Obviously he had a slight lapse of memory there, because he did not remember Deputy Tom O'Donnell or Deputy McCartin, or his colleague in the Labour Party, Deputy Cluskey. He went on to say:

None of the candidates before you will be a double-jobber or a part-timer and that is more than can be said for the Fianna Fáil men. They are seeking votes for candidates who will have two jobs, two salaries, when they can do neither job correctly.

That is from a man who has served in the European Parliament and who did not stand for the Dáil because he was a member of the European Parliament. He said quite categorically that it is impossible to serve both parliaments.

From that point of view the Dáil on this occasion, with this Bill, should deal with the question of the dual mandate. The other question is the double salary. A Dáil Member who becomes an MEP gets double salary, in the region of £33,000 a year. In the words of people already in the European Parliament, it is not possible for them to do the two jobs. Therefore, it is disgraceful that we should allow persons elected to have two salaries.

Along with having a double salary, dual Members also have double pensions. There are thousands of people in the country living below the bread line and it is disgraceful that those who are offering to lead the Irish people and who are every day demanding sacrifices from the man in the street, that we tighten our belts, at the same time are putting their hands out for double salaries and double pensions. It is cynical to say the least and the House, on Committee Stage, should ensure that those elected to the European Parliament will automatically resign from this House and that in future MEPs who are elected to the Oireachtas should automatically resign from the European Parliament. If we are to stop the flood of cynicism sweeping the country in relation to public representatives that is the kind of approach we must adopt to show that people in this House who demand sacrifices are themselves prepared to make sacrifices.

In relation to selecting substitutes, the system proposed, though better than the existing one, is still not the best. In terms of the democratic process, the only acceptable system would be by by-election, and in the absence of that the person selected should be the next in line, the person who had come next in line to the candidate elected. The present system ensures only that the electorate will know the list of substitutes from whom the person will be selected on the death or resignation of the sitting MEP, but even that is watered down because the list of substitutes will not be on the ballot paper but presumably put on the walls of polling stations. The first priority should be to make it simple and easy to understand what is going on and the best way to operate the system would be to have the substitutes listed on the ballot paper.

I am not happy with the system now being proposed. It is a slight improvement but no one could have expected when the original system was being introduced that it would be abused to the extent that it has been. The new system will not have any benefit other than to ensure that the party from which the original MEP was elected will have the right to nominate the substitute automatically and that the electorate will be able to know beforehand who that substitute is likely to be.

I support the points made by Deputies Liam Cosgrave and Molloy who said that even the list system proposed is inadequate, that the number of substitutes is not enough. The Bill does not preclude any party from shifting their MEPs every year if they choose. There could be as many games of musical chairs in relation to the coming European Parliament as the last one. There is no restriction whatever in regard to changing MEPs. The only significant advance in this system, as proposed, is that the electorate will know that the first three changes at least will be known when voting takes place. Thereafter, it will be blind man's buff all over again.

There are the two basic points I wanted to put. The one I press most strongly and in relation to which I intend to put down amendments is that this House should set about eliminating the dual mandate. It is not good enough to say that we hope in the future good sense will prevail and that Members of the Dáil who are also MEPs will decide themselves that it cannot be done. The Oireachtas must legislate for it to be done. My information is that the dual mandate already has been outlawed in Belgium and Greece. In West Germany two of the major parties do not allow any Members of their Parliament to have seats in the European Parliament. If we were to do that we would increase the standing of the House a hundredfold and arrest the decline in the attitudes of our people to elected representatives.

Like previous speakers I welcome the Bill and the opportunity to speak on it. I would indicate to a colleague with whom I had words last week but who is not with us today, that even though Deputies may still be a bit wet behind the ears they can take an interest in what is going on here and be fairly well acquainted with some of the Bills that come before us.

Cé hé?

Obviously it would be much easier for the Minister to deal with the problem which the Credentials Committee of the European Assembly have indicated must be dealt with in order to get rid of the situation that has been arising here in the last few years when people have been nominated to fill vacancies without ever having gone before an electorate except their parties, which represent only a limited electorate. It would be easier for the Minister if there was a uniform method of election in all EEC states. That is not the situation. We have the PR system, in other countries it is first past the post and other countries have a list system. We should be careful here when referring to this Bill as providing a list system. Of course, there are differences in the provisions from those that exist in some continental countries with regard to a list system. We would need to be careful not to use a misnomer when describing the terms of the Bill.

The Bill goes a long way towards trying to find some democratic way of making the electorate aware of who is likely to take a seat in the European Parliament in the event of an MEP dying during his or her term of office or who for personal or family reasons finds he or she cannot continue to hold a seat. I recognise the difficulties the Minister had in trying to find such a method but I would have welcomed a decision to insert on the ballot papers the names of those who would be appearing on the list.

In that event the electorate would be fully aware of the people they are voting for. During the election campaign there is an onus on us to acquaint the public of those named with the candidates on the ballot paper. An additional onus rests with the political parties, and the Independents, to make the electorate aware of the people who will replace the successful candidates if they decide to leave the European Parliament. Voters, before they cast their vote, would like to know who is likely to take the seat in the event of the candidate they vote for leaving. They would like to be sure that the seat will be taken by a person of the same calibre and ability as the person they are giving their preference vote to.

I realise the restrictions placed on the Minister but I wish there was some way to include such names on the ballot paper. I hope every effort will be made to alert the public by way of public notices of the necessity before casting their vote to inspect the list on display at the polling stations. People should be encouraged to do that rather than casting their votes blindly. I have some reservations about the limitation on the number of people for the B lists. In recent years due to the work of the strategy committees that work with political parties and the examinations that take place of how votes are spread among candidates, the number of candidates appearing on ballot papers has been reducing. At one time five or six candidates was the norm but now in many instances there are only two candidates. What is the Minister's view on the suggestion that the number of people on the B list be increased by at least one? That might be relevant in view of the fact that in most instances the number over and above the number of candidates will be two only. Experience has shown that in the period of five years there could be two changes on a party ticket and they would wipe out the B list. I am sure the public, having voted for a candidate and for that candidate's party, would not be pleased, because of an inadequacy in the Bill, to have to accept a replacement MEP from another party. Under the provisions of the Bill when the B list is exhausted a candidate who has appeared on the special lists at polling stations on the day of the election will be substituted. I hope the Minister gives consideration to my reservations about that. I realise that it is not possible to have an ideal number. It could be said that we should have from four to six more names on the list but we could have an argument for and against each number. It is our duty to try to foresee the problems that may arise in the next five years if the figure is left as suggested in the Bill. I hope the Minister considers an amendment to this provision.

I have similar reservations to those expressed by Deputy De Rossa about one aspect of the Bill. The job of public representatives at national and European level in recent years has become such an onerous and demanding one requiring an enormous amount of time and dedication that physically a person cannot do the two. The time has come for us to have a serious look at that element. There is no provision in the Bill to deal with that and it is up to the political parties to decide whether they wish to continue with the dual mandate or not. The public are disillusioned by what they see — unfairly in my view — as people try holding on to a number of jobs for the sake of what they can get out of them. Sometimes we tend to forget the demands made on such people. There may be monetary gain in having jobs as a TD and a MEP but that gain is far outweighed by the stress, strain and demands of the two jobs. In recent years because of the tight voting position here many MEPs must have come to the conclusion that they could not continue to hold down the two jobs. They must have felt they were doing one of the jobs less adequately than they should have been. We have reached the stage where people can deal only with one job and the electorate deserve that.

A recognition of the importance of Europe, and the fact that we are part and parcel of Europe, has been underlined by the fact that those with a dual mandate have not been able to give the same amount of time and effort to their task that they might be able to give if they were not caught by the stress involved in having to attend constituency functions and deal with other local matters. That is another important reason for getting rid of the dual mandate.

Most of the provisions in the Bill deal with the technicality of displaying the B list and putting the onus on parties to make up their minds as to how they choose the people for that list. I am sure many Members agree that this is not the ideal way of dealing with this because the candidates whose names are put on the B list are selectively chosen by parties. That is not as perfect as it could be. The public should as far as possible be given an opportunity to indicate the people they want on that list and their preference. I accept that by reason of the fact that we do not have a full list system like continental countries it would be impossible to draft legislation to allow for that.

I should like to raise two matters that have not been referred to in the Bill and the Minister may indicate later why it was not possible to include them. Our election to the European Parliament will be held on Thursday, June 14, but the count will not take place until the following Monday. The reason is that voting in other European countries is spread over a number of days. It would be desirable if the voting in this election took place on the same day in the nine countries so that the count could take place simultaneously. After voting takes place on the Thursday the ballot papers will be sorted and stored away until the following Monday. That is bad enough for the electorate but it will be a greater ordeal for the candidates who will have gone through a difficult campaign.

I would have welcomed a provision in the Bill to allow for voting to take place in the European elections on a Sunday. There may be reasons why this cannot be done but the Minister could have used this Bill to bring about such a change. Particularly in the last three years the disruption in the day-to-day life of schools has been horrendous because it is left to individual boards of management to decide how many days each election should take. Some schools have four days off, others three and others two. I can foresee this happening again in the next European elections. Polling day will be Thursdays but schools may close from Tuesday to Friday, and even Monday depending where the counts take place.

Some working people find great difficulty in casting their votes. We are all concerned about apathy among the electorate and the fact that there will be a very poor turnout for the European election. If we had polling on Sunday this would help people who had to travel to work and who could not get time off to vote. It may seem strange that not everyone can vote between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. but if a person does not have his own means of transport it can be difficult for him to get to the polling station if he works some distance away. I can see that there might be problems with regard to church services. The costs involved in employing caretakers in schools during these periods would be outweighed by the advantages to the electorate. We are a democracy trying to extend the voting facility to as many people as possible. I regret it was not possible to include Sunday voting for European elections in this Bill.

This Bill could have been used to include another item which will be discussed later. You might stop me, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, if I mention it because it is unfortunate that every time I speak you are in the Chair and unfortunately I have drawn your wrath when you stopped me from wandering into areas that were not always directly relevant. Perhaps you will allow me say something about a subject which will be raised later.

A passing reference.

It behoves us, as legislators, to capitalise on any legislation going through this House. This Bill could have been used to extend voting rights to certain categories through the postal system. Perhaps the Minister will tell us if any consideration was given to allowing postal votes in the European Assembly elections to handicapped people. Preparing and drafting legislation is a time-consuming and costly operation and takes a great deal of effort by draftsmen, Ministers and staffs, and it behoves us to cover as many areas as possible. That is an area I would like to have seen covered in this Bill. Election Bills are not introduced for the good of the candidates; this Bill is being introduced to ensure that democracy survives, that our electoral system is fair and just and that as many people as possible can exercise the franchise — male, female, handicapped and ablebodied. The Minister had an opportunity here today to introduce the postal voting facility for the handicapped. Section 4 (3) says:

Where a registered political party or a non-party candidate at an Assembly election nominates more than one replacement candidate, the order in which the names of such replacement candidates appear on the relevant replacement candidates' list shall be determined by that party, or, as may be appropriate.

I have no idea how we can tighten up that area. In some European countries the parties have the right to say where somebody should appear on a list, but I am not sure that that is the best way. The people who cast their vote should decide how many votes each candidate gets. In this case they are being presented with a fait accompli here because the parties will make the decision. Like it or lump it, we are stuck with this B List, and if candidate A, who is elected as an MEP, resigns or gives up his seat, the electorate do not say that candidate B will get the job — unless he was a candidate in the elections but did not get elected. I imagine there would be some difficulty with the Credential Committee of the Assembly, but I am sure the Minister has ensured that what is in this Bill will cover us when the time comes to substitute candidates.

This is very necessary legislation but because of our election system it is not possible to tighten up the nomination, election or appointment of substitutes. The Bill goes a long way but I still have some reservations. The Minister should have made provision for postal voting for the handicapped and voting on Sunday.

The House agrees that this very important Bill is not controversial and there is an eagerness to have it put through as expeditiously as possible. I do not propose to delay the House.

We must accept that we are dealing with a very new and evolving situation. It should be remembered that the first European elections were held in 1979. It is easy for us to be wise after the event but we should not be too critical of a situation which was revolutionary at the time. Bearing in mind the diversity of democracies with which we were dealing, it was inevitable that there would be a lack of agreement after one full session of the Parliament and I am happy that there has been some progress. This Bill is a step forward. I do not want to appear to be sticking the knife into the Minister who is piloting this legislation but he will agree that the absence of any precise formula or any specific mechanism led to a situation where his party appeared to be acting not in accord with what might be regarded as the true spirit of parliament, whether in Europe or at home.

It is just as well for any speaker to get rid of any critical observations he might have. Having given expression to that short one in respect of the Minister and his party and the manner in which they abused the parliamentary system that existed, I would couple with it my amazement and disgust at listening to a member of the European Parliament, Richie Ryan, addressing Young Fine Gael. I presume he was imposing on their youth and innocence. He castigated the dual mandate system and gave people to understand that he and his party had been opposed to that system. Our party in respect of the European Parliament did not practise the dual mandate. We did not have members in Europe who were also Members here. The Minister shakes his head but that was a fact.

The Deputy is not exactly correct. Members of Fianna Fáil did have dual membership from time to time.

I bow to the superior knowledge of the Minister.

Following the direct elections Deputy de Valera was a Member of both Houses, to the best of my recollection.

No member of our party enjoyed membership of the European Parliament for the five years to which I have referred while also enjoying membership of this House.

I accept that.

The Labour Party and Fine Gael had such people and ended the five year period with members enjoying dual membership. Deputy De Rossa referred to the dual mandate. I have always practised in my lifestyle, inside and outside this House, the principle of one man or one lady, one job. I do not agree that any person should be endeavouring to discharge simultaneously the duties of two onerous appointments. Apart from the fact that there are many thousands of people who are intelligent, efficient and qualified enough to take either job, I do not think it is the correct approach to any assignment that one person should be carrying out two sets of duties.

In respect of my candidature for the European Parliament, if the situation occurs I will demonstrate that I practise what I preach. One has to bear in mind that there are times when one's own opinions have to take, temporarily at least, a secondary position to the political requirements of the moment. It is quite possible that we could have a general election before the European election but it is also quite likely that the general election will not be too long after the European election. If we insist on there being no dual mandate for any period of time, a Member of this House elected to the European Parliament on 14 June might resign his seat overnight, thus leading to a by-election. Are we to have a by-election within a certain number of weeks following the European election?

A number of people here have been critical of having a referendum and I have heard Deputy De Rossa and his party say how unnecessary it was to have a referendum on a very important matter affecting our Constitution, that we should not be bothering the people with it. Is he suggesting now, in deference to the immediate removal of the dual mandate, that there should be a by-election immediately following the European election?

Does the Deputy want the two jobs?

I did not interrupt Deputy De Rossa.

The Deputy was not here to interrupt.

I am putting to him the inconsistency of his unpreparedness to go to the people on a very important constitutional matter——

Fianna Fáil wanted to make a party political issue of it.

It was said to be unnecessary and a waste of money.

Could the Deputy tell us whether there has been——

Deputy Tunney, without interruption. Deputy De Rossa is being disorderly.

Deputy De Rossa and his party would have denied to the people of Ireland their right to vote on a very serious constitutional matter in so far as it was only a waste of time.

Everybody agrees it was a waste of time.

It was a matter fundamental to the Constitution of this country.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy De Rossa must restrain himself.

We cannot have it two ways. We either have respect for the people or we do not.

The Deputy is not having respect.

You cannot have the system that operates in a dictatorship where the man on top says "You will have this because I want it".

(Interruptions.)

I know that system is practised in other countries where the big boss at the top decides this is what you should do, not because it corresponds with democracy or freedom but because he says so. We must act in deference to the right of the people of Ireland at any given time to select or elect. I am making the case for by-elections and going to the people on every worthwhile issue.

What about a referendum on divorce?

There is a lack of consistency——

Deputy De Rossa had an opportunity of speaking and I hope he was not interrupted.

Perhaps the Deputy had not researched this thing through. Perhaps he did not know he was advocating by-elections immediately.

I am advocating that no person in this House should have two jobs.

The Chair will not tolerate interruptions.

Deputy Tunney is misrepresenting what I said.

I have been careful to suggest that I agree entirely and have always practised the principle of one person, one job.

Will the Deputy resign his Dáil seat if elected to Europe?

It must be conditioned by what would be regarded as political realities in the short term. Bearing in mind that we can have a general election at any time the opportunity would be presented to anybody elected from any party. I understand that The Workers' Party are in a position to have candidates standing and I hope they do well. We can understand that it is not possible because of their lack of numbers that they would be offering a Member of this House but they have their candidates. It is all right when they have only two Members who are not standing to be preaching one type of attitude. I would hope that any speaker here would be consistent in having respect for the people. I have always shown my respect for them and I am prepared to meet them at any time on any issue especially on one that has been regarded as appropriate, having been decided on by this House. I will not labour the point of the referendum but a party who would deny the right of people to express their views by way of a referendum are not practising democracy as we know it.

Would the Deputy be prepared to support a referendum on the question of divorce?

I will not be selective.

The Deputy should address his remarks to the Bill. The question of divorce does not arise on this legislation.

On a point of order, when a Bill in relation to the divorce issue was introduced here last year, the Deputy refused to support it. In other words, he denied the people the right to vote in a referendum in relation to divorce.

What I am talking of is not all that far removed from the issue we are discussing. However, it is not my intention to offer any defence to this House for my not being prepared to support Deputy De Rossa in anything he might propose. There is no obligation on me at any time to support Deputy De Rossa or to make any apology for not supporting him. Our party have expressed their view on the dual mandate question. Unlike the other two parties we did not have any member who during a period of five years in Europe carried the dual mandate. Even to the extent that the Minister might have offered the name of Miss Síle de Valera, our party had decided already that they would hold the dual mandate only until the general election following the elections to Europe. That is how it was and that is how it will be.

I agree entirely with Deputy Owen that it is unfortunate that because of the approach of people to the European Parliament, because of the fact that they have not been very enamoured of the lack of respect that parties may have shown in their approach to membership of that parliament, they will not be very enthusiastic on June 14. As has been indicated, the people will be asked to vote also on a specific issue on that day. It is unfortunate that we are not to have the additional encouragement of the local elections. I appreciate that the question of local elections is not embodied in the Bill we are discussing but it is accepted by all parties that there has been some difficulty in the matter of attracting the voters. Undoubtedly, if the local elections were to be held on the same day as the European elections there would be a bigger and a better poll than will be the case otherwise. Perhaps it was the view of the Government that one setback on one day would be enough. They are not looking forward to the results of the European elections nor are they anticipating a favourable outcome from their point of view of the local elections but that is not the point. The people are entitled to the opportunity at prescribed times of indicating their views.

This would be more relevant on the local elections order which is before the House.

I am merely following on the contribution of Deputy Owen who expressed her disappointment that both issues were not being put to the people on the same day.

That does not put the Deputy in order.

I thought that because other Deputies were given the opportunity of making passing reference to these matters, I might enjoy the same liberty but if the Chair decides otherwise, I am happy not to pursue the question further.

Thank you, Deputy.

I am concerned about the matter of the alternates. The legislation proposes that the number of replacement candidates will be two more than the number of candidates standing for each party, while the proposal is for a total of three in the case of an Independent. It is well known that every candidate will be regarded as an alternative, though it is a foregone conclusion that at least one and possibly two will be elected. In so far as it is impossible to indicate beforehand which candidate might not be chosen, every party, I expect, will nominate their three candidates as the first three alternatives. Technically one could argue that that will not happen but it is the reality. That would mean that, say, in respect of our party in Dublin there would be only two more candidates.

It is difficult to understand why one Independent is being allowed nominate two more candidates. On that basis one would take it that where there are three candidates standing for a party, there should be at least six candidates proposed. Therefore, I do not know what the thinking is in regard to the situation of an Independent. I suppose we may take it that in the sense of political reality, one elected as an Independent is more likely to remain for the duration. There is always the danger of him or her being called to the higher Parliament above, but ordinarily an Independent will not be called on to take part in government. Perhaps when replying the Minister will indicate why it is considered necessary to allow two alternatives in the case of an Independent candidate. In other words, in the case of an Independent there will be three alternatives whereas in respect of three party candidates there may be a total of only five. Would it not be advisable to embody in the legislation a provision which would guarantee that any candidate would automatically be an alternative and then proceed to provide for the additions? That would be a basic element of the whole matter for each party. In regard to Dublin, for instance, it would be our hope that our three candidates would be elected. That would give us only two alternatives. Earlier I had a more optimistic view about that but I have reconsidered it since. It was on the basis of the provision that the maximum number of replacement candidates on any list be two more than the number of candidates that our spokesman, Deputy Molloy, was asking the Government to extend the number to four. I have listened with interest to Deputy Owen pursuing the same point and suggesting some middle ground proposition to the Minister that it should be three. I am not too sure that there would be any great satisfaction on this side of the House with three. We think the minimum should be four. I do not see that it makes any tremendous difference.

It is better to guarantee the position of all candidates and all parties by increasing the maximum number to four. You can never find yourself in any difficulty if you accommodate a number which you feel is greater than that required. You can find yourself in difficulty if the number is too small. Is there a provision in the legislation where three candidates of a party are elected and for one reason or another they are not available? Is it the position that you only have two replacements? I do not know. I have not studied the Bill sufficiently to know where the third or fourth come from. Suppose the two replacements are obliged to opt out, what happens? Will it not be a very involved system? Is it not far better to extend the number initially to the point where you can safely presume that you have covered all eventualities, rather than getting involved in the intricacies of what might be an unlikely happening?

I do not want to confuse the issue. Our position was expressed adequately and eloquently by Bobby Molloy. We do not want to make this legislation controversial. We are anxious to co-operate with the Minister in getting it through the House as expeditiously as possible. There should be no great difficulty for the Minister in agreeing to the proposition made by our spokesman, Bobby Molloy.

The Deputy should refer to him as Deputy Molloy. I am sorry for intervening, but it is better to be formal.

There are times when proximity to our colleagues encourages us to drop the formalities in the House. I regret that.

The Deputy is merely emphasising the friendly relationship which exists between all members of the Fianna Fáil Front Bench.

It is greater than the friendship which exists between some members of the Deputy's party and himself. I do not know whether they tell him that to his face, but they have told me. However, that is by the way. There is an unfortunate tradition in the House to resist propositions coming from the other side. This tendency is disappearing, thankfully. I hope the Minister will see the merit in our proposition that the number should be four instead of two — the number of candidates plus four. That would accommodate the wishes of all the major parties. I cannot speak for Deputy De Rossa's party. I do not know whether they are interested in that aspect. It can be demonstrated that it is a safer and a wiser proposition than the present proposal.

To return to the note on which I started, I believe membership of one parliament should be and is sufficiently demanding on anybody. The political realities are such that I see that as being desirable. I might change my mind if there was a guarantee that this Parliament would last for a period in excess of some years. Then I would advocate that there should be no question of a dual mandate even in the short term. One point should be mentioned in defence of a partial dual mandate. The European Parliament is a very important forum. People who go there after a period in this House are in a better position to advance the cause of Ireland than people who have not been involved in home politics at local or parliamentary level. I know this from my own experience at different conferences on the Continent and elsewhere. I would hate to have been thrust into any of those conferences straight from my headmastership in a school. People in other professions would feel the same disability if called upon to speak for the voters in any constituency. They would find it more difficult than those of us who have enjoyed membership of this House.

While the dual mandate is unattractive to me, until such time as we can devise a formula to cover the eventualities we will go along with it. Suppose a Member of this House were elected and he or she relinquished the seat at home, the writ would have to be moved. There is no guarantee that the motion would be carried. I do not think at that stage the highest democratic considerations would obtain in the matter of whether or not there should be a by-election. All in all, I am happy to stay with the position as it is, providing that, after the first general election following the European elections, people who have been elected to Europe and are still Members of this House will be required to opt for one or the other.

The Bill before us provides a new procedure for filling casual vacancies in our representation in the European Assembly. Considerable thought has gone into devising a method suitable for our own electoral system and for our colleagues in Europe. I commend the Government for bringing in this Bill. It is no secret that for some time members of the Credentials Committee of the Assembly have made known their dissatisfaction with our system of filling vacancies, that of Dáil nomination.

The legislation before us is, relatively speaking, non-controversial, as Deputy Tunney pointed out. However, I suggest it bears particular relevance to the Fianna Fáil Party because it has not gone unnoticed that the policy which that party appears to be pursuing in European Assembly elections is of putting their political heavyweights in the front line in most constituencies to ensure the capture of seats.

The Deputy is a good judge.

The idea seems to be that in the not too distant future they could abdicate the seat and allow others in the line up who may not have made it in their own right, perhaps through inexperience or other good reasons, to hold down the seat and come back to Leinster House to continue as if nothing had happened. I suppose there is nothing wrong with that but perhaps it is a little mischievous.

For a long time my party did not believe in the dual mandate. We have no monopoly in wisdom regarding this or any other matter and we do not pretend to have. However, experience has shown us that it is not practical to hold down two seats in two different parliaments and give of your best to both. In our position here naturally first preference would be given to what is going on in this House. If you are continually watching legislation, the voting situation, party strengths and jetting back to Dublin, obviously issues in Europe must be neglected.

Deputy Tunney and others pointed out that, in principle, they are not in favour of the dual mandate either but they have no option, that is the general tenor of their arguments——

Deputy Tom O'Donnell is taking on the extra burden of matrimony.

In one breath Deputy Tunney mentioned political realities and in the next he said we might have a general election at any time. He is around this House long enough to know what the political realities are and there is no need for that sort of nonsense. He also referred to Mr. Richie Ryan's castigation of the dual mandate when he addressed Young Fine Gael. As I pointed out, our party have changed their view on this matter. We have decided that to treat Europe with due seriousness and to ensure our representation in the best way possible, the ideal situation is to have people among our workforce in Europe who are not constantly keeping an eye on what is happening at home. Mr. Richie Ryan put the case extremely well to Young Fine Gael; he was not taking advantage of their youth as was suggested. He was speaking to politically aware young people who were looking for the benefit of his wisdom after so many years in different political careers.

Those two heavyweights, Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy McCartin, are still standing.

Those two gentlemen, who are very politically experienced, will be making their decisions before the next Dáil election. That is well known and is no secret. Our party have been quite clear on that matter and those Deputies understand the basis of the decision, the principle involved and, I venture to suggest, would not disagree. We could quite easily have played the game to our own advantage if it had been politically opportune and allowed our party's view on the dual mandate to stand if we did not look first to the best interest of our representation in the European Assembly. We could have lined up our political heavyweights, we have a tremendous list of candidates in the constituencies, but we could have topped it off with a few exMinisters and long standing members of our party to ensure that we maximised our position and seats. We could have had an unwritten rule that they would opt out and allow the second or third in line to take the seat as Fianna Fáil intend doing. However, we accepted the situation as it stands and have opted for what I believe is the best of the two possible worlds involved. We have before us what the Government consider the best method of filling any casual vacancy which may occur. I agree, in principle, with the different sections which preserve the true philosophy of PR.

As the Minister said, we could have considered other systems where the single transferable vote is used directly. We could have considered — I suppose we still can — the possibility of looking back at the number two candidate in the event of a vacancy occuring, going through all the ballot papers again and redistributing them on a strict PR basis. I suppose this would be the purest and most democratic way of doing it but, although it is done in other countries, it would be totally impracticable here. Our Euro constituencies are extremely large and the prospect of holding ballot papers for anything up to five years, sifting through them all and having a recount whenever a vacancy occurred, would not be very welcome.

The selection of replacement candidates will be left to individual political parties and non-party candidates. I agree fully with Deputy Tunney on his questioning of the rationale behind an Independent being allowed to nominate two more candidates in the event of his vacating the seat in Europe. How can a true Independent nominate two other people? If there are three of them they are a party or group of some sort and they are no longer independent in that sense. They may be independent of party politics but a true Independent is independent of other individuals also. He stands for his own viewpoint. I find it hard to appreciate how this system might work even if we felt that an Independent merited two substitutes as it were, which I do not quite understand and I should like the Minister to elaborate on this. I also agree with the many speakers who felt that the two extra names which political parties can add to their list of candidates as substitutes should be stretched to four. There can be many reasons, apart from those which are deliberate or contrived, why people might be vacating seats in Europe which could cause casual vacancies — job opportunities at home, promotion, a seat in the Cabinet, death and many more. To limit the number of substitutes to only two more than the number of candidates is unnecessarily restrictive. I hope we will never need to use more than two or, indeed, not even to use two but in the event of it happening there would be great difficulty in resolving the situation and perhaps unnecessary legislation would be introduced in this House. At present the suggestion that we extend the number to four seems to get around all the objections with regard to this legislation.

The political composition of the Assembly as established by the people at a general election is regarded as being of considerable importance and I agree fully with this. Perhaps we could even discuss whether the system we are talking about at present should be considered at local and even Dáil elections. There is no doubt that perhaps members of political parties would be least likely to favour this but perhaps the electorate would welcome such a list if it came to filling any political vacancy in either House. Perhaps we can discuss this in the future.

As was pointed out, there would be no obligation on either the Independents or the political parties to present this list. The number of names on the list will be limited to two. I trust the Minister will have another look at this in the light of what Deputies on different sides of the House have pointed out. Subject to this limit, the number of replacements to be nominated is a matter for the party or the candidate concerned. They will also decide whether some or all of the candidates nominated in the constituency should be named on the list of replacements. The order of names on the list will be decided by the party or Independent candidate concerned. If candidates are included on the list, it would be a matter for the party to decide their placing on this list. I find myself in disagreement with that suggestion. I think preference on the substitute list should be given to anyone who puts himself or herself before the electorate as compared with those who have not tested their situation directly. I wonder if there is any way we could tighten up on this?

I should like to see some system evolve whereby we could reflect in the list of names on the panel the way each candidate performed at the polls. In other words, if a candidate is elected to Europe and the next candidate from that party is placed No. 4 on the list, it would be difficult to justify this to the public when we are presenting this legislation to uphold our philosophy of PR generally. The list of candidates should be in order of their showing at the polls. This will present some difficulties, as the closing date for submission of the lists will be before polling day but perhaps we could see if there was any way to resolve that difficulty and so reflect as near as possible the wishes of the electorate when it comes to electing candidates and filling any vacancies that may occur subsequently.

According to the legislation before us, once the replacement list is presented to the returning officer the order of names on it cannot be changed. I am asking the Minister to look at that point to see if he can accommodate the direct reflection of our PR system. Provision is also made that where two candidates are included in a replacement list and the one placed lower on the list receives more votes in the election the order on the list will not be affected. I do not agree with that. We are told that a list may be withdrawn and replaced by a new list within the period for receiving nominations. However, this will not get over my objection as it will be prior to the polling day. We are told that subject to this, all the replacement candidates of a party in a constituency must be included in a single list and the eligibility requirement for the replacement candidate will be the same as for any candidate. A person may not be nominated as a replacement candidate in more than one constituency.

The two points I question and on which I should like the Minister to expand are the number of extra names we can add to the list as far as political parties are concerned in addition to the actual candidates. I should like to see the two proposed extended to four for the reasons I have outlined. Once the count is over and we know how our candidates have fared, I should like us to be in a position to reflect that fact in the pecking order on our substitutes list.

I should like to thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate. There have been a number of useful and constructive suggestions and I should like to express my appreciation. I shall deal with a few points that arose before I deal with the Bill.

Deputy Fitzsimons referred to the musical chairs engaged in by my party and I should like to deal with that point. He spoke in rather harsh terms about substitutions carried out by the Labour Party in respect of the European Parliament. However, for those people who have not heard the other side of the story it is only fair that the matter be clarified. When we fought in that election — I was a candidate then — we fought under the slogan of putting our best people forward for Europe. As it turned out, four out of six of our candidates were elected to the European Parliament, to the surprise of many people including our opponents. Shortly afterwards after a general election and when a Coalition Government was formed, Deputy Michael O'Leary who was a member of the European Parliament was made Tánaiste, Deputy Eileen Desmond who was also an MEP was made Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Deputy John O'Connell was elected Ceann Comhairle and I was made Minister for Labour. The slogan under which we fought turned out to have some truth, that we had sent some of our best people to Europe. We had to get them back and they had to be replaced.

There is nothing unusual about this. The same thing happened with the change of government in France when quite a number of the people there who were elected to the European Parliament were named Ministers in the present Socialist Government. I should like to assure everyone who is running for the European Parliament that after they get some experience in Europe they may be required for the front bench of their party. In our case Deputy Cluskey was brought back from Europe to become Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism and Deputy Pattison became Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare. European experience is an advantage when the call comes to Members of the European Parliament to return home.

In one way it is an argument for the dual mandate. We deal with Europe every day and it is an advantage for a Minister to have been a member of the European Parliament. Commissioner Dalsager who visited Dublin recently was a Danish member of the European Parliament when I was there. Many members from France, Italy and Germany have gone back to their own Parliaments and have taken up senior positions in their Governments and in that respect at least it has proved a very useful exercise. I think it was a little unfair of Deputy Fitzsimons and Deputy Tunney to be so hard on the Labour Party. Our party were not engaging in musical chairs but we were providing the Dáil and the Government with Ministers who had valuable experience on the European front.

Deputy De Rossa and others spoke about voting on Sunday and Deputy Owen asked me specifically to deal with this point. She said that all the European countries should vote on the same day but we cannot control what others do. In this country it is traditional to vote on a Wednesday or Thursday even though on rare occasions there have been elections on a Tuesday. We asked the opinion of one section who deserve to be considered because they have a certain influence over making polling stations available. I am referring to the religious groupings who have their own opinion with regard to Sunday observance. We asked for the opinion of all religious groupings about this matter and a few of the minor religious groupings in this part of the island were not in favour of voting on Sunday and when we found that out we considered it better to leave that position over at least for the moment. We considered it better not to have Sunday voting when there were certain groupings who considered it was not in line with their beliefs. Because of those beliefs they would find it difficult to put at our disposal some of the schools they would normally have made available to us for weekday elections so we returned to the Thursday voting. It is something we can look at in the future. Sunday voting might not be to everybody's advantage.

The Catholic Church were not against it.

I made the point during the debate on the Minister's Estimate that we should have elections on a Sunday. I did not know the situation had been investigated.

We investigated it. I am sure the Deputy would agree with me that we would not want to see any particular grouping having a strong opinion against it and people staying away from voting for that particular reason or any other reason. We will be dealing with the rights of other people to vote later on in the evening. We will also be dealing with voting for the handicapped and disabled later and I will leave it over until then. I will deal with the dual mandate shortly. A point was made about spoiled votes and Deputy Fitzsimons said I suggested Irish people were not sophisticated in their voting habits. I would like to point out that on the last occasion when the European elections were held local elections were held on the same day. It meant three ballot papers in some urban city areas. This resulted in an increase in the number of spoiled votes. This was three times the number we find in Dáil elections. I do not accept that this had to do completely with confusion. I know that anybody who looked at the votes being counted found various suggestions written on them about the candidates which disqualified those votes. A lot of the increase in the number of spoiled votes could be put down to the fact of trying to vote for 27 candidates or more in an urban area, 19 in a county council area and 12 to 15 in a European election which was a bit cumbersome. When so many people leave their voting to the last hour or one and-a-half hours of the closure time it means a type of EI Salvadorean election where everybody rushes in at the last minute demanding voting papers while other people take up to ten minutes to fill out their voting papers.

With regard to the turn-out being low because the local elections are not being held. I hold the view that if the European elections are to be seen as totally European they should not need the crutch of some other elections to bring out the electorate. It is up to candidates in the forthcoming European elections and those supporting candidates to ensure that people are motivated by the campaign and that people are got out to vote. The issues in Europe are very important to us. This week we had the super-levy issue. This means we must have representation in Europe of the highest calibre and it is important not only for farmers but for people in every part of the country to see that the Irish representation sent to Europe has a very strong mandate. I believe we will see a satisfactory turn-out so that the members who are sent out to Europe know that they have the backing of the vast majority of the population.

Deputy De Rossa said that only 50 per cent of the people turned out to vote in a recent by-election. That does not take in any way from the qualification of the person elected but it is satisfactory if we see a good turn-out. I would not like to feel that the turn-out for the European elections depended on some other election issue which brought people out and then they voted for the European candidates. It is quite likely this election will stand on its own feet and people will decide on Irish issues which have a European dimension. I hope there will be a very large turn-out on the day.

As I indicated in opening the debate, it is necessary for us to review our existing arrangement for filling casual vacancies in the Assembly because of the reservations expressed about it by the Credentials Committee of the Assembly. There are particular difficulties in devising a method of filling casual vacancies which will be compatible with our unique electoral system and at the same time will be seen to be fully in keeping with the requirement that representatives to the Assembly be elected by direct universal suffrage.

The two methods of filling vacancies which we are familiar with in this country are by-elections in the case of Dáil vacancies and co-option in the case of vacancies in local authority membership. Neither of them is really suitable in the context of Assembly elections. For this reason we had to look elsewhere for a solution. I make no extravagant claims about the arrangement proposed in the Bill but I think it does represent a reasonable solution in the particular circumstances in which we are placed. It is a fair system, it will preserve the proportional representation of the parties as established by the democratic vote of the people at the elections. It will be simple to operate and allows a fair degree of flexibility. On these grounds I can be confident in recommending it to the House.

Deputy Blaney raised the question of whether the proposed method will be acceptable to the appropriate European authorities. He hinted fairly strongly that there was a possibility that the Credentials Committee might take the view that the arrangements we are not proposing might not meet in full the committee's original reservations. He pointed out that one of the factors in the situation is that, by the time any vacancy falls to be filled under the arrangements we are now proposing, a new Credentials Committee and, indeed, a new Parliament will be in office.

I want to tell the House that in the preparation of the present proposals appropriate soundings were taken at European level. Arising from these approaches I have no reason to anticipate that our arrangements will not be acceptable. Indeed, there is reason to believe that our proposals will be welcomed as a genuine and conscientious response to the reservations originally expressed by the committee.

Looking at our proposals objectively it is difficult to see how fault could be found with them from the democratic viewpoint. They are clearly in line with the concept of direct elections. The replacement candidates will be formally nominated. The lists will be formally published so that the names of the replacement candidates will be known to the electorate. Electors will be aware that in voting for a particular candidate they will also be expressing approval for the relevant list of replacements. The concept of replacement candidates is not new. It has been used in one form or another in individual member states of the EEC. It is therefore a method with which many of our European colleagues will be familiar and is without doubt compatible with the concept of direct elections.

The question of having the names of the replacement candidates on the ballot papers was raised by Deputy Manning and others. What is involved here is not just a technical problem. Basically it is the practical consideration of keeping the ballot paper as simple as possible from the elector's point of view. Already our electors are required to indicate fairly sophisticated choices. The elector's role is acknowledged to be far more substantial under our system than under other electoral methods. Deputy Manning has a wide knowledge of electoral systems and I am sure he is aware that in some instances not even the names of all the candidates, let alone any substitute candidates, appear on the ballot paper. I am thinking particularly of the German parliamentary elections. Even in that situation, of the first names on the list — and about five names appear on the whole list — some rarely take up their seats in the European Parliament but rather pass them on to somebody lower down on the list. Therefore in my view our system is much fairer than that. I do not see that our proposed arrangements can be faulted on this ground. It is important that we preserve a sense of proportion: we are, after all, dealing, not with the election itself but with arrangements for filling casual vacancies which may or may not arise.

Deputy Molloy and other Deputies have drawn attention to the proposals in relation to the number of replacement candidates allowed in each constituency. The Bill provides that the upper limit for any replacement candidates' list will be two names more than the number of candidates of the party in the constituency, or a total of three in the case of a non-party candidate. The question of deciding the number of replacement candidates is a matter of judgment. If we set too high an upper-limit we risk creating the possibility of a high turnover of Irish representatives in the Assembly. The House will be aware that individual parties in some of the other member states made it a matter of deliberate policy to rotate their seats in the Assembly. There is no suggestion that any of the parties here would wish to adopt that practice. Nonetheless the practice is undesirable and we should be careful not to create the conditions for it in our legislative provisions. On the other hand, if the limit on the number of replacement candidates were set too low we could be faced with a situation where replacement candidates' lists might be exhausted. This situation, too, would be obviously undesirable. In arriving at a figure for use as a limit we have attempted to reach a compromise between these two extremes. However, there is nothing sacrosanct about the particular limit specified in the Bill. Having regard to what was said here last week and today, I have had another look at the matter and propose to move an amendment on Committee Stage designed to increase the limit from two to four more than the number of candidates of the party in the constituency.

Deputies referred to the fall-back situation described at Section 6 (c). Under this provision, where a list is exhausted or no list has been presented by the party or candidate concerned, the Dáil may select a replacement from another list presented for the constituency. I must emphasise that this situation will arise only if there is an actual vacancy and the party concerned either did not present a list or the list presented by the party is exhausted. Clearly we are talking about a very remote possibility, particularly if the proposal to raise the limit is accepted. Nonetheless it is considered prudent that the law should recognise the possibility and make provision for it. In these particular circumstances — and in these circumstances only — the Dáil may select a replacement candidate from another list for the constituency. I would emphasise that the word used is "may" not "shall". The Dáil will not be obliged to make a selection. It will be open to them to leave the seat vacant. One could visualise a situation where it might be undesirable that our representation in Europe should be weakened because of a vacancy. For this reason it is thought proper to have a fall-back position to meet what is admittedly a rather remote possibility.

Deputies asked for further information on particular aspects of the proposed arrangement for filling vacancies.

Deputy Molloy asked if a candidate may contest more than one constituency at an election to the European Assembly. Section 9 (2) of the 1977 Act provides that a candidate may contest only one constituency. He also inquired about local returning officers. This is covered by Section 14 of the 1977 Act. There is a local returning officer for each county and county borough, that is the appropriate county registrar or sheriff. In effect Euro elections are conducted on the basis of counties and not on Dáil constituencies.

Deputy Molloy also inquired about how the lists would be referred to on ballot papers and what publicity would be given to the lists. In the case of each list, the returning officer will assign an identifying letter or letters to it. The list will be referred to on ballot papers and notices by reference to these letters. It may be expected that the letters assigned to a list will be the initials or abbreviations by which the party is known. In the case of a non-party list the identifying letters are likely to be the initials of the candidate. It must be emphasised that the letters to be assigned will be a matter for the returning officer.

The replacement candidates lists will be published in the Statutory Notice of poll issued by the returning officer in advance of the election. The method of publishing this notice is a matter for the returning officer. In 1979 it was published in the daily newspapers. It is likely that this method will be used again on this occasion. Returning officers will be advised, in addition, to publish it by way of posters displayed throughout the constituency and at the polling stations on polling day.

Questions have also been raised concerning the way in which a replacement candidate is, on the occurrence of a vacancy in the Assembly, deemed elected. On the occurrence of a vacancy the Clerk of the Dáil will write to the party to ascertain who is first on the appropriate list of replacements. This places on the party the onus of certifying that the replacement candidate is eligible and ready to serve in the Assembly. In the case of a non-party vacancy — where no party structure would exist — the Clerk of the Dáil will communicate with the returning officer for the constituency concerned. The returning officer in turn, will contact one or more of the persons named on the appropriate replacement list with a view to ascertaining who, of those eligible and available to serve, is highest on the list. In effect, the onus of giving a certificate to this effect will rest on the replacement candidate in question.

With regard to the verification of ballot paper accounts, the arrangements proposed in the Bill are being provided on the advice of returning officers. They assure me that it would be more convenient if verification were carried out at county or county borough level rather than at Euro constituency level.

The 1977 Act provided that the verification of ballot paper accounts would be carried out at one centre in each of the Euro constituencies. However, as the House will recall, the European elections in 1979 were held on the same day as the local elections and the same ballot boxes were used at the two elections. It was necessary, therefore, to open the ballot boxes in each county and county borough. Provision for this was made in regulations made by the Minister under section 91 of the Electoral Act, 1963 which gives the Minister special powers to enable two or more polls to be taken together. The regulations also provided that in verifying the European ballot paper accounts, the papers were kept face downwards. This represents the net difference between what was done in 1979 and what is proposed now.

Under the Bill, the time for carrying out the verification will be fixed by the local returning officer. I would anticipate that the process will take place on Friday morning after the Thursday election. It is proposed that the verification will be carried out in the normal way, in particular, that the ballot papers will be kept face upwards, and the agents of candidates will, of course, be entitled to attend.

It has been pointed out that this arrangement will enable the agents of the candidates, who will have the right to be present, to make informal assessments as regards the possible outcome of the election. The question has been asked whether there may be a possible conflict between this arrangement and the requirement in the European statute that counting of votes must not commence until voting everywhere is concluded. I must stress that in verifying ballot paper accounts only the numbers of ballot papers found in each ballot box are counted. There is no question of sorting these papers in accordance with the first preferences shown on each of them or of counting the votes marked on the ballot paper for any candidate. I am assured that there is no conflict between the arrangement proposed and the requirement of the European statute which provides that the counting of votes shall not commence until the voting in all member states is completed.

When did the Minister say the counting of votes would start?

It will start on Monday morning in all constituencies but the verifying of the ballot paper count will, I assume, be done in each county or county borough on the Friday morning. The returning officer could, of course, begin to do this as soon as the ballot boxes are sealed on the night of the count but it would be more appropriate that he start the next morning. I would see the verifying of the ballot papers in each county and county borough taking place on the Friday morning.

They will be faced upwards?

Yes. As regards the dual mandate, article 5 of the European Act of 20 September 1976 concerning direct elections to the Assembly states that the office of representative in the Assembly shall be compatible with membership of the parliament of a member state. On a straightforward reading of this provision it would seem that it would not be open to a member in its national law either to forbid the dual mandate or make it obligatory. That is how this provision is interpreted here and that was the line taken by the Minister in reply to a parliamentary question on 20 January 1984 in arguing that to forbid the dual mandate would conflict with this provision and that it is not open to a member state to do so in its national law.

There are differing views as to the desirability of the dual mandate. Some hold that the preservation of the link, development and collaboration between national parliaments and the Assembly are important and that the dual mandate helps in this regard. In the early days some countries, particularly Denmark, considered that their dual mandate should be obligatory. Most hold the view that it should be left to the voter in each member state to decide whether the dual mandate could be accepted in individual cases. In this country it is a matter for individual political parties to decide on. It is generally agreed that the elimination of the dual mandate would only come about progressively after a transitional period. The incidence of casual vacancies in Ireland's representation in the Assembly would be greatly reduced if all political parties decided that their members should seek to discharge the dual mandate. A procedure would still be necessary for the filling of casual vacancies.

It can be seen that there would be some conflict between the passing of a Bill here to forbid the dual mandate and what is regarded as European law. It is left to each party to decide whether they wish to continue the dual mandate. That will be the position in the coming elections. If one party wish to take some advantage out of that it is up to them to do so.

The Bill before the House provides us with a simple and effective means of filling vacancies in Ireland's representation in the Assembly. It also provides for certain desirable amendments of the European Assembly Elections Act, 1977. I thank Deputies for their reception of the measure and commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Top
Share